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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/27/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. There is only a translation of DE 102008023786, which meets the concise explanation of relevance requirement but does not meet the requirement for a legible copy; translation includes only tiny figures instead of the full sized figures available with the original document.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Per 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l) all lines, numerals, and letters should be clean, durable, black, and well defined. Figures 7, 8, and 9 include lines that are overly bolded or thick and pixelated. Figure 8A includes lines that are too thin and faint.
Figure 8A includes extraneous highlighting on D (ref).
Figure 9 indicates the obstacle 148 as a black square with a partial circle in it. Per 37 C.F.R. 1.84(m) solid black shading is not permitted. Examiner suggests a hollow circle or square shape.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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. However, the paragraph also recites “ So, when the door 12 is close enough to the vehicle body 14 that the mathematical distance 154 is equal to protect gap 158, then the NCOD sensor 66 and/or the actuator 22 can disengage. This distance is called the predetermined close distance. According to an aspect, the predetermined close distance is smaller than the protect gap 158. In other words, according to an aspect, the predetermined close distance from the door 12 to the body 14 at which the mathematical distance 154 is equal to the predetermined protect gap distance 162 is less than the predetermined protect gap distance 162.” (emphasis added). These recitations contradictorily say the close distance is when the mathematical distance is equal to the protect gap distance and also the close distance is less than the protect gap distance. This is not possible. It appears that the close distance is less than the protect gap distance and when the mathematical distance is equal to the closed distance the sensor/actuator disengage. It does not appear that the close distance is equal to the protect gap distance.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10 and 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.
Both claims 10 and 20 recite “a predetermined close distance from the door to the body at which the mathematical distance is equal to the predetermined protect gap distance is less than the predetermined protect gap distance”. As written the close distance is the distance at which the mathematical distance is equal to the protect gap distance, however, the end of the recitation then defines the close distance as less than the protect gap distance. It is unclear how the close distance is both equal to and less than the protect gap distance. The support for the close distance is found in paragraph [0060] and defines the close distance as the point where the non-contact sensor and/or actuator is turned off, established when the mathematical and measured distances are equal to the close distance, and as being smaller than the protect gap distance. However, the claims and specification as noted above also define the close distance as the distance at which the mathematical distance is equal to the protect distance. There appears to be a missing relationship somewhere as the close distance is less than the protect distance and actions happen when the mathematical distances equals the close distance, not the protect distance. For purposes of examination the closed distance will be interpreted as less than the protect gap distance and no relationship between mathematical distance and closed distance is established as to do so would require importing too much from the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub 2022/0243521 to Herman (hereinafter Herman).
Regarding claim 1, 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).
Regarding claim 11, the method steps would inevitably follow the apparatus.
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) 2-6, 10, 12-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman in view of US PG Pub 2007/0266635 to Sugiura (hereinafter Sugiura).
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).
While the sensor (66) measures the distance to an obstacle (further taught paragraph [0121]), Herman is silent as to a comparison between a measured distance and a mathematical 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 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).
sensor position (figure 62A, near free end of door).
While the sensor (66) measures the distance to an obstacle (further taught paragraph [0121]), Herman is silent as to a comparison between a measured distance and a mathematical 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 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 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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