Vehicle Window and Door Closure Control for User-Aware Auto Closing

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Vehicles lack the ability to intelligently manage closure devices like doors and windows, often leading to them being closed unintentionally when users intend to return, causing inconvenience or potential damage due to weather conditions.

Innovation Solution

A system that uses sensor data to determine if a user is away from the vehicle and if closure devices are open, prompting the user to close them or doing so automatically based on user preferences and environmental conditions.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If automatic closure system is implemented, then closure devices are closed automatically improving convenience, but user control over closure timing is lost causing unintended closure

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveautomatic closure operationVSAvoiduser control flexibility
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system continuously monitors user presence through sensors (camera, proximity sensors, microphones) and adjusts closure device operation based on real-time feedback. When the system detects the user is still present or returning, it delays or cancels the automatic closure command, thereby adapting to user needs while maintaining automated operation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The closure system transitions from a static timer-based approach to a dynamic user-aware system. The closure timing and execution are continuously adjusted based on real-time detection of user presence, behavior patterns, and environmental conditions, allowing the system to adapt its operation dynamically rather than following a fixed schedule.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Extent of automation

If timer-based automatic closure is used, then closure devices close after fixed time improving automation, but closure occurs even when user intends to return causing inconvenience

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveautomatic closure timingVSAvoiduser convenience
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The system replaces fixed timer-based automation with feedback-driven adaptive automation. Sensors continuously monitor user presence and behavior, providing real-time feedback that adjusts closure timing. If the user is detected to be returning or still present, the system modifies or delays the closure action, preventing inconvenient automatic closure while maintaining high automation levels.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The system monitors its own operational context by detecting user presence and intentions through various sensors. It automatically adjusts its closure schedule based on this self-detected information about user needs, eliminating the need for explicit user commands while avoiding inconvenient automatic closure actions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

3Adaptability or versatility

If closure devices remain open, then user control is maintained improving flexibility, but exposure to adverse weather conditions causes damage

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveuser control flexibilityVSAvoidweather exposure damage
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary detection of adverse weather conditions (rain, snow, extreme temperatures) using environmental sensors before closing the closure devices. When adverse conditions are detected and the user is determined to be absent, the system proactively initiates closure to protect the vehicle interior, preventing damage before it occurs while maintaining user control when conditions are favorable.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

4Measurement precision

If manual closure control is required, then user intention is respected improving accuracy, but system complexity increases due to monitoring requirements

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveuser intention detectionVSAvoidsensor and processing system
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system uses multi-functional sensors (e.g., cameras that detect presence, proximity sensors that detect distance, microphones that detect speech) to achieve accurate user intention detection. These sensors serve multiple purposes: monitoring user presence, detecting gestures, and identifying environmental conditions, thereby improving detection accuracy while limiting the increase in system complexity through versatile component usage.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentUS20250354430A1Intelligent window and doors
Publication Date: 2025.11.20 GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC
  • US20250354430A1 patent drawing
  • US20250354430A1 patent drawing
  • US20250354430A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A method includes determining that a closure device is in an opened position. The method includes determining, via processing of sensor data, that a user is not present and determining whether an object is present. Based on determination that the closure device is in the opened position, and based on determination that the user is not present, and based on determination that the object is not present, the method includes prompting the user to select a command to adjust the closure device from the opened position to the closed position. Based on the user selecting the command, the method includes operating the closure device to adjust the closure device from the opened position to the closed position.