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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent Application Pub. No.: CN207631168U assigned to SUZHUO that was filed in 2017 (hereinafter “SUZHUO).
In regard to claim 1 and 9, SUZHUO discloses “….1. A system, comprising :
a first controller configured to monitor a state of a latch; and (See claim 1 where the vehicle has a tailgate and a controller to monitor the state of the tailgate of the vehicle; Tailgate switch (6), the tailgate switch are electrically connected with the central processing unit；
With detection line anomalies whether function fault detection unit (7), the fault detection unit simultaneously with the strut Motor, the Hall sensor, the self-priming motor and central processing unit electrical connection；
Buzzer siren (8), the buzzer siren are electrically connected with the central processing unit；
Further include power supply unit (9), said supply unit is electrically connected with the central processing unit.)
a second controller in communication with the first controller and configured to control a motor that actuates the latch, (see claim 1-6 where the tailgate has a first controller and a second controller and a motor that can engage with a strut to open and close the tailgate in a motorized manner; The first strut control device includes the first strut motor control unit (101) and controls the first strut of tailgate lifting Motor (102) further includes the first Hall sensor (103) set on the first strut motor, the first strut motor control One end of unit processed is electrically connected with the central processing unit, and the other end is electrically connected with the first strut motor；Described One Hall sensor is electrically connected with the central processing unit；The second strut control device includes the second strut motor control unit (111) and controls the second strut of tailgate lifting Motor (112) further includes the second Hall sensor (113) set on the second strut motor, the second strut motor control One end of unit processed is electrically connected with the central processing unit, and the other end is electrically connected with the second strut motor；Described Two Hall sensors are electrically connected with the central processing unit.)
wherein in response to a fault detected by the first controller, the
second controller disables the motor to prevent a change of the state of the latch”. (see detailed description and blocks s1-s4 where if there is an abnormal condition then the motors are prohibited from opening the tailgate; It further says, further includes in S1：The run-length data for the strut that Hall sensor acquisition control tailgate is lifted, and pass It is defeated by central processing unit.
It further says, further includes in S1：Detection of obstacles program, detection of obstacles program are preset in central processing unit The operating parameter for including strut motor, during tailgate is closed, if encountering barrier, the resistance of barrier can change strut The operating parameter of motor, and central processing unit is fed back to, and then control strut motor and stop or invert.
Further say, before ECU control systems execute opening and closing of back door or closing motion, the fault detection unit meeting The state of the electrical-coil of strut motor and self-priming motor is detected, if any one motor has exception, is alarmed, and prohibit The state of only opening and closing of back door or closing, the electrical-coil includes normal, opens a way, to power supply short circuit and shorted to earth；
Before ECU control systems execute opening and closing of back door or closing motion, the state of Hall sensor is detected, if appearance pair It when ground short circuit exception, then alarms, and forbids opening and closing of back door or closing.)”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Chinese Patent Application Pub. No.: CN207631168U assigned to SUZHUO that was filed in 2017 (hereinafter “SUZHUO) and in view of European Patent Application Pub. No.: EP3703028A1 to Antoinette et al.
In regard to claim 2 and 10, the primary reference is silent but Antoinette teaches “…2. The system of claim 1, wherein the first controller is further configured to limit a speed of a vehicle in response to the fault being detected”. (See paragraph 137 and 143 where a hood of the vehicle can be determined to be broken open and a message can be provided that the hood is opened or broken into by a thief and there is broken glass and see paragraph 135 where the vehicle can be in an emergency condition and the vehicle can be controlled to slow and stop based on the emergency condition)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of ANTOINETTE and in view of SUZHUO with a reasonable expectation of success since ANTOINETTE teaches that a hood or window can be determined to have been opened illegally and the vehicle is in an emergency state. The vehicle processor can confirm the emergency state and a warning can be projected to the user and the vehicle can then be slowed and brought to a stop based on the emergency condition.
Claims 3-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Chinese Patent Application Pub. No.: CN207631168U assigned to SUZHUO that was filed in 2017 (hereinafter “SUZHUO) and in view of U.S. Patent. No.: US11802425B2 to NAM being assigned to HYUNDAI™.
In regard to claim 3 and 11, the primary reference is silent but NAM teaches “…3. The system of claim 1, wherein the second controller is further configured to disable the motor in response to a speed of a vehicle exceeding a threshold speed”. (see claims 1-15 where the vehicle is operating at a speed and the main motor is determined to be abnormal and then the submotor can be activated to ensure that the hood remains latched and does not fly open)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of NAM and in view of SUZHUO with a reasonable expectation of success since NAM teaches that a latch motor can be determined to be abnormal. In this instance when the latch motor is abnormal then a sub-motor can be provided to take over as a redundant system to control the latch and to maintain the latch in a closed state or open the latch. This can provide a redundant operation in that the latch motor is abnormal and the door can open.
In regard to claim 4, 12, Nam teaches “…4. The system of claim 1, wherein the first controller is further configured to provide a command to change the state of the latch from a first state to a second state different from the first state”. (see claims 1-15 where the vehicle is operating at a speed and the main motor is determined to be abnormal and then the submotor can be activated to ensure that the hood remains latched and does not fly open)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of NAM and in view of SUZHUO with a reasonable expectation of success since NAM teaches that a latch motor can be determined to be abnormal. In this instance when the latch motor is abnormal then a sub-motor can be provided to take over as a redundant system to control the latch and to maintain the latch in a closed state or open the latch. This can provide a redundant operation in that the latch motor is abnormal and the door can open.
In regard to claim 5, and 13, Nam teaches “..5. The system of claim 4, wherein:
the first state comprises an open state, and
the second state comprises a closed state”. (see claims 1-15 where the vehicle is operating at a speed and the main motor is determined to be abnormal and then the submotor can be activated to ensure that the hood remains latched and does not fly open)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of NAM and in view of SUZHUO with a reasonable expectation of success since NAM teaches that a latch motor can be determined to be abnormal. In this instance when the latch motor is abnormal then a sub-motor can be provided to take over as a redundant system to control the latch and to maintain the latch in a closed state or open the latch. This can provide a redundant operation in that the latch motor is abnormal and the door can open.
In regard to claim 6 and 13, Nam teaches “…6. The system of claim 4, wherein in response to the first controller detecting a change of
the state of the latch from the first state to the second state, the second controller is configured to
disable the motor”. (see claims 1-15 where the first motor is deemed to be inoperable and is disabled and the vehicle is operating at a speed and the main motor is determined to be abnormal and then the submotor can be activated to ensure that the hood remains latched and does not fly open)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of NAM and in view of SUZHUO with a reasonable expectation of success since NAM teaches that a latch motor can be determined to be abnormal. In this instance when the latch motor is abnormal then a sub-motor can be provided to take over as a redundant system to control the latch and to maintain the latch in a closed state or open the latch. This can provide a redundant operation in that the latch motor is abnormal and the door can open.
Claims 7-8 and 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Chinese Patent Application Pub. No.: CN207631168U assigned to SUZHUO that was filed in 2017 (hereinafter “SUZHUO) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20250297500A1 to DIEHEL filed in 2021.
In regard to claim 7 and 15, DIEHEL teaches “..7. The system of claim 1, wherein the first controller is further configured control a position of closure based on the latch and the motor”. (see claims 15-22 where the vehicle hood is prevented from being opened or closed based on if the vehicle’s speed and a state of the motor and the door being opened or closed)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of DIHEL and in view of SUZHUO with a reasonable expectation of success since DIHEL teaches that a latch motor can only be opened when the doors are opened. When the doors are closed the latch motor cannot be energized and is prevented from opening. This ensures that only when the vehicle is parked and the user opens the door in succession then the hood can be opened and cannot be opened when the door is closed and presumably moving which can harm the user. See claims 15-20.
In regard to claim 8 and 20, DIEHEL teaches “..8. The system of claim 1, wherein the first controller and the second controller are further configured override a command to operate a closure coupled with the latch in response to
detection of the fault by the first controller. (see paragraph 15-25 where the user can override all of the safety and open the latch when desired even when the vehicle is operating and the door is opened which is normally prevented from opening the latch)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of DIHEL and in view of SUZHUO with a reasonable expectation of success since DIHEL teaches that a latch motor can only be opened when the doors are opened. When the doors are closed the latch motor cannot be energized and is prevented from opening. This ensures that only when the vehicle is parked and the user opens the door in succession then the hood can be opened and cannot be opened when the door is closed and presumably moving which can harm the user. See claims 15-20.
Claims 14 and 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Chinese Patent Application Pub. No.: CN207631168U assigned to SUZHUO that was filed in 2017 (hereinafter “SUZHUO) and in view of European Patent Application Pub. No.: EP3703028A1 to Antoinette et al.
Antonette teaches “…14. The method of claim 9, further comprising:
receiving, by the first controller, an indication a speed of a vehicle exceeds a threshold speed; and disabling, by the second controller, the motor based on the speed exceeding the threshold speed”. (See paragraph 125- 137 where a hood of the vehicle can be determined to be open and a message can be provided that the hood is opened; see paragraph 135 where the vehicle can be in an emergency condition and the vehicle can be controlled to slow and stop based on the emergency condition and the motor is not working but the hood can be manually closed)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of ANTOINETTE and in view of SUZHUO with a reasonable expectation of success since ANTOINETTE teaches that a hood or window can be determined to have been opened illegally and the vehicle is in an emergency state. The vehicle processor can confirm the emergency state and a warning can be projected to the user and the vehicle can then be slowed and brought to a stop based on the emergency condition.
Antonette teaches “…16. The method of claim 15, controlling, by the second controller, the position of the closure based on a command to the motor. ”. (See paragraph 137 where a hood of the vehicle can be determined to be broken open and there is broken glass and a message can be provided that the hood is opened; see paragraph 135 where the vehicle can be in an emergency condition and the vehicle can be controlled to slow and stop based on the emergency condition and the motor is not working but the hood can be manually closed)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of ANTOINETTE and in view of SUZHUO with a reasonable expectation of success since ANTOINETTE teaches that a hood or window can be determined to have been opened illegally and the vehicle is in an emergency state. The vehicle processor can confirm the emergency state and a warning can be projected to the user and the vehicle can then be slowed and brought to a stop based on the emergency condition.
Antonette teaches “…18. The vehicle of claim 17, further comprising one or more drive units, wherein the first
controller is further configured to control the one or more drive units to limit a speed of the vehicle in response to the fault being detected”. (See paragraph 137 where a hood of the vehicle can be determined to be open and a message can be provided that the hood is opened; see paragraph 135 where the vehicle can be in an emergency condition and the vehicle can be controlled to slow and stop based on the emergency condition and the motor is not working but the hood can be manually closed)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of ANTOINETTE and in view of SUZHUO with a reasonable expectation of success since ANTOINETTE teaches that a hood or window can be determined to have been opened illegally and the vehicle is in an emergency state. The vehicle processor can confirm the emergency state and a warning can be projected to the user and the vehicle can then be slowed and brought to a stop based on the emergency condition.
Antoinette discloses “…19. The vehicle of claim 17, wherein the second controller is further configured to disable the
motor in response to a speed of the vehicle exceeding a threshold speed. (See paragraph 137 where a hood of the vehicle can be determined to be open and a message can be provided that the hood is opened; see paragraph 135 where the vehicle can be in an emergency condition and the vehicle can be controlled to slow and stop based on the emergency condition and the motor is not working but the hood can be manually closed)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of ANTOINETTE and in view of SUZHUO with a reasonable expectation of success since ANTOINETTE teaches that a hood or window can be determined to have been opened illegally and the vehicle is in an emergency state. The vehicle processor can confirm the emergency state and a warning can be projected to the user and the vehicle can then be slowed and brought to a stop based on the emergency condition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights