DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
Priority
The Applicants’ claim for priority based upon JP2024-160011 filed on September 17, 2024 is duly noted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 10, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Movement speed detection unit in claims 1, 2, 5, 9, and 14. Support is found in paragraph 0028 where a movement speed detection unit is a functional device that detects the movement speed of the user present around the vehicle.
Use intention determination unit in claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 15. Support is found in paragraph 0027 where a use intention determination unit is a functional device that determines whether the user has an intention to use the vehicle based on a detection result of the shoulder operation detection unit.
Target door estimation unit in claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 16. Support is found in paragraph 0027 where a target door estimation unit is functional device that estimates a target door that is a door predicted to be opened by the user among the doors of the vehicle.
Control unit in claim 1, 8, 12, 13, and 16. Support is found in paragraph 0026 where a control unit is an electronic control unit that comprehensively controls the entire vehicle.
Position detection unit in claim 9 and 14. Support is found in paragraph 0028 where a position detection unit is a functional device that detects a position of the portable device carried by the user.
Obstacle detection unit in claim 10 and 15. Support is found in paragraph 0028 where an obstacle detection unit is a functional device that detects an obstacle present around the vehicle.
Orientation detection unit in claim 11 and 16. Support is found in paragraph 0028 where an orientation detection unit is a functional unit that detects an orientation of a body of the user present around the vehicle.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Salter et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0263508].
With regard to claim 1, Salter et al. meets the limitations of:
a vehicle door control device comprising a movement speed detection unit configured to detect a movement speed of a user present around a vehicle [a sensor assembly determining a speed and direction each recognized passenger is traveling (paragraphs 0052 and 0092)]
a use intention determination unit configured to determine whether the user has an intention to use the vehicle [a controller determining whether a person in at least one of the rear sensor field, the first side sensor field, and the second side sensor field is a recognized passenger, determines a speed of the recognized passenger, determines whether the recognized passenger is carrying an object, and activates the actuation assembly to open at least one of the liftgate and the at least one side door based on whether the recognized passenger is carrying an object where the carrying of the object denotes the intention of placing the object into the vehicle by the user (paragraph 0092)]
a target door estimation unit configured to estimate a target door that is a door predicted to be opened by the user among doors of the vehicle based on a change in which the movement speed detected by the movement speed detection unit is decelerated [a sensor assembly determining a speed and direction each recognized passenger is traveling where a controller utilizes the information related to direction and speed to time activation of the actuation assembly to open the respective doors as the approaching recognized passengers reach the doors thereby denoting the controller opening the door when the speed of the approaching passenger has been determined as decelerating to a stop (paragraphs 0052 and 0092)]
a control unit configured to execute control for opening the door, which is the target door estimated by the target door estimation unit, when the use intention determination unit determines that the user has an intention to use the vehicle [a controller determining whether a person in at least one of the rear sensor field, the first side sensor field, and the second side sensor field is a recognized passenger, determines a speed of the recognized passenger, determines whether the recognized passenger is carrying an object, and activates the actuation assembly to open at least one of the liftgate and the at least one side door based on whether the recognized passenger is carrying an object where the carrying of the object denotes the intention of placing the object into the vehicle by the user (paragraph 0092)]
With regard to claim 2, Salter et al. meets the limitations of:
the movement speed detection unit detects the movement speed of the user approaching the vehicle [a sensor assembly determining a speed and direction each recognized passenger is traveling (paragraphs 0052 and 0092)]
the target door estimation unit detects, based on the change in which the movement speed is decelerated, at least one of a position at which the user is predicted to stop moving and a position at which the user stops moving, and estimates the target door based on the detected position [a sensor assembly determining a speed and direction each recognized passenger is traveling where a controller utilizes the information related to direction and speed to time activation of the actuation assembly to open the respective doors as the approaching recognized passengers reach the doors thereby denoting the controller opening the door when the speed of the approaching passenger has been determined as decelerating to a stop (paragraphs 0052 and 0092)]
With regard to claim 8, Salter et al. meets the limitation of:
the use intention determination unit determines whether the user has an intention to use the vehicle based on the change in which the movement speed is decelerated [the sensor assembly detects a position of each recognized passenger relative to the vehicle and the controller determines a speed and direction each recognized passenger is traveling based on the information received from the sensor assembly (paragraph 0052)]
With regard to claim 9, Salter et al. meets the limitation of:
a position detection unit configured to detect a position of a portable device carried by the user [an authentication device carried by a user and is detected by a vehicle sensor (paragraph 0049) where the controller detects the authentication device and activates the sensor assembly in response to the detection (paragraph 0050)]
the movement speed detection unit detects the movement speed of the user when the position of the portable device detected by the position detection unit is within a predetermined range from the vehicle [a sensor assembly determining a speed and direction each recognized passenger is traveling where a controller utilizes the information related to direction and speed to time activation of the actuation assembly to open the respective doors as the approaching recognized passengers reach the doors thereby denoting the controller opening the door when the speed of the approaching passenger has been determined as decelerating to a stop (paragraphs 0052 and 0092)]
With regard to claim 13, Salter et al. meets the limitation of:
the use intention determination unit determines whether the user has an intention to use the vehicle based on the change in which the movement speed is decelerated and the control unit executes the control for opening the door, which is the target door estimated by the target door estimation unit, when the use intention determination unit determines that the user has an intention to use the vehicle [the sensor assembly detects a position of each recognized passenger relative to the vehicle and the controller determines a speed and direction each recognized passenger is traveling based on the information received from the sensor assembly (paragraph 0052)]
With regard to claim 14, Salter et al. meets the limitation of:
a position detection unit configured to detect a position of a portable device carried by the user wherein the movement speed detection unit detects the movement speed of the user when the position of the portable device detected by the position detection unit is within a predetermined range from the vehicle [an authentication device carried by a user and is detected by a vehicle sensor (paragraph 0049) where the controller detects the authentication device and activates the sensor assembly in response to the detection (paragraph 0050) and a sensor assembly determining a speed and direction each recognized passenger is traveling where a controller utilizes the information related to direction and speed to time activation of the actuation assembly to open the respective doors as the approaching recognized passengers reach the doors thereby denoting the controller opening the door when the speed of the approaching passenger has been determined as decelerating to a stop (paragraphs 0052 and 0092)]
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.
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0263508] in view of Hermann [DE102010010057B4].
With regard to claim3, Salter et al. fails to disclose of the target door estimation unit estimates the target door based on the at least one position when a state where the movement speed is zero at the at least one position continues for a predetermined time. In the field of vehicle control devices, Hermann teaches:
the target door estimation unit estimates the target door based on the at least one position when a state where the movement speed is zero at the at least one position continues for a predetermined time [a vehicle door control device estimating the trajectory of a person and uses the results to control a device for opening a vehicle thereby denoting the possible determination of a person merely standing in place near a vehicle (paragraphs 0029-0035)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Salter et al. and Hermann to create a door control device for a vehicle where the device determines if a person is standing near a door and controls the door based upon the detection of a person’s presence and trajectory near the vehicle in order to operate the vehicle’s door that is closest to the person wherein the motivation to combine is to control the door of a vehicle (Salter et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 4, Salter et al. fails to disclose of the use intention determination unit determines whether the user has an intention to use the vehicle based on the change in which the movement speed is decelerated and determines that the user has an intention to use the vehicle when a state where the movement speed is zero at the at least one position continues for a predetermined time. In the field of vehicle control devices, Hermann teaches:
the use intention determination unit determines whether the user has an intention to use the vehicle based on the change in which the movement speed is decelerated, and determines that the user has an intention to use the vehicle when a state where the movement speed is zero at the at least one position continues for a predetermined time [a vehicle door control device estimating the trajectory of a person and uses the results to control a device for opening a vehicle thereby denoting the possible determination of a person merely standing in place near a vehicle (paragraphs 0029-0035)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Salter et al. and Hermann to create a door control device for a vehicle where the device determines if a person is standing near a door and controls the door based upon the detection of a person’s presence and trajectory near the vehicle in order to operate the vehicle’s door that is closest to the person wherein the motivation to combine is to control the door of a vehicle (Salter et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 5, Salter et al. meets the limitation of:
the movement speed detection unit detects the movement speed of the user approaching the vehicle [a sensor assembly determining a speed and direction each recognized passenger is traveling (paragraphs 0052 and 0092)]
However, Salter et al. fails to disclose of the target door estimation unit detecting a position of the user when deceleration of the movement speed is detected based on the change in which the movement speed is decelerated and estimates the target door based on the detected position. In the field of vehicle control devices, Hermann teaches:
the target door estimation unit detecting a position of the user when deceleration of the movement speed is detected based on the change in which the movement speed is decelerated and estimates the target door based on the detected position [a vehicle door control device estimating the trajectory of a person and uses the results to control a device for opening a vehicle thereby denoting the possible determination of a person merely standing in place near a vehicle (paragraphs 0029-0035)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Salter et al. and Hermann to create a door control device for a vehicle where the device determines if a person is standing near a door and controls the door based upon the detection of a person’s presence and trajectory near the vehicle in order to operate the vehicle’s door that is closest to the person wherein the motivation to combine is to control the door of a vehicle (Salter et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 6, Salter et al. fails to disclose of the target door estimation unit determines that the deceleration of the movement speed has occurred in at least one of a case where the movement speed is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold and a case where a decrease amount of the movement speed is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold, and estimates the target door based on the position of the user when the deceleration of the movement speed is detected. In the field of vehicle control devices, Hermann teaches:
the target door estimation unit determines that the deceleration of the movement speed has occurred in at least one of a case where the movement speed is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold and a case where a decrease amount of the movement speed is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold, and estimates the target door based on the position of the user when the deceleration of the movement speed is detected [a vehicle door control device estimating the trajectory of a person and uses the results to control a device for opening a vehicle thereby denoting the possible determination of a person merely standing in place near a vehicle (paragraphs 0029-0035)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Salter et al. and Hermann to create a door control device for a vehicle where the device determines if a person is standing near a door and controls the door based upon the detection of a person’s presence and trajectory near the vehicle in order to operate the vehicle’s door that is closest to the person wherein the motivation to combine is to control the door of a vehicle (Salter et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 7, Salter et al. fails to disclose of the use intention determination unit determines whether the user has an intention to use the vehicle based on the change in which the movement speed is decelerated, and determines that the user has an intention to use the vehicle in at least one of a case where the movement speed is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold and a case where a decrease amount of the movement speed is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold. In the field of vehicle control devices, Hermann teaches:
the use intention determination unit determines whether the user has an intention to use the vehicle based on the change in which the movement speed is decelerated, and determines that the user has an intention to use the vehicle in at least one of a case where the movement speed is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold and a case where a decrease amount of the movement speed is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold [a vehicle door control device estimating the trajectory of a person and uses the results to control a device for opening a vehicle thereby denoting the possible determination of a person merely standing in place near a vehicle (paragraphs 0029-0035)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Salter et al. and Hermann to create a door control device for a vehicle where the device determines if a person is standing near a door and controls the door based upon the detection of a person’s presence and trajectory near the vehicle in order to operate the vehicle’s door that is closest to the person wherein the motivation to combine is to control the door of a vehicle (Salter et al., paragraph 0002).
Claim(s) 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0263508] in view of Brown et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0300027]
With regard to claim 10, Salter et al. fails to disclose of an obstacle detection unit configured to detect an obstacle present around the vehicle and the use intention determination unit determining whether the user has an intention to use the vehicle based on the change in which the movement speed is decelerated, and does not determine that the user has an intention to use the vehicle in a case where a position of the user, when the change in which the movement speed is decelerated is detected, is a position of the obstacle detected by the obstacle detection unit. In the field of door control systems, Brown et al. teaches:
an obstacle detection unit configured to detect an obstacle present around the vehicle and the use intention determination unit determining whether the user has an intention to use the vehicle based on the change in which the movement speed is decelerated, and does not determine that the user has an intention to use the vehicle in a case where a position of the user, when the change in which the movement speed is decelerated is detected, is a position of the obstacle detected by the obstacle detection unit [authenticating a security signal communicated from the mobile device (e.g. a BLE signal) and opening a door corresponding to a location of the person upon approach wherein the vehicle system may detect a signal trajectory of the mobile device to identify the entry door for the person to enter the vehicle as an authenticated passenger where the interference sensor may detect the person as an obstacle moving between the entry door and the body of the vehicle after it has been activated and the passenger reaches the detection range of the interference sensor (paragraph 0056)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Salter et al. and Brown et al. to create a door control system for a vehicle wherein the vehicle detection system interprets the passenger approaching a vehicle door and decelerating is an obstacle that is authorized to gain entry as the passenger has a mobile device used to gain access so the vehicle system only controls the door when both the mobile device and passenger is present wherein the motivation to combine is to control the door of a vehicle (Salter et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 15, Salter et al. fails to disclose of an obstacle detection unit configured to detect an obstacle present around the vehicle wherein the use intention determination unit determines whether the user has an intention to use the vehicle based on the change in which the movement speed is decelerated, and does not determine that the user has an intention to use the vehicle in a case where a position of the user, when the change in which the movement speed is decelerated is detected, is a position of the obstacle detected by the obstacle detection unit. In the field of door control systems, Brown et al. teaches:
an obstacle detection unit configured to detect an obstacle present around the vehicle wherein the use intention determination unit determines whether the user has an intention to use the vehicle based on the change in which the movement speed is decelerated, and does not determine that the user has an intention to use the vehicle in a case where a position of the user, when the change in which the movement speed is decelerated is detected, is a position of the obstacle detected by the obstacle detection unit [authenticating a security signal communicated from the mobile device (e.g. a BLE signal) and opening a door corresponding to a location of the person upon approach wherein the vehicle system may detect a signal trajectory of the mobile device to identify the entry door for the person to enter the vehicle as an authenticated passenger where the interference sensor may detect the person as an obstacle moving between the entry door and the body of the vehicle after it has been activated and the passenger reaches the detection range of the interference sensor (paragraph 0056)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Salter et al. and Brown et al. to create a door control system for a vehicle wherein the vehicle detection system interprets the passenger approaching a vehicle door and decelerating is an obstacle that is authorized to gain entry as the passenger has a mobile device used to gain access so the vehicle system only controls the door when both the mobile device and passenger is present wherein the motivation to combine is to control the door of a vehicle (Salter et al., paragraph 0002).
Claim(s) 11, 12, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0263508] in view of Prenyer et al. [WO20232023180427A1]
With regard to claim 11, Salter et al. fails to disclose of an orientation detection unit configured to detect an orientation of a body of the user present around the vehicle and the target door estimation unit estimates the target door based on the change in which the movement speed detected by the movement speed detection unit is decelerated and the orientation of the body of the user detected by the orientation detection unit. In the field of vehicle control systems, Prenyer et al. teaches:
an orientation detection unit configured to detect an orientation of a body of the user present around the vehicle and the target door estimation unit estimates the target door based on the change in which the movement speed detected by the movement speed detection unit is decelerated and the orientation of the body of the user detected by the orientation detection unit [an image of a person near a door being acquired and analyzed where the person’s orientation and position near the door is determined (paragraphs 0056 and 0057)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Salter et al. and Prenyer et al. to create a door control system for a vehicle wherein the vehicle system is able to determine the position and orientation of the passenger in order to make a decision pertaining to the intention of the passenger to enter the vehicle wherein the motivation to combine is to control the door of a vehicle (Salter et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 12, Salter et al. meets the limitation of:
the target door estimated by the target door estimation unit based on the change in which the movement speed is decelerated matches the target door estimated by the target door estimation unit based on the orientation of the body of the user, the control unit executes the control for opening the door which is the matched target door [a sensor assembly determining a speed and direction each recognized passenger is traveling where a controller utilizes the information related to direction and speed to time activation of the actuation assembly to open the respective doors as the approaching recognized passengers reach the doors thereby denoting the controller opening the door when the speed of the approaching passenger has been determined as decelerating to a stop (paragraphs 0052 and 0092)]
With regard to claim 16, Salter et al. fails to disclose of an orientation detection unit configured to detect an orientation of a body of the user present around the vehicle wherein the target door estimation unit estimates the target door based on the change in which the movement speed detected by the movement speed detection unit is decelerated and the orientation of the body of the user detected by the orientation detection unit. In the field of vehicle control systems, Prenyer et al. teaches:
an orientation detection unit configured to detect an orientation of a body of the user present around the vehicle wherein the target door estimation unit estimates the target door based on the change in which the movement speed detected by the movement speed detection unit is decelerated and the orientation of the body of the user detected by the orientation detection unit [an image of a person near a door being acquired and analyzed where the person’s orientation and position near the door is determined (paragraphs 0056 and 0057)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Salter et al. and Prenyer et al. to create a door control system for a vehicle wherein the vehicle system is able to determine the position and orientation of the passenger in order to make a decision pertaining to the intention of the passenger to enter the vehicle wherein the motivation to combine is to control the door of a vehicle (Salter et al., paragraph 0002).
With regard to claim 17, Salter et al. meets the limitation of:
when the target door estimated by the target door estimation unit based on the change in which the movement speed is decelerated matches the target door estimated by the target door estimation unit based on the orientation of the body of the user, the control unit executes the control for opening the door which is the matched target door [a sensor assembly determining a speed and direction each recognized passenger is traveling where a controller utilizes the information related to direction and speed to time activation of the actuation assembly to open the respective doors as the approaching recognized passengers reach the doors thereby denoting the controller opening the door when the speed of the approaching passenger has been determined as decelerating to a stop (paragraphs 0052 and 0092)]
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0179732 to Shahidi et al. discloses a vehicle door close/open assist and anti-slam device.
U.S. Patent 7,219,945 to Zinn et al. discloses a power lift gate for an automotive vehicle.
U.S. Patent 10,017,977 to Newman et al. discloses a keyless entry assembly having a capacitance sensor operative for detecting objects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMESHANAND MAHASE whose telephone number is (571) 270-7223. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:00AM - 5:00PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on 571-272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAMESHANAND MAHASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2689
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689
