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 .
Status of claims
Claims 1-7, 10, 11, 14, 16-21, 25-27 are pending
Claims 1, 10, 20, and 27 are amended
Claims 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, and 22-24 are canceled
Response to Arguments
Formal matters
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the objection of the specification has been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection regarding the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim objections to claims 10 and 27 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection regarding the claims 10 and 27 has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
Regarding the applicant’s argument the MENARD does not disclose the amended text “wherein the test area is determined on the basis of an expected or actual adjustment movement of the vehicle door.”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed language would be testing areas where the human hand would interact with the door to exact movement on the vehicle door. MENARD anticipates this with a “interior door handle sensor 38 prevents operation of the system unless an occupant is touching the interior door handle” (MENARD, ¶ 0022). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the test area in MENARD is there the door handle sensor is interacted and the monitoring area to be the outside where the proximity sensors are located (MENARD, ¶ 0014). Furthermore, MENARD describes correcting for door adjustment with a blocking mechanism (MENARD, ¶ 0016) from proximity detection (MENARD, ¶ 0014). Moreover the current claims set does not differentiate between the door closing and opening motion as argued by the applicant to as why MENARD cannot disclose the amended claims language. Broadest reasonable interpretation would determine that the “test area is determined on the basis of an expected or actual adjustment movement of the vehicle door” would be covered by MENARD as the test area would always be fixed to the vehicle handle (MENARD, ¶ 0022) with the adjustment movement always being anticipated to be the swivel of the door (MENARD, ¶ 0016). If the applicant desires to make the distinction between the test area for opening and closing of the door, the office recommends amending the claims to denote the distinction more explicitly. Given this, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 is sustained.
Please see 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections below.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4,6,7,14,18-20, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MENARD (US 20050242618 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
MENARD discloses:
A method for adjusting a vehicle door, at least comprising the following steps: (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0016, "A blocking mechanism 22 is coupled with the signal output from the proximity detector 12. The signal is used to block the door from opening beyond a distance where the external object 14 might be struck by the vehicle door 16. The blocking mechanism 22 deters the door from moving outwardly, but does not prevent the door from moving inwardly (i.e. closing). The blocking mechanism 22 can be controlled directly by the signal from the proximity detector 12, or preferably controlled by a controller 24. The controller 24 can be a processor dedicated for this application or can be an existing processor in the vehicle 10. With a controller 24, the controller 24 is coupled between the proximity detector 12 and the blocking mechanism 22. In this configuration, the controller 24 inputs the signal from the proximity detector 12 for use in directing the blocking action of the blocking mechanism 24, as will be explained in detail below.")
using at least one presence sensor to test whether at least one body part of a vehicle door user is in a test area, and (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0013, “Preferably, the present invention is only active when the door is being opened from the inside of the vehicle, which is when the majority of accidental damage is done to a vehicle door. Otherwise the system may not allow the vehicle to be opened from outside by sensing the user's hand on the outside of the car as an external object that needs to be avoided. The present invention includes an alert (e.g. visual and/or audio alert), located in the vehicle that would turn on when the system has sensed an object within close proximity of the door. The alert serves the function of notifying the user that the system has sensed an object and that the door will be deterred from opening a full amount. Several overrides of the system are available in case of emergency and in case that the system has sensed something irrelevant (e.g. tall grass, snow on the exterior of the car, etc.).”; ¶ 0022, “Another operational limitation for the present invention is to provide an interior door handle sensor 38. The interior door handle sensor 38 prevents operation of the system unless an occupant is touching the interior door handle (i.e. a user can open the door from the outside without having the blocking mechanism activate). The door handle sensor can be provided using many different known techniques, all of which would work equally well in the present invention. For example, a capacitive sensor can detect when someone touches the handle. This can be a directly gated function or derived through an existing processor of the vehicle.”)
controlling a collision protection device of the vehicle door on the basis of whether a body part of the vehicle door user is in the test area, (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0018, “One operational limitation for the present invention is to limit operation to only those occasions where a vehicle is occupied by a driver and/or passengers. Therefore, the present invention can include a vehicle occupant detector 26, wherein the occupant detector 26 prevents operation of the system unless an occupant is detected in the vehicle. In the example shown, the occupant detector 26 is a sensor that "views" whether a driver is present. Although only one detector is shown to detect a driver, it should be recognized that occupant detection can apply to not only the driver, but also any and all passengers (e.g. a four door vehicle could have up to four occupant detectors). Preferably, occupant detection is input to the processor 24 and gates operation of the sensor system. As should be recognized, there are many different types of occupant detection (e.g. seat weight detection, etc.) that are known and possible, and each of these various occupant detection techniques can be used equally well in the present invention.”)
wherein the collision protection device is configured to monitor a monitoring area that differs from the test area and is in the area surrounding the vehicle door for possible obstacles using at least one monitoring sensor in order to avoid a collision between the vehicle door to be adjusted and an obstacle, (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0014, “Referring to FIG. 1, the present invention is incorporated in a vehicle 10. proximity detector 12, including at least one external sensor is disposed on the vehicle to detect external objects 14. Preferably, the sensor is disposed on the vehicle door 16 itself. More preferably, the proximity detector 12 is configured to only detect objects within a predetermined range from the vehicle door 16. The sensor can be configured to only sense that an object is present in proximity to the door, or the sensor can be configured to provide a signal indicative of a distance to the object. For example, the proximity detector can have the capability to not only detect an external object but also to estimate a position of the external object within the respect to the vehicle door. Optionally, a sensor with a larger range or multiple sensors, and under the control of a device such as a microcontroller, can use triangulation, as is known in the art, to determine the distance between the vehicle door and the external object, and to decide when the vehicle door has come too close to the external object. The sensor itself can use any of the different sensing technologies known in the art (e.g. mechanical, camera with object detection software, optical, thermal, laser, sonar, radar, infrared, capacitive, electric field, magnetic field, etc.) equally well in the present invention.”)
wherein the test area is determined on the basis of an expected or actual adjustment movement of the vehicle door. (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0013; ¶ 0014; ¶ 0022)
Regarding claim 2:
MENARD discloses the limitations within claim 1 and further discloses:
the testing comprises a detection of whether the vehicle door user is touching at least one operating element on the vehicle door. (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0022, “Another operational limitation for the present invention is to provide an interior door handle sensor 38. The interior door handle sensor 38 prevents operation of the system unless an occupant is touching the interior door handle (i.e. a user can open the door from the outside without having the blocking mechanism activate). The door handle sensor can be provided using many different known techniques, all of which would work equally well in the present invention. For example, a capacitive sensor can detect when someone touches the handle. This can be a directly gated function or derived through an existing processor of the vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 3:
MENARD discloses the limitations within claim 2 and further discloses:
a test is performed as to whether the vehicle door user is touching (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0022, “Another operational limitation for the present invention is to provide an interior door handle sensor 38. The interior door handle sensor 38 prevents operation of the system unless an occupant is touching the interior door handle (i.e. a user can open the door from the outside without having the blocking mechanism activate). The door handle sensor can be provided using many different known techniques, all of which would work equally well in the present invention. For example, a capacitive sensor can detect when someone touches the handle. This can be a directly gated function or derived through an existing processor of the vehicle.”)
an outside door handle (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0013, “Preferably, the present invention is only active when the door is being opened from the inside of the vehicle, which is when the majority of accidental damage is done to a vehicle door. Otherwise the system may not allow the vehicle to be opened from outside by sensing the user's hand on the outside of the car as an external object that needs to be avoided. The present invention includes an alert (e.g. visual and/or audio alert), located in the vehicle that would turn on when the system has sensed an object within close proximity of the door. The alert serves the function of notifying the user that the system has sensed an object and that the door will be deterred from opening a full amount. Several overrides of the system are available in case of emergency and in case that the system has sensed something irrelevant (e.g. tall grass, snow on the exterior of the car, etc.).”; ¶ 0022)
or an inside door handle of the vehicle door. (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0022)
Regarding claim 4:
MENARD discloses the limitations within claim 3 and further discloses:
the collision protection device is activated if the testing reveals that the vehicle door user is touching the inside door handle. (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0022, “Another operational limitation for the present invention is to provide an interior door handle sensor 38. The interior door handle sensor 38 prevents operation of the system unless an occupant is touching the interior door handle (i.e. a user can open the door from the outside without having the blocking mechanism activate). The door handle sensor can be provided using many different known techniques, all of which would work equally well in the present invention. For example, a capacitive sensor can detect when someone touches the handle. This can be a directly gated function or derived through an existing processor of the vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 6:
MENARD discloses the limitations within claim 1 and further discloses:
the testing is triggered by an operating event brought about by the vehicle door user. (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0013, “Preferably, the present invention is only active when the door is being opened from the inside of the vehicle, which is when the majority of accidental damage is done to a vehicle door. Otherwise the system may not allow the vehicle to be opened from outside by sensing the user's hand on the outside of the car as an external object that needs to be avoided. The present invention includes an alert (e.g. visual and/or audio alert), located in the vehicle that would turn on when the system has sensed an object within close proximity of the door. The alert serves the function of notifying the user that the system has sensed an object and that the door will be deterred from opening a full amount. Several overrides of the system are available in case of emergency and in case that the system has sensed something irrelevant (e.g. tall grass, snow on the exterior of the car, etc.).”; ¶ 0022, “Another operational limitation for the present invention is to provide an interior door handle sensor 38. The interior door handle sensor 38 prevents operation of the system unless an occupant is touching the interior door handle (i.e. a user can open the door from the outside without having the blocking mechanism activate). The door handle sensor can be provided using many different known techniques, all of which would work equally well in the present invention. For example, a capacitive sensor can detect when someone touches the handle. This can be a directly gated function or derived through an existing processor of the vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 7:
MENARD discloses the limitations within claim 2 and further discloses:
the testing is triggered by an operating event brought about by the vehicle door user, (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0013, “Preferably, the present invention is only active when the door is being opened from the inside of the vehicle, which is when the majority of accidental damage is done to a vehicle door. Otherwise the system may not allow the vehicle to be opened from outside by sensing the user's hand on the outside of the car as an external object that needs to be avoided. The present invention includes an alert (e.g. visual and/or audio alert), located in the vehicle that would turn on when the system has sensed an object within close proximity of the door. The alert serves the function of notifying the user that the system has sensed an object and that the door will be deterred from opening a full amount. Several overrides of the system are available in case of emergency and in case that the system has sensed something irrelevant (e.g. tall grass, snow on the exterior of the car, etc.).”)
wherein the operating event is brought about by touching the at least one operating element. (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0022, “Another operational limitation for the present invention is to provide an interior door handle sensor 38. The interior door handle sensor 38 prevents operation of the system unless an occupant is touching the interior door handle (i.e. a user can open the door from the outside without having the blocking mechanism activate). The door handle sensor can be provided using many different known techniques, all of which would work equally well in the present invention. For example, a capacitive sensor can detect when someone touches the handle. This can be a directly gated function or derived through an existing processor of the vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 10:
MENARD discloses the limitations within claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein the collision protection device is transitioned from being activated to being deactivated if it is identified, by means of the at least one presence sensor, that a body part of the vehicle door user is in the test area, or (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0017, “It is envisioned that the system of the present invention will not be active at all times. For example, someone returning to their parked car will not wish to be detected as an external object preventing their door from opening. In addition, the system as described will draw some amount of electrical power from the vehicle battery and should turn itself off when a vehicle is not running or shortly thereafter. Therefore, the present invention includes several operational limitations.”; ¶ 0022, “Another operational limitation for the present invention is to provide an interior door handle sensor 38. The interior door handle sensor 38 prevents operation of the system unless an occupant is touching the interior door handle (i.e. a user can open the door from the outside without having the blocking mechanism activate). The door handle sensor can be provided using many different known techniques, all of which would work equally well in the present invention. For example, a capacitive sensor can detect when someone touches the handle. This can be a directly gated function or derived through an existing processor of the vehicle.”)
wherein the collision protection device is transitioned from being deactivated to being activated if it is identified, by means of the at least one presence sensor, that there is no body part of the vehicle door user in the test area. (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0013, “Preferably, the present invention is only active when the door is being opened from the inside of the vehicle, which is when the majority of accidental damage is done to a vehicle door. Otherwise the system may not allow the vehicle to be opened from outside by sensing the user's hand on the outside of the car as an external object that needs to be avoided. The present invention includes an alert (e.g. visual and/or audio alert), located in the vehicle that would turn on when the system has sensed an object within close proximity of the door. The alert serves the function of notifying the user that the system has sensed an object and that the door will be deterred from opening a full amount. Several overrides of the system are available in case of emergency and in case that the system has sensed something irrelevant (e.g. tall grass, snow on the exterior of the car, etc.).”; ¶ 0018, “One operational limitation for the present invention is to limit operation to only those occasions where a vehicle is occupied by a driver and/or passengers. Therefore, the present invention can include a vehicle occupant detector 26, wherein the occupant detector 26 prevents operation of the system unless an occupant is detected in the vehicle. In the example shown, the occupant detector 26 is a sensor that "views" whether a driver is present. Although only one detector is shown to detect a driver, it should be recognized that occupant detection can apply to not only the driver, but also any and all passengers (e.g. a four door vehicle could have up to four occupant detectors). Preferably, occupant detection is input to the processor 24 and gates operation of the sensor system. As should be recognized, there are many different types of occupant detection (e.g. seat weight detection, etc.) that are known and possible, and each of these various occupant detection techniques can be used equally well in the present invention.”; ¶ 0022)
Regarding claim 14:
MENARD discloses the limitations within claim 1 and further discloses:
the collision protection device is activated if an adjustment position of the vehicle door reaches a predetermined activation position. (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0024, “FIG. 2 shows an alternative embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment, the proximity detector 12 is configured to fire outwardly and is located near a trailing edge of the door 16 of the vehicle 10. Optionally, the sensor can be fitted linearly anywhere across the door instead of at just one position as shown. In its simplest form, the proximity detector is a sensor with an adjustable sensitivity that is used to signal whether or not an object 14 is without proximity to the door 16. However, the proximity detector 12 could also estimate a position of an object 14 with respect to the vehicle door 16 and provide a position signal for damage prevention. For example, in sonar detection, if the object is within a field of view 42 of the sensor, the time of arrival of a signal reflected from the object can be used determine a distance of the object from the sensor and the vehicle door. This, along with the pointing position of the sensor can be used to estimate a position of the object 14 and whether it is in a position to damage the door 16 of the vehicle 10. All of the other mechanism and systems as previously described will work in the same way for this embodiment.”; ¶ 0028, “Upon activation of the system (i.e. a signal from the proximity detector) a locking pawl engages teeth 78 of the blocking disc 52. The locking pawl 72 is mounted to the vehicle body and is driven by a solenoid 76 that is directly driven by a signal from the proximity detector or through a controller as explained above. Upon activation of the locking pawl 72, the blocking disc 52 is locked in relation to the vehicle body. The follower disc 50 is rigidly mounted to the door and the blocking pin blocks the door from opening too far by hitting the leading edge 68 of the blocking disc 52. However, upon application of sufficient force on the door, the blocking pin can be made to rotate into the gap 60 allowing full movement (opening) of the door. The use of the movable blocking pin provides the advantages of: a) allowing a user to manually override the mechanism (i.e. a user could never be trapped in the vehicle by the mechanism), b) a fixed or rigid pin could be susceptible to damage from excessive force by the user, and c) a user could override any false actuation of the system such as parking in tall grass for example. Even with the locking pawl 72 engaged, the follower disc and door are allowed full closing movement since the trailing edge 70 is at least beyond the movement range of the blocking pin in the door closed position. The locking pawl can remain engaged for a short period of time after the door is closed or it can engage and disengage directly dependent upon the signal from the proximity detector.”)
Regarding claim 18:
MENARD discloses the limitations within claim 1 and further discloses:
a result of the testing and/or a detection of an obstacle is displayed via an optical and/or acoustic signal. (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0013, “Preferably, the present invention is only active when the door is being opened from the inside of the vehicle, which is when the majority of accidental damage is done to a vehicle door. Otherwise the system may not allow the vehicle to be opened from outside by sensing the user's hand on the outside of the car as an external object that needs to be avoided. The present invention includes an alert (e.g. visual and/or audio alert), located in the vehicle that would turn on when the system has sensed an object within close proximity of the door. The alert serves the function of notifying the user that the system has sensed an object and that the door will be deterred from opening a full amount. Several overrides of the system are available in case of emergency and in case that the system has sensed something irrelevant (e.g. tall grass, snow on the exterior of the car, etc.).”)
Regarding claim 19:
MENARD discloses the limitations within claim 1 and further discloses:
the at least one monitoring sensor is a radar sensor. (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0014, “Referring to FIG. 1, the present invention is incorporated in a vehicle 10. proximity detector 12, including at least one external sensor is disposed on the vehicle to detect external objects 14. Preferably, the sensor is disposed on the vehicle door 16 itself. More preferably, the proximity detector 12 is configured to only detect objects within a predetermined range from the vehicle door 16. The sensor can be configured to only sense that an object is present in proximity to the door, or the sensor can be configured to provide a signal indicative of a distance to the object. For example, the proximity detector can have the capability to not only detect an external object but also to estimate a position of the external object within the respect to the vehicle door. Optionally, a sensor with a larger range or multiple sensors, and under the control of a device such as a microcontroller, can use triangulation, as is known in the art, to determine the distance between the vehicle door and the external object, and to decide when the vehicle door has come too close to the external object. The sensor itself can use any of the different sensing technologies known in the art (e.g. mechanical, camera with object detection software, optical, thermal, laser, sonar, radar, infrared, capacitive, electric field, magnetic field, etc.) equally well in the present invention.”)
Regarding claim 20:
MENARD discloses:
a collision protection device comprising at least one monitoring sensor, wherein the collision protection device is configured to monitor a monitoring area in the area surrounding the vehicle door for possible obstacles using at least one monitoring sensor in order to avoid a collision between the vehicle door to be adjusted and an obstacle, at least one presence sensor, and (see at east MENARD, ¶ 0014, “Referring to FIG. 1, the present invention is incorporated in a vehicle 10. proximity detector 12, including at least one external sensor is disposed on the vehicle to detect external objects 14. Preferably, the sensor is disposed on the vehicle door 16 itself. More preferably, the proximity detector 12 is configured to only detect objects within a predetermined range from the vehicle door 16. The sensor can be configured to only sense that an object is present in proximity to the door, or the sensor can be configured to provide a signal indicative of a distance to the object. For example, the proximity detector can have the capability to not only detect an external object but also to estimate a position of the external object within the respect to the vehicle door. Optionally, a sensor with a larger range or multiple sensors, and under the control of a device such as a microcontroller, can use triangulation, as is known in the art, to determine the distance between the vehicle door and the external object, and to decide when the vehicle door has come too close to the external object. The sensor itself can use any of the different sensing technologies known in the art (e.g. mechanical, camera with object detection software, optical, thermal, laser, sonar, radar, infrared, capacitive, electric field, magnetic field, etc.) equally well in the present invention.”)
a control unit which is coupled to the at least one presence sensor and the collision protection device and which is configured to test, by means of the at least one presence sensor, whether at least one body part of a vehicle door user is in a test area that is different from the monitoring area, and (see at east MENARD, ¶ 0013, “Preferably, the present invention is only active when the door is being opened from the inside of the vehicle, which is when the majority of accidental damage is done to a vehicle door. Otherwise the system may not allow the vehicle to be opened from outside by sensing the user's hand on the outside of the car as an external object that needs to be avoided. The present invention includes an alert (e.g. visual and/or audio alert), located in the vehicle that would turn on when the system has sensed an object within close proximity of the door. The alert serves the function of notifying the user that the system has sensed an object and that the door will be deterred from opening a full amount. Several overrides of the system are available in case of emergency and in case that the system has sensed something irrelevant (e.g. tall grass, snow on the exterior of the car, etc.).”; ¶ 0022, “Another operational limitation for the present invention is to provide an interior door handle sensor 38. The interior door handle sensor 38 prevents operation of the system unless an occupant is touching the interior door handle (i.e. a user can open the door from the outside without having the blocking mechanism activate). The door handle sensor can be provided using many different known techniques, all of which would work equally well in the present invention. For example, a capacitive sensor can detect when someone touches the handle. This can be a directly gated function or derived through an existing processor of the vehicle.”)
to control the collision protection device on the basis of whether a least one body part of the vehicle door user is in the test area, (see at east MENARD, ¶ 0013; ¶ 0022)
wherein the test area is determined on the basis of an expected or actual adjustment movement of the vehicle door. (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0013; ¶ 0014; ¶ 0022)
Regarding claim 27:
With regards to claim 27, this claim is the vehicle system claim for vehicle door system claim 20 substantially similar to claim 20 and is therefore rejected using the same references and 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MENARD (US 20050242618 A1) in view of SENGUTTUVAN (US 20160208537 A1).
Regarding claim 5:
MENARD discloses the limitations within claim 1 and further discloses:
the collision protection device is coupled to an adjustment mechanism of the vehicle door that comprises at least one (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0024, “FIG. 2 shows an alternative embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment, the proximity detector 12 is configured to fire outwardly and is located near a trailing edge of the door 16 of the vehicle 10. Optionally, the sensor can be fitted linearly anywhere across the door instead of at just one position as shown. In its simplest form, the proximity detector is a sensor with an adjustable sensitivity that is used to signal whether or not an object 14 is without proximity to the door 16. However, the proximity detector 12 could also estimate a position of an object 14 with respect to the vehicle door 16 and provide a position signal for damage prevention. For example, in sonar detection, if the object is within a field of view 42 of the sensor, the time of arrival of a signal reflected from the object can be used determine a distance of the object from the sensor and the vehicle door. This, along with the pointing position of the sensor can be used to estimate a position of the object 14 and whether it is in a position to damage the door 16 of the vehicle 10. All of the other mechanism and systems as previously described will work in the same way for this embodiment.”; ¶ 0028, “Upon activation of the system (i.e. a signal from the proximity detector) a locking pawl engages teeth 78 of the blocking disc 52. The locking pawl 72 is mounted to the vehicle body and is driven by a solenoid 76 that is directly driven by a signal from the proximity detector or through a controller as explained above. Upon activation of the locking pawl 72, the blocking disc 52 is locked in relation to the vehicle body. The follower disc 50 is rigidly mounted to the door and the blocking pin blocks the door from opening too far by hitting the leading edge 68 of the blocking disc 52. However, upon application of sufficient force on the door, the blocking pin can be made to rotate into the gap 60 allowing full movement (opening) of the door. The use of the movable blocking pin provides the advantages of: a) allowing a user to manually override the mechanism (i.e. a user could never be trapped in the vehicle by the mechanism), b) a fixed or rigid pin could be susceptible to damage from excessive force by the user, and c) a user could override any false actuation of the system such as parking in tall grass for example. Even with the locking pawl 72 engaged, the follower disc and door are allowed full closing movement since the trailing edge 70 is at least beyond the movement range of the blocking pin in the door closed position. The locking pawl can remain engaged for a short period of time after the door is closed or it can engage and disengage directly dependent upon the signal from the proximity detector.”)
MENARD does not disclose, but SENGUTTUVAN teaches:
motorized drive, which is provided for assisting an adjustment of the vehicle door that is actuated by muscle power. (see at least SENGUTTUVAN, ¶ 0015, “The notification signal can be output to a drive mechanism for inhibiting or restricting opening of the vehicle door. The drive mechanism can be operative to apply a resistive force to the vehicle door. The drive mechanism could be configured to define a hard stop to limit the extent to which the vehicle door can be opened. The drive mechanism can optionally be configured to apply a resistive force which varies in dependence on the proximity of the vehicle door to the obstruction(s). The drive mechanism can be adapted progressively to increase the resistive force as the distance between the vehicle door and the obstruction(s) decreases (i.e. inversely proportional). The notification signal can provide a control signal for controlling operation of the drive mechanism.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the proximity detector for preventing door damage within MENARD to utilize the motorized, resistive force, drive mechanism for protecting the door of SENGUTTUVAN to yield an effective door damage prevention system that scales door opening range based on the positional changes of a dynamic obstacle.
Regarding claim 21:
MENARD discloses the limitations within claim 20 and further discloses:
drive that is coupled to an adjustment mechanism of the vehicle door, (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0024, “FIG. 2 shows an alternative embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment, the proximity detector 12 is configured to fire outwardly and is located near a trailing edge of the door 16 of the vehicle 10. Optionally, the sensor can be fitted linearly anywhere across the door instead of at just one position as shown. In its simplest form, the proximity detector is a sensor with an adjustable sensitivity that is used to signal whether or not an object 14 is without proximity to the door 16. However, the proximity detector 12 could also estimate a position of an object 14 with respect to the vehicle door 16 and provide a position signal for damage prevention. For example, in sonar detection, if the object is within a field of view 42 of the sensor, the time of arrival of a signal reflected from the object can be used determine a distance of the object from the sensor and the vehicle door. This, along with the pointing position of the sensor can be used to estimate a position of the object 14 and whether it is in a position to damage the door 16 of the vehicle 10. All of the other mechanism and systems as previously described will work in the same way for this embodiment.”; ¶ 0028, “Upon activation of the system (i.e. a signal from the proximity detector) a locking pawl engages teeth 78 of the blocking disc 52. The locking pawl 72 is mounted to the vehicle body and is driven by a solenoid 76 that is directly driven by a signal from the proximity detector or through a controller as explained above. Upon activation of the locking pawl 72, the blocking disc 52 is locked in relation to the vehicle body. The follower disc 50 is rigidly mounted to the door and the blocking pin blocks the door from opening too far by hitting the leading edge 68 of the blocking disc 52. However, upon application of sufficient force on the door, the blocking pin can be made to rotate into the gap 60 allowing full movement (opening) of the door. The use of the movable blocking pin provides the advantages of: a) allowing a user to manually override the mechanism (i.e. a user could never be trapped in the vehicle by the mechanism), b) a fixed or rigid pin could be susceptible to damage from excessive force by the user, and c) a user could override any false actuation of the system such as parking in tall grass for example. Even with the locking pawl 72 engaged, the follower disc and door are allowed full closing movement since the trailing edge 70 is at least beyond the movement range of the blocking pin in the door closed position. The locking pawl can remain engaged for a short period of time after the door is closed or it can engage and disengage directly dependent upon the signal from the proximity detector.”)
the system comprises at least one touch sensor, coupled to the control unit, for touch detection on at least one operating element of the vehicle door, (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0022, “Another operational limitation for the present invention is to provide an interior door handle sensor 38. The interior door handle sensor 38 prevents operation of the system unless an occupant is touching the interior door handle (i.e. a user can open the door from the outside without having the blocking mechanism activate). The door handle sensor can be provided using many different known techniques, all of which would work equally well in the present invention. For example, a capacitive sensor can detect when someone touches the handle. This can be a directly gated function or derived through an existing processor of the vehicle.”)
the system comprises, for identifying an operating event of the vehicle door, at least one (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0022)
use sensor that is coupled to the control unit, and the control unit is configured to trigger the testing in response to the operating event, and (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0013, “Preferably, the present invention is only active when the door is being opened from the inside of the vehicle, which is when the majority of accidental damage is done to a vehicle door. Otherwise the system may not allow the vehicle to be opened from outside by sensing the user's hand on the outside of the car as an external object that needs to be avoided. The present invention includes an alert (e.g. visual and/or audio alert), located in the vehicle that would turn on when the system has sensed an object within close proximity of the door. The alert serves the function of notifying the user that the system has sensed an object and that the door will be deterred from opening a full amount. Several overrides of the system are available in case of emergency and in case that the system has sensed something irrelevant (e.g. tall grass, snow on the exterior of the car, etc.).”; ¶ 0022)
the system comprises, for identifying an adjustment position of the vehicle door, (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0014, “Referring to FIG. 1, the present invention is incorporated in a vehicle 10. proximity detector 12, including at least one external sensor is disposed on the vehicle to detect external objects 14. Preferably, the sensor is disposed on the vehicle door 16 itself. More preferably, the proximity detector 12 is configured to only detect objects within a predetermined range from the vehicle door 16. The sensor can be configured to only sense that an object is present in proximity to the door, or the sensor can be configured to provide a signal indicative of a distance to the object. For example, the proximity detector can have the capability to not only detect an external object but also to estimate a position of the external object within the respect to the vehicle door. Optionally, a sensor with a larger range or multiple sensors, and under the control of a device such as a microcontroller, can use triangulation, as is known in the art, to determine the distance between the vehicle door and the external object, and to decide when the vehicle door has come too close to the external object. The sensor itself can use any of the different sensing technologies known in the art (e.g. mechanical, camera with object detection software, optical, thermal, laser, sonar, radar, infrared, capacitive, electric field, magnetic field, etc.) equally well in the present invention.”; ¶ 0015, “In the embodiment shown, the sensor of the proximity detector 12 is disposed near a leading edge of the vehicle door 16 and is backward firing. In this configuration, the proximity detector 12 has a narrow scan angle 20 that follows the opening door to scan a surface of the door in order to sense any objects that enter a narrow detection zone 18 when the door is opened. Specifically, the detection zone covers a zone of several centimeters outside of the door surface. The detection zone can be vertically fan-shaped (not shown) to cover a substantial surface area of the door 16. The proximity detector 12 outputs an electrical signal when any external objects 14 enter the zone 18. The sensitivity of the sensor is adjustable such that the sensor will ignore (i.e. not detect) any objects beyond a sensitivity range, D, which is beyond a trailing edge of the vehicle door 16. Or the proximity detector can determine the actual distance to an object and ignore objects that are farther than the edge of the door.”)
at least one position sensor that is coupled to the control means, and the control unit is configured to trigger a repeated testing if the adjustment position reaches a predetermined activation position. (see at least MENARD, ¶
MENARD does not disclose, but SENGUTTUVAN teaches:
at least one of for motor-assisted pivoting of the vehicle door, the system comprises at least one (see at least SENGUTTUVAN, ¶ 0015, “The notification signal can be output to a drive mechanism for inhibiting or restricting opening of the vehicle door. The drive mechanism can be operative to apply a resistive force to the vehicle door. The drive mechanism could be configured to define a hard stop to limit the extent to which the vehicle door can be opened. The drive mechanism can optionally be configured to apply a resistive force which varies in dependence on the proximity of the vehicle door to the obstruction(s). The drive mechanism can be adapted progressively to increase the resistive force as the distance between the vehicle door and the obstruction(s) decreases (i.e. inversely proportional). The notification signal can provide a control signal for controlling operation of the drive mechanism.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the proximity detector for preventing door damage within MENARD to utilize the motorized, resistive force, drive mechanism for protecting the door of SENGUTTUVAN to yield an effective door damage prevention system that scales door opening range based on the positional changes of a dynamic obstacle.
Claims 11,25,26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MENARD (US 20050242618 A1) in view of CALAMATAS (US 6452353 B1).
Regarding claim 11:
MENARD discloses the limitations within claim 1 and further discloses:
in response to an adjustment of the vehicle door into a predetermined test position. (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0015, “In the embodiment shown, the sensor of the proximity detector 12 is disposed near a leading edge of the vehicle door 16 and is backward firing. In this configuration, the proximity detector 12 has a narrow scan angle 20 that follows the opening door to scan a surface of the door in order to sense any objects that enter a narrow detection zone 18 when the door is opened. Specifically, the detection zone covers a zone of several centimeters outside of the door surface. The detection zone can be vertically fan-shaped (not shown) to cover a substantial surface area of the door 16. The proximity detector 12 outputs an electrical signal when any external objects 14 enter the zone 18. The sensitivity of the sensor is adjustable such that the sensor will ignore (i.e. not detect) any objects beyond a sensitivity range, D, which is beyond a trailing edge of the vehicle door 16. Or the proximity detector can determine the actual distance to an object and ignore objects that are farther than the edge of the door.”)
MENARD does not disclose, but CALAMATAS teaches:
at least one of the testing is repeated at predetermined time intervals and the testing is repeated at predetermined time intervals, (see at least CALAMATAS, Col 6 lines 49-59, “In the presently preferred embodiment of the invention, the signal processor 16 is a motion control chip performing more than two thousand door position verifications per second (typically three to four thousand) based upon the feedback signal from the encoder 28. It is the lack of an obstruction signal in each sample period that allows the motor 24 to advance to the next sample position. If during any one sample period the encoder 28 feedback does not match a trajectory profile sent from the CPU 12 to the DSP 16, the dynamic brake will be applied unconditionally and the door will stop immediately.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the door surface scanner of MENARD to take samples for obstructions over time as present within CALAMATAS to yield a safer door control system that continuously checks the surroundings as the door moves.
Regarding claim 25:
MENARD discloses the limitations within claim 20 and does not disclose, but CALAMATAS teaches:
the control unit is coupled to a timer and is configured to repeatedly test at predetermined time intervals. (see at least CALAMATAS, Col 6 lines 49-59, “In the presently preferred embodiment of the invention, the signal processor 16 is a motion control chip performing more than two thousand door position verifications per second (typically three to four thousand) based upon the feedback signal from the encoder 28. It is the lack of an obstruction signal in each sample period that allows the motor 24 to advance to the next sample position. If during any one sample period the encoder 28 feedback does not match a trajectory profile sent from the CPU 12 to the DSP 16, the dynamic brake will be applied unconditionally and the door will stop immediately.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the door surface scanner of MENARD to take samples for obstructions over time as present within CALAMATAS to yield a safer door control system that continuously checks the surroundings as the door moves.
Regarding claim 26:
MENARD in view of CALAMATAS discloses the limitations within claim 25 and MENARD further discloses:
the control unit is configured to deactivate the activated collision protection device if repeated testing reveals that at least one body part of the vehicle door user is in the test area. (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0017, “It is envisioned that the system of the present invention will not be active at all times. For example, someone returning to their parked car will not wish to be detected as an external object preventing their door from opening. In addition, the system as described will draw some amount of electrical power from the vehicle battery and should turn itself off when a vehicle is not running or shortly thereafter. Therefore, the present invention includes several operational limitations.”; ¶ 0018, “One operational limitation for the present invention is to limit operation to only those occasions where a vehicle is occupied by a driver and/or passengers. Therefore, the present invention can include a vehicle occupant detector 26, wherein the occupant detector 26 prevents operation of the system unless an occupant is detected in the vehicle. In the example shown, the occupant detector 26 is a sensor that "views" whether a driver is present. Although only one detector is shown to detect a driver, it should be recognized that occupant detection can apply to not only the driver, but also any and all passengers (e.g. a four door vehicle could have up to four occupant detectors). Preferably, occupant detection is input to the processor 24 and gates operation of the sensor system. As should be recognized, there are many different types of occupant detection (e.g. seat weight detection, etc.) that are known and possible, and each of these various occupant detection techniques can be used equally well in the present invention.”; ¶ 0022, “Another operational limitation for the present invention is to provide an interior door handle sensor 38. The interior door handle sensor 38 prevents operation of the system unless an occupant is touching the interior door handle (i.e. a user can open the door from the outside without having the blocking mechanism activate). The door handle sensor can be provided using many different known techniques, all of which would work equally well in the present invention. For example, a capacitive sensor can detect when someone touches the handle. This can be a directly gated function or derived through an existing processor of the vehicle.”)
Claims 16,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MENARD (US 20050242618 A1) in view of SAUERWEIN (US 20160010379 A1).
Regarding claim 16:
MENARD discloses the limitations within claim 1 and further discloses:
the collision protection device (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0028, “Upon activation of the system (i.e. a signal from the proximity detector) a locking pawl engages teeth 78 of the blocking disc 52. The locking pawl 72 is mounted to the vehicle body and is driven by a solenoid 76 that is directly driven by a signal from the proximity detector or through a controller as explained above. Upon activation of the locking pawl 72, the blocking disc 52 is locked in relation to the vehicle body. The follower disc 50 is rigidly mounted to the door and the blocking pin blocks the door from opening too far by hitting the leading edge 68 of the blocking disc 52. However, upon application of sufficient force on the door, the blocking pin can be made to rotate into the gap 60 allowing full movement (opening) of the door. The use of the movable blocking pin provides the advantages of: a) allowing a user to manually override the mechanism (i.e. a user could never be trapped in the vehicle by the mechanism), b) a fixed or rigid pin could be susceptible to damage from excessive force by the user, and c) a user could override any false actuation of the system such as parking in tall grass for example. Even with the locking pawl 72 engaged, the follower disc and door are allowed full closing movement since the trailing edge 70 is at least beyond the movement range of the blocking pin in the door closed position. The locking pawl can remain engaged for a short period of time after the door is closed or it can engage and disengage directly dependent upon the signal from the proximity detector.”)
MENARD does not disclose, but SAUERWEIN teaches:
is activated on the basis an adjustment speed of the vehicle door. (see at least SAUERWEIN, ¶ 0006, “In another aspect, a vehicle door control system is provided for a vehicle having a vehicle body and a vehicle door. The door control system includes a check arm mounted to one of the vehicle body and the vehicle door, a check arm holder at least a portion of which is mounted to the other of the vehicle body and the vehicle door, and a controller. The check arm holder is configured to apply a variable braking force to the check arm. The controller is programmed to reduce the speed of the door by adjustment of the braking force upon determining that the speed of the door exceeds a maximum permissible door speed. The maximum permissible door speed is adjustable.”; ¶ 0074, “Referring to FIG. 6, the door accelerometer 66 may be a 3-axis accelerometer. Door speed may be derived by the controller 22 from the change in door position over time using data from position sensor 64, or alternatively, it may be derived from the acceleration data from accelerometer 66. The accelerometer may also be used as a vehicle orientation sensor.”; ¶ 0094, “If the door speed does exceed a maximum permissible door speed the controller 22 considers this to be a possible indicator that the wind has caused the door 16 to be flung and the door control system 10 enters the ‘HALT FLING’ state 116. In state 116 the controller 22 determines a desired fluid pressure (so as to apply a selected braking force) so as to bring the door speed down below a selected speed threshold value. The braking force applied may be a function of the door speed. For example, the controller 22 may apply a higher braking force if the door speed is higher and a lower braking force if the door speed is lower. While applying the braking force, if the controller 22 determines that the door speed has dropped below the selected speed threshold value (or that the motor 35 has stalled), the door control system 10 enters a ‘RESETTING BRAKE’ state 118 which may be essentially the same as the ‘TO BRAKE APPLIED’ state 112 and in which the braking force is adjusted to the holding force so as to hold the door 16 at its current position. In some embodiments, there is no ‘RESETTING BRAKE’ state 118 and any conditions that would have led to that state would instead lead to the ‘TO BRAKE APPLIED’ state 112. Upon a determination that the fluid pressure has reached the selected pressure so that the brake pistons 32 and 34 apply the holding force (or that the motor 35 has stalled), the door control system 10 enters the ‘BRAKE APPLIED’ state 114.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the door stopper for preventing door damage based on proximity within MENARD to track the door opening speed for preventing door damage of SENGUTTUVAN to yield a safer door damage prevention system that avoids sudden jolts of the door into obstacles that may not yet be detected.
Regarding claim 17:
MENARD discloses the limitations within claim 1 and further discloses:
the collision protection device is activated (see at least MENARD, ¶ 0028, “Upon activation of the system (i.e. a signal from the proximity detector) a locking pawl engages teeth 78 of the blocking disc 52. The locking pawl 72 is mounted to the vehicle body and is driven by a solenoid 76 that is directly driven by a signal from the proximity detector or through a controller as explained above. Upon activation of the locking pawl 72, the blocking disc 52 is locked in relation to the vehicle body. The follower disc 50 is rigidly mounted to the door and the blocking pin blocks the door from opening too far by hitting the leading edge 68 of the blocking disc 52. However, upon application of sufficient force on the door, the blocking pin can be made to rotate into the gap 60 allowing full movement (opening) of the door. The use of the movable blocking pin provides the advantages of: a) allowing a user to manually override the mechanism (i.e. a user could never be trapped in the vehicle by the mechanism), b) a fixed or rigid pin could be susceptible to damage from excessive force by the user, and c) a user could override any false actuation of the system such as parking in tall grass for example. Even with the locking pawl 72 engaged, the follower disc and door are allowed full closing movement since the trailing edge 70 is at least beyond the movement range of the blocking pin in the door closed position. The locking pawl can remain engaged for a short period of time after the door is closed or it can engage and disengage directly dependent upon the signal from the proximity detector.”)
MENARD does not disclose, but SAUERWEIN teaches:
if it is identified, by sensors, that the vehicle door is adjusted by a vehicle door user at an adjustment speed that exceeds a predefined speed threshold value. (see at least SAUERWEIN, ¶ 0006, “In another aspect, a vehicle door control system is provided for a vehicle having a vehicle body and a vehicle door. The door control system includes a check arm mounted to one of the vehicle body and the vehicle door, a check arm holder at least a portion of which is mounted to the other of the vehicle body and the vehicle door, and a controller. The check arm holder is configured to apply a variable braking force to the check arm. The controller is programmed to reduce the speed of the door by adjustment of the braking force upon determining that the speed of the door exceeds a maximum permissible door speed. The maximum permissible door speed is adjustable.”; ¶ 0074, “Referring to FIG. 6, the door accelerometer 66 may be a 3-axis accelerometer. Door speed may be derived by the controller 22 from the change in door position over time using data from position sensor 64, or alternatively, it may be derived from the acceleration data from accelerometer 66. The accelerometer may also be used as a vehicle orientation sensor.”; ¶ 0094, “If the door speed does exceed a maximum permissible door speed the controller 22 considers this to be a possible indicator that the wind has caused the door 16 to be flung and the door control system 10 enters the ‘HALT FLING’ state 116. In state 116 the controller 22 determines a desired fluid pressure (so as to apply a selected braking force) so as to bring the door speed down below a selected speed threshold value. The braking force applied may be a function of the door speed. For example, the controller 22 may apply a higher braking force if the door speed is higher and a lower braking force if the door speed is lower. While applying the braking force, if the controller 22 determines that the door speed has dropped below the selected speed threshold value (or that the motor 35 has stalled), the door control system 10 enters a ‘RESETTING BRAKE’ state 118 which may be essentially the same as the ‘TO BRAKE APPLIED’ state 112 and in which the braking force is adjusted to the holding force so as to hold the door 16 at its current position. In some embodiments, there is no ‘RESETTING BRAKE’ state 118 and any conditions that would have led to that state would instead lead to the ‘TO BRAKE APPLIED’ state 112. Upon a determination that the fluid pressure has reached the selected pressure so that the brake pistons 32 and 34 apply the holding force (or that the motor 35 has stalled), the door control system 10 enters the ‘BRAKE APPLIED’ state 114.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, the door stopper for preventing door damage based on proximity within MENARD to track the door opening speed for preventing door damage of SENGUTTUVAN to yield a safer door damage prevention system that avoids sudden jolts of the door into obstacles that may not yet be detected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NOTTEBAUM (US 20190055762 A1)
¶ 0044, “On the basis of FIG. 1, the method according to the invention is now described to act on the motor vehicle door 1 in the sense of deceleration to prevent a collision. In fact, it is initially proceeded in such a way that during an opening process of the motor vehicle door 1 the operator generates a relevant signal on the input side of the control unit 8 with the aid of the operator sensor 12. Thereupon the control unit 8 queries the environment sensor 9 and also the door sensor 11. If the environment sensor 9 in the example according to FIG. 1 registers the obstacle 10 in the pivot area of the motor vehicle door 1 already referred to, the control unit 8 ensures that the actuator 6 or the locking device 7 impinges on the motor vehicle door 1 taking into account a braking start predetermined by the control unit 8 and with a variable braking torque.”
BIHLER (US 20070188312 A1)
¶ 0031, “The inventive device receives input from sensors present in the vehicle such as environment sensors and vehicle sensors. As warning means, loud speaker or warning lights could be considered, which likewise could pre-exist in the vehicle. The evaluation unit as well as the micro-processor are, as a rule are, connected via a bus system with the environment sensors, that is, the ultra-sound sensors, radar sensors or infra-red sensors or cameras. Further, the sensors of the vehicle sensors are connected to the bus. Beyond this, further sensors can also be connected, for example, sensors that recognize the opening of a door. The micro-processor can also provide a further signal to the door locking unit, in order for example to prevent an opening of the door for at least a pre-determined period of time. Also, by the provision of a suitable signal, the angle of opening of the door can be limited.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL VELASQUEZ VANEGAS whose telephone number is (571)272-6999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4.
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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/RAFAEL VELASQUEZ VANEGAS/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/JOAN T GOODBODY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667