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 are objected to because fig. 2 fails to specifically describe or define each step involved in each of the boxes in the flowchart. Please include short description in each of the boxes. 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.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites, “middle area of a detection range”. The term “middle area” renders the claim indefinite for following reasons.
The claim fails to define clear metes and bounds and/or boundaries of the “middle area”. A person of ordinary skilled in the art would not be able to determine with reasonably certainty where the “middle area” begins and ends.
Claim fails to specify what is excluded from the “middle area”. For example, claim fails to recite that edges or periphery of the detection range constitutes a non-middle area.
For the purpose of prior art analysis, Examiner interprets “middle area” as any region within detection range of the sensors.
Claims 2-6 are dependent on rejected claim 1, therefore, are rejected for its dependency.
Claim 7 is similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broadhead; Douglas et al. (US 20160348413 A1) in view of Bostyn; Frederic (US 20120073200 A1)
In regards to claim 1, Broadhead teaches, A method for operating an electric motor door drive of a motor vehicle comprising a door that is driven by an electric motor and that has a collision protection sensor, the method comprising: (See fig. 1, paragraph 23, Reference is made to FIG. 1, which shows a vehicle door control system 10 for a vehicle 12 having a vehicle body 14 and a vehicle door 16 pivotally mounted to the body 14 by way of hinges 17 for pivoting movement about a door pivot axis A.sub.D, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. The vehicle 12 may be any suitable type of vehicle, such as a motor vehicle (such as an automobile or a truck…paragraph 43, the motor 35 drives rotation of the pinion 36 by receiving electric current from a power source via the controller 22…paragraph 59, Sensors directly involved in obstacle detection include a plurality of door opening obstacle sensor 68).
stopping the door, during an adjustment of the door in an adjustment direction, at a predetermined distance from an object that is detected by the collision protection sensor and is present at a position in an adjustment area; and (See paragraph 64, the controller 22 determines that, based on the position, speed and direction of the obstacle, the obstacle will pass through some portion of the range of movement of the door 16, but that a collision can be avoided as long as the door 16 does not open past a certain position…paragraph 77, At step 412, the controller 22 determines the maximum permissible open position of the door 16, based at least in part on the position and direction of travel of the obstacle 302. If the door 16 is opened such that it reaches the maximum permissible open position, the controller 22 applies an increased resistive force to the door 16,)
… and the position is in a middle area of a detection range of the collision protection sensor. (Broadhead discloses tracking obstacle position within the sensor’s detection range and making control decisions based on that position. See paragraph 68, “during situations in which there is no obstacle detected, the controller 22 is programmed to prevent checking of the vehicle door 16. ”See paragraph 59, The data provided by the one or more sensors 68 is used by the controller 22 to determine one or more of (and preferably all of) the distance of the obstacle from the door 16, the direction of movement of the obstacle relative to the vehicle 12, and the speed of the obstacle relative to the vehicle 12. Also see paragraph 64, the controller 22 determines that, based on the position, speed and direction of the obstacle, the obstacle will pass through some portion of the range of movement of the door 16, but that a collision can be avoided as long as the door 16 does not open past a certain position. Broadhead’s system continuously tracks where within the detection range the obstacle is located and uses that information to make control decisions. As noted above, claimed “middle area” can encompass any region within detection range)
Broadhead discloses in paragraph 68, “during situations in which there is no obstacle detected, the controller 22 is programmed to prevent checking of the vehicle door 16” however does not specifically disclose automatically resuming door movement after detecting that obstacle is no longer there. Broadhead does not specifically disclose, moving the door again in the adjustment direction when the object is no longer detected
Bostyn further teaches, moving the door again in the adjustment direction when the object is no longer detected (See claim 1, (d) if the door driven in the first direction at the reduced speed v3 no longer detects an obstacle at the position P.sub.impact, increasing the speed of driving in the first direction to the value v1 until the door reaches its final control position P.sub.f; )
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the vehicle door system of Broadhead to further comprise automatic resume logic taught by Bostyn because automatic resuming door movement upon obstacle clearance removes the need for manual user intervention to restart the door after each detection event, thereby reducing inconvenience and improving operational efficiency.
Claim 7 is similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
In regards to claim 2, Broadhead-Bostyn teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the middle area is spaced apart from an edge of the detection range by at least 10% of the extension of the detection range. (See Broadhead paragraph 59, Sensors directly involved in obstacle detection include a plurality of door opening obstacle sensor 68 (FIG. 1) which may be, for example, ultrasonic sensors similar to the type of sensor used for collision warning on the rear bumpers of some vehicles… The data provided by the one or more sensors 68 is used by the controller 22 to determine one or more of (and preferably all of) the distance of the obstacle from the door 16, the direction of movement of the obstacle relative to the vehicle 12, and the speed of the obstacle relative to the vehicle 12.
This establishes that Broadhead’s sensor has a defined spatial detection range within which obstacle positions are tracked. Any sensor with a defined detection range inherently has edges and therefore inherently has a region that is spaced apart from those edges. An object detected within the Broadhead’s sensor range necessarily occupies a position that is some measurable distance from the edge of that range. This claim adds nothing more than a describing specific quantitative threshold (at least 10%) to this sensor detection range (which also inherently exists in any detection range). This is merely a design choice to quantify a boundary within the sensor’s detection range. Also, claim 1 fails to explicitly exclude resuming of door movement when the object’s last detected position is outside the middle area, and no longer detected. Therefore, object can be located in any position within detection range and still trigger the ‘moving the door again’. Examiner recommends further amending claim 1 such that “middle area” is clearly defined and that “moving the door again” occurs only if last detected object position was in the middle area.)
In regards to claim 3, Broadhead-Bostyn teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the door is also moved again in the adjustment direction when a change in the position to outside of the adjustment area is detected. (See Broadhead paragraph 59, the data provided by the one or more sensors 68 is used by the controller 22 to determine one or more of (and preferably all of) the distance of the obstacle from the door 16, the direction of movement of the obstacle relative to the vehicle 12, and the speed of the obstacle relative to the vehicle 12…paragraph 77, At step 412, the controller 22 determines the maximum permissible open position of the door 16, based at least in part on the position and direction of travel of the obstacle 302. The permissible door travel boundary is dynamically recalculated based on current obstacle position. When the obstacle moves outside the door’s area, the maximum permissible open position correspondingly expands, up to maximum limit. Also see Bostyn paragraph 37, If during a cycle a new impact occurs at any position different from the position P.sub.impact of the first impact, the cycle counter is reinitialised to n=1 and the safety function is applied once again for this new impact.)
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broadhead; Douglas et al. (US 20160348413 A1) in view of Bostyn; Frederic (US 20120073200 A1), and further in view of MOCHIZUKI; Shingo et al. (US 20230045538 A1)
In regards to claim 4, Broadhead-Bostyn teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a door body that is driven by the electric motor is stopped at the predetermined distance, (See Broadhead paragraph 77, At step 412, the controller 22 determines the maximum permissible open position of the door 16, based at least in part on the position and direction of travel of the obstacle 302. If the door 16 is opened such that it reaches the maximum permissible open position, the controller 22 applies an increased resistive force to the door 16,)
Broadhead-Bostyn does not specifically teach, wherein an adjustment part that is supported on the door body and attached to the collision protection sensor is moved relative to the door body, and wherein the position of the object is redetermined during the movement.
Mochizuki further teaches, wherein an adjustment part that is supported on the door body and attached to the collision protection sensor is moved relative to the door body, and wherein the position of the object is redetermined during the movement. (See paragraph 21, the door 10 of the embodiment includes an ultrasonic sensor 110…paragraph 26, the ultrasonic sensor 110 of the embodiment performs distance measurement processing at two or more positions in the opening range of the door 10, and obtains information related to two or more distances between the ultrasonic sensor 110 and the object…paragraph 40, the ultrasonic sensor 110 performs the second distance measurement processing. For example, the ultrasonic sensor 110 performs the second distance measurement processing at an arbitrary position to which the door 10 has been opened by the control unit 210, or at a position in the middle of opening of the door 10, and obtains information related to a distance R2 between the ultrasonic sensor 110 and the object OB. See figs. 3-4, position is redetermined (R1 -> R2) and sensor repositioning is achieved by moving the entire door to new positions)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the vehicle door system of Broadhead-Bostyn to further comprise sensor positioning taught by Mochizuki because detection of the object through dynamically repositioning of the sensor while door position is being adjusted can further improve the accuracy of detecting the speed and position of the object, whereas Broadhead’s sensors are located in front and rear of the vehicle.
In regards to claim 5, Broadhead-Bostyn-Mochizuki teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the door is moved again in the adjustment direction when, during the movement, the object is no longer detected or its position is outside the adjustment area. (See Bostyn claim 1, (d) if the door driven in the first direction at the reduced speed v3 no longer detects an obstacle at the position P.sub.impact, increasing the speed of driving in the first direction to the value v1 until the door reaches its final control position P.sub.f. Also see Mochizuki paragraph 46, when both of the two two-dimensional coordinate positions are outside the opening/closing range DA of the door 10, the control unit 210 may open the door 10 to an arbitrary position…paragraph 64-66, When it is determined that an object does not exist (No at S125), the control unit 210 shifts the processing to S129…When it is determined that an object does not exist (No at S125), the control unit 210 performs a control of moving the door 10 to a given position in the opening/closing range of the door 10 (S129). )
In regards to claim 6, Broadhead-Bostyn-Mochizuki teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the adjustment part is moved for a specified period of time after the door body stops. (See Bostyn paragraph 33 and Mochizuki paragraphs 58-66)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights