Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4/24/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0060] describes the relationship of the closed distance to the protect distance and the actions when the mathematical and measured distances equal the closed distance. As amended the specification now defines the close distance as a length and the length being both the length at which the mathematical distance is equal to the protect gap distance and the length is less than the protect gap distance. It is unclear how the length can be both equal to and less than the protect gap distance. See also below 112s with respect to use of length contrary to common definition.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “determine [determining claim 11], using the sensor, if the obstacle or body is detected at a distance that is less than the determined distance” (emphasis added). As the determined distance is defined as the distance between the sensor/door and the body based on the position of the door (i.e. the disclosed mathematical distance) it is unclear how the detected distance (i.e. the disclosed measured distance) between the sensor/door and body could possibly be less than the determined (mathematical) distance.
The original disclosure paragraph [0058] only supports the detected (measured) distance between the door/sensor and the obstacle as being determined to be less than the determined (mathematical) distance.
The amendments to claims 1 and 11 appear to be an attempt to include the mathematical and measured distances of claims 2 and 12 (see also below 112b) using different terminology and descriptions than those originally disclosed and thus are not considered to rise to the level of an enablement issue, even though it is not possible for the determined/measured distance between sensor/door and body to be less than the detected/mathematical distance between the same structures.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As noted above with the 112a rejections both claims 1 and 11 recite the detected distance between the sensor and body to be less than the determined distance between the sensor and body, which does not appear possible or sorted. As claims 1 and 11 appear to be defining the mathematical (determined) distance and measured (detected) distance of claims 2 and 12, claims 1 and 11 will be interpreted in view of the disclosure as reciting the mathematical and measured distances.
Claims 2 and 12 both recite “a mathematical distance” and “a measured distance”. Both these distances were previously recited (as determined and detected distances respectively) in claims 1 and 11, from which claims 2 and 12 depend. Claims 2 and 12 should clearly indicate that the mathematical and measured distances are the same as those in claims 1 and 11, either by renaming the distances in claims 1 and 11 to match those of claims 2 and 12 and changing the antecedents in claims 2 and 12 to “the” or by defining the mathematical distance as the determined distance and the measured distance as the detected distance. Examiner suggests the former as that is in keeping with the disclosure.
A similar issue occurs with respect to claims 6 and 16.
Both claims 10 and 20 recite “a predetermined close distance is a length from the door to the body at which the mathematical distance is equal to the predetermined protect gap distance, the length is less than the predetermined protect gap distance” (emphasis added). The close distance is recited as both the length at which the mathematical distance is equal to the protect gap distance and the length is less than the protect gap distance. It is unclear how the close distance/length is both equal to and less than the protect gap distance. As previously noted, the support in paragraph [0060] is equally contradictory. Also, the term “length” is being used contrary to its common definition with no alternate definition provided. The term length means “the extent of something along its greatest dimension”, i.e. the length of an object or structure along its greatest dimension. The length as claimed is not the greatest dimension of a structure but in fact the distance between the door and the body. This change appears to have been made in an attempt to overcome the previous specification objection and 112 but does not do so.
Dependent claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub 2022/0243521 to Herman (hereinafter Herman) in view of US PG Pub 2007/0266635 to Sugiura (hereinafter Sugiura).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, the power door system is shown in Herman in figures 1-68 with
an actuator (22) for moving the door;
a sensor (66) having a field of view for detecting an obstacle between the door and a body of the vehicle;
a controller (50) connected to the actuator (22) and to the sensor (66), wherein the controller (50) is adapted to detect the obstacle (via communication with the sensor) within the field of view that varies (field decreases as door closes) during movement of the door (12).
While the sensor (66) measures the distance to an obstacle (further taught paragraph [0121]), Herman is silent as to a comparison (i.e. determining one distance is less than the other) between a measured/detected distance and a mathematical/determined distance (i.e. the distance measured by a position sensor).
A comparison is shown in Sugiura in figures 1-12 where vehicle door (5) includes a sensor (1A) and the measured distance of the sensor is compared to a mathematical distance (from position sensor, further taught in paragraph [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the door system of Herman with the comparison of Sugiura because the comparison of values provided the benefit of good non-contact obstacle detection.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, the door system includes a feedback sensor (64) coupled to the controller (50) and configured to determine a position of the door (12) and the sensor (66) is disposed on the door (12) at a sensor position (figure 62A, near free end of door) in Hermann. The comparison features of claim 2 are rejected above with claim 1 due to the 112 and interpretation issues of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus.
Regarding claim 3, the position of sensor (66) is such that the known point is within the field of view throughout the closing motion (figures 62A field of view covers door opening) in Herman.
Regarding claim 13, the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus.
Regarding claim 4, the sensor (66) is disposed on the door (12) in Herman.
Regarding claim 14, the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus.
Regarding claim 5, while the sensor (66) is on the door (12) in Herman, placement of the body would be an obvious design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the door system of Herman, having the comparison of Sugiura, with the sensor on the vehicle body because sensors on the body provided the benefit of a fixed sensor (i.e. on the fixed body rather than the moving door).
Regarding claim 15, the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus.
Regarding claim 6, the door system includes at least one closure member feedback sensor (64) coupled to the controller (50) and configured to determine a position of the door (12) and wherein the sensor (66) is disposed on the door (12) at a sensor position (figure 62A) and a protect gap (area near inside of door) is defined as a plane extending in parallel to an inner surface of the door and spaced a predetermined protect gap distance (distance defining the protect gap, examiner notes protect gap is not related to any of the other structures or steps in claim 6 and as such is just a defined area near the door) from the inner surface and the controller (50) is further configured to: receive a door close command (further taught paragraphs [0118]-[0122]); learn the position (via feedback position sensor 64) of the door (12). The comparison features of claim 6 are rejected above with claim 1 due to the 112 and interpretation issues of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, a predetermined close distance from the door (12) is less that the predetermined protect gap distance in Herman. As with claim 6, examiner notes that there is no relationship between the claimed distances and any other actions or structures, other than the unclear comparison of mathematical distance and the close distance as being equal to and less than the protect gap distance.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are objected to as depending from an objected to claim and have not been separately examined for patentability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the drawing objections, examiner notes the replacement drawings are acceptable as stated above and the objection have been withdrawn.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the specification objections, examiner notes the amendments did not resolve the previous issues as detailed above.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the 112 rejections, examiner notes that similar to the specification amendments the amendments to claims 10 and 20 did not resolve the previous issues. Also further 112a and 112b issues have arisen with respect to claims 1 and 11 as detailed above.
In regards to applicant’s arguments directed to the 102 and 103 rejections, examiner notes that while applicant argues that Sugiura is scanning for the vehicle body and not an obstacle, the underlined section supporting this argument recites “compares a position of the vehicle door 5 and the detection result related to a distance from the microwave radar 1A in order to detect an existence of the object at the apertural area 5a of the vehicle door 5” indicating Sugiura does detect or sense an obstacle. Further, Sugiura is the secondary modifying reference and obstacle detection is taught in the primary Hermann reference as detailed above. As such examiner maintains the combination of Hermann and Sugiura read over the present invention as currently claimed (with the exception of the objected to subject matter noted above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights