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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. While some of the references were included in the IDS with the parent application 17345898 not all were.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
There is no reference numeral 100 in either the embodiment of figures 13-14 or the embodiment of figures 15-16.
There is no reference character G in the new (in-part) figures 13-16 and 19A-22, although figures 19A-22 do include the words door and ground instead of the correct reference characters D and G respectively.
The embodiment of figures 17-18 should include an indication of second shaft 104.32.
Figures 22-32 are all improper shaded drawings that fail to meet the requirements for reproducibility of lies in 37 C.F.R. 1.84(l) and shading in 37 C.F.R. 1.84(m). Per 37 C.F.R. 1.84(a)(1) drawings should be black line drawings.
Figures 22-32 also include no reference characters.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification includes no description of reference numerals 206.84 or 206.85 other than in the list of reference numerals used.
Paragraph [0388] includes the linear actuation device 107.21 in lines 4-5 instead of the linear actuation device 107.2.
Paragraph [0390] includes the controller module 107.1 in line 7 instead of the controller module 106.7.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 1 is objected to because the limitation “to determine a delay for the closing by starting and extending or raising a linear motion device” in lines 7-8 appears to be missing some words. The closing is only initiated by raising the linear motion device so it would appears that “to determine a delay for the opening and closing by starting and extending or raising a linear motion device” was meant.
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.
Priority
Examiner notes that the present application does have proper priority to application 18198250, which in turn has priority to application 17345898 and provisional application 63102377. The present application is a CIP of 18198250 and the present claims are all directed to the new portion of figures 13-32, i.e. all claims are directed to the motorized embodiments. As such the effective filing date for the claims is the filing date of the present application: June 4, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 19, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US patent 11136812 to Rabinowitz (hereinafter Rab).
Regarding claim 13, the hands-free door opening and closing system is shown in Rab in the embodiment of figures 5A-5B with generic details from figures 2D-4C and 5C-6B with
a chassis (520), said chassis (520) configured to mount to the door (column 26 lines 44-45);
a first shaft (shown as 563 in figure 5C);
a second shaft (unnumbered axle for wheel 502);
at least one coupling link (512) having a first end (upper end figure 5A) and a second end (lower end figure 5A), said first end of said at least one coupling link (512) being mounted with respect to (i.e. connected together) said first shaft (563);
wherein said second shaft (unnumbered axle) is rotatably mounted (relative to chassis 520, figure 6B) proximate to said second end of said at least one coupling link (512);
a drive wheel (502), said drive wheel (502) being fixedly mounted to said second shaft (unnumbered axle);
a motor (510), said motor (510) being configured, when activated, to cause said drive wheel (502) to rotate a first selective amount of angular rotation;
a linear actuator (514), a first end (upper end figure 5A) of said linear actuator (514) being rotatably mounted (via 532) with respect to said chassis (520), and a second end (lower end figure 5A) of said linear actuator (514) being rotatably mounted with respect to said at least one coupling link (512) or with respect to said second shaft (unnumbered axle);
a controller module (236), said controller module (236) configured to cause said linear actuator (514) to extend (figure 6B) to cause a desired amount of pressure between said drive wheel (502) and the floor surface or ground surface;
a switch (138) configured to be toggled to trigger said activation of said motor (510) to cause said drive wheel (502) to rotate said first selective amount of angular rotation, to thereby drive the door to move from a door closed position into a desired door open position.
While the control panel (138) appears to be a switch (i.e. a current switching device like a switch or on/off button), if applicant disagrees examiner notes actuation switches (237 and 238) are specifically taught elsewhere in Rad.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hands-free door system of Rad with an actuation switch (i.e. wall switch) because switches provided the known benefit of easy actuation of motors and other electrical devices.
Regarding claim 14, the controller module (236) is configured to cause the linear actuator (514) to adjust in real time to maintain the desired amount of pressure between the drive wheel (502) and the floor surface or ground surface (see step 306 details as well as column 6 lines 3-5) in Rad.
Regarding claim 19, the first shaft (563) rotates (figure 6B) relative to the chassis (520) in Rad.
Regarding claim 21, the motor (510) is configured to directly (gearbox 509 optional) drive said drive wheel (502) to rotate in Rad.
Regarding claim 23, the hands-free door opening and closing system is shown in Rab in the embodiment of figures 5A-5B with generic details from figures 2D-4C and 5C-6B with
a drive wheel (502);
a mounting bracket (512);
an axle (unnumbered, shown in figure 5A), wherein said axle is configured to rotatably mount said drive wheel (502) with respect to said bracket (512);
a motor (510), said motor (510) being configured, when activated, to cause said drive wheel (502) to rotate;
a chassis (520), said chassis (520) configured to mount to the door (column 26 lines 44-45);
means for linear actuating (514) of said bracket-mounted (512) drive wheel (502) relative to said chassis (520) between a retracted position (figure 6A) and one or more extended positions (figure 6B);
a controller module (236), said controller module (236) configured to cause said means for linear actuating (514) to extend into any of said one or more extended positions to cause a desired amount of pressure between said drive wheel (502) and the floor surface or ground surface;
a switch (138), said switch configured to trigger said activation of said motor (510) to cause said drive wheel (502) to rotate said a selective amount of angular rotation, to thereby drive the door to move from a door closed position into a desired door open position, when said motor (510) is actuated to open the door.
While the control panel (138) appears to be a switch (i.e. a current switching device like a switch or on/off button), if applicant disagrees examiner notes actuation switches (237 and 238) are specifically taught elsewhere in Rad.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hands-free door system of Rad with an actuation switch (i.e wall switch) because switches provided the known benefit of easy actuation of motors and other electrical devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rad in view of US PG Pub 2021/0388659 to Jaroff (hereinafter Jaroff).
Regarding claim 6, the hands-free door opening and closing system is shown in Rab in the embodiment of figures 5A-5D with generic details from figures 2D-4C and 5C-6B with
a chassis (520), said chassis (520) configured to mount to the door (column 26 lines 44-45);
a drive wheel (502), said drive wheel (502) being fixedly mounted to said second shaft (axle, unnumbered but shown in figure 5A);
at least one coupling link (512) having a first end (upper) and a second end (lower), , and said second shaft (unnumbered axle) being rotatably mounted proximate to a second end (lower) of said at least one coupling link (512);
a second gear (in gear box 508);
a motor (510), said motor (510) being configured, when actuated, to cause said drive wheel (502) to rotate;
wherein said amount of rotation of said drive wheel (502) is correlated to a radial distance of the mounting location of said chassis (502) on the door from the axis of a hinge of the door, and in combination with contact of said drive wheel (502) with a floor surface or ground surface, causes rotation of the door a desired angular amount from a door closed position into a desired door open position; and
means for triggering of said actuation (138 and 204) of said motor (510).
However, while Rad teaches a gear box Rad is silent as to the details of the gear box, i.e. two gear with two shafts.
A two gear and shaft arrangement is shown in Jaroff in figure 1-4 with first shaft (2.5) having a first gear (4.1) and a second shaft (4.5) having a second gear (4.4) with the first gear (4.1) being connected toa drive and meshing with (via additional gears 4.2 and 4.3) the second gear (4.4) to drive the second shaft (4.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hands-free door system of Rad with the two gear and shaft arrangement of Jaroff because a variety of gear arrangements connecting drives and wheel shafts were known in the art and the two gear and shaft arrangement provides a simple easy to use and easy to replace arrangement.
Regarding claim 7, the motor (502) can drive the door from open to closed and closed to open in Rad.
Regarding claim 8, the coupling link (512) mounts the second shaft (axle of drive wheel 502) to move relative to the chassis between a first position (figure 6A) and a second position (figure 6B) and the system includes a linear actuator (514), a first end (upper end in figure 5A) of said linear actuator (514) being rotatably secured (via 532) with respect to said chassis (520), and a second end (lower end) of said linear actuator (514) being rotatably coupled to said at least one coupling link (512);
a controller module (236);
wherein said controller (236) module is configured to cause said linear actuator (514) to extend (figure 6B) to cause a desired amount of pressure between said drive wheel (502) and the floor surface or ground surface, when said motor (510) is actuated to open the door; and
wherein said controller module (236) is configured to retract and thereby raise (figure 6A) said drive wheel (502) off of the floor surface or ground surface, permitting automatic closing of the door in Rad. When provided with the dual gear and shaft arrangement of Jaroff the second shaft would rotate relative to the first shaft, similar to the arrangement in Jaroff.
Regarding claim 22, while Rad teaches a gear box and two shafts, the gear are not related to the shafts.
A two gear and shaft arrangement is shown in Jaroff in figure 1-4 with first shaft (2.5) having a first gear (4.1) and a second shaft (4.5) having a second gear (4.4) with the first gear (4.1) being connected toa drive and meshing with (via additional gears 4.2 and 4.3) the second gear (4.4) to drive the second shaft (4.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hands-free door system of Rad with the two gear and shaft arrangement of Jaroff because a variety of gear arrangements connecting drives and wheel shafts were known in the art and the two gear and shaft arrangement provides a simple easy to use arrangement that can be more compact (i.e. gear on existing support shafts rather than in separate gear box).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rad and Jaroff as applied to claim 6 (as well as 7, 8, and 22) above, and further in view of US patent 6194857 to Stolz (hereinafter Stolz).
Regarding claim 9, the controller module (236) is configured to monitor door opening (via sensors 234, 237, 238, 239, 243, 206, and 216) and adjust the linear actuator (514) in real time (see step 306 details as well as column 6 lines 3-5) in Rad.
However, none of the sensors are an idler wheel sensor.
An idler wheel sensor is shown in Stolz in figure 1 where idler (non-driving, sensor purpose only) wheel (28) is detected by Hall sensors (32,34) forming an idler wheel position sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hands-free door system of Rad, having the two gear and shaft arrangement of Jaroff, with the idler wheel sensor or Hall magnet wheel sensor arrangement of Stolz because Hall wheel sensors were a well-known and readily available type of sensor and allow for the known benefit of monitoring rotating members such as the motor or wheel shaft to determine position/number of rotation/speed and thus better monitor status of the door and adds an additional redundancy protection to the sensor arrangement of Rad.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rad, Jaroff, and Stolz as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US patent 9163446 to Houser (hereinafter Houser).
Regarding claim 10, the means for triggering (138 and 204) includes hands-free options (panel 138 may be operated by elbow and wireless 204 detects the person contact free).
However, Rad is silent as to a time delay.
A time delay is shown in Houser in figures 1-14B where controller module (20a,20b) for a door opening and closing system (22a,22b) includes a time delay (see timer in flowcharts figures 12A-14B) to hold the door (24) in position (activation of warning lights time period) before allowing the system (22a,22b) to move the door (24). While the time delay of Houser is for closing, examiner notes the concept of a time delay is what Houser is being applied for and when provided to Rad the time delay would include opening in keeping with the warning safety system of Rad operating for both opening and closing movement of the door.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hands-free door system of Rad, having the two gear and shaft arrangement of Jaroff and the idler wheel sensor or Hall magnet wheel sensor arrangement of Stolz, with the time delay of Houser because time delays provided the known benefit of increased safety by helping limit unwanted contact between door and a person nearby when the door is moved by an operator, in keeping with the buzzer and light warning system of Rad that alerts people nearby to door movement by motor.
Regarding claim 11, as noted with claim 10 the time delay would be for both opening and closing in Rad.
Regarding claim 12, the motor (510) has a battery (220,230) that is rechargeable (column 18 lines 32-36) in Rad.
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rad in view Houser.
Regarding claim 15, Rad is silent as to a time delay.
A time delay is shown in Houser in figures 1-14B where controller module (20a,20b) for a door opening and closing system (22a,22b) includes a time delay (see timer in flowcharts figures 12A-14B) to hold the door (24) in position (activation of warning lights time period) before allowing the system (22a,22b) to move the door (24). While the time delay of Houser is for closing, examiner notes the concept of a time delay is what Houser is being applied for and when provided to Rad the time delay would include opening in keeping with the warning safety system of Rad operating for both opening and closing movement of the door.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hands-free door system of Rad with the time delay of Houser because time delays provided the known benefit of increased safety by helping limit unwanted contact between door and a person nearby when the door is moved by an operator, in keeping with the buzzer and light warning system of Rad that alerts people nearby to door movement by motor.
Regarding claim 16, the motor (510) causes the wheel (502) to rotate in opposite direction to close and open the door in Rad.
Regarding claim 17, the controller module (236) is configured to cause the linear actuator (514) to retract and thereby permit automatic self-closing (with closer 710) in Rad.
Regarding claim 18, when provided with the time delay of Houser, the wheel retraction or automatic closing would include the time delay in Rad.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rad in view of US patent 7021007 to Jacobs (hereinafter Jacobs).
Regarding claim 20, the first coupling link (512) does not rotate relative to the first shaft (563) in Rad, i.e. the link and shaft are fixed together.
A rotating support is shown in Jacobs in figures 1-6 where coupling link (401) rotates around a first shaft (133) to allow for movement of a second shaft (404) and a wheel (405) connected to the second shaft to adjust the height of the second shaft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hands-free door system of Rad with the rotating support link of Jacobs because the rotating support allows for the same wheel height adjustment and provides the benefit of a simpler design (i.e. single interconnected unit rather than separate sliding block 516 and link 512).
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rad in view of Houser, Stolz, and US PG Pub 2022/0108581 to Jain (hereinafter Jain).
Regarding claim 1, a door opener with motor assist is shown in Rad in figures 5A-5B with generic features from figures 2D-4C and 5C-6B with
a control module (236) associated with a trigger (138 and 204) communicating with a motorized unit (510) having gears (509) for moving a door opening and closing drive wheel (502);
said foot operable (intended use, possible with trigger 204) door opener having a sensor system (sensors 234, 237, 238, 239, 243, 245, 206, and 216) to send information to said controller module (236) to control the speed of the door opening, the length of travel for the door, the travel angle to open the door and the control module (236) initiates opening or closing by starting and extending or raising a linear motion device (514) to engage the door opening and closing drive wheel (502)for opening and closing the door.
However, Rad does not teach a foot pedal, a time delay, or a wheel idler sensor.
A foot pedal is shown in Jain in the embodiment of figures 9-13 where foot pedal (850) signals a control module (880) to operate a motor (860) to move a door (832).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hands-free door system of Rad with the foot pedal of Jain because foot pedal operators provided the known benefit of an additional hands-free activation of the motor (besides sensor activation) and thereby facilitate the ease of use of the door opener.
An idler wheel sensor is shown in Stolz in figure 1 where idler (non-driving, sensor purpose only) wheel (28) is detected by Hall sensors (32,34) forming an idler wheel position sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hands-free door system of Rad with the idler wheel sensor or Hall magnet wheel sensor arrangement of Stolz because Hall wheel sensors were a well-known and readily available type of sensor and allow for the known benefit of monitoring rotating members such as the motor or wheel shaft to determine position/number of rotation/speed and thus better monitor status of the door and adds an additional redundancy protection to the sensor arrangement of Rad.
A time delay is shown in Houser in figures 1-14B where controller module (20a,20b) for a door opening and closing system (22a,22b) includes a time delay (see timer in flowcharts figures 12A-14B) to hold the door (24) in position (activation of warning lights time period) before allowing the system (22a,22b) to move the door (24). While the time delay of Houser is for closing, examiner notes the concept of a time delay is what Houser is being applied for and when provided to Rad the time delay would include opening in keeping with the warning safety system of Rad operating for both opening and closing movement of the door.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hands-free door system of Rad with the time delay of Houser because time delays provided the known benefit of increased safety by helping limit unwanted contact between door and a person nearby when the door is moved by an operator, in keeping with the buzzer and light warning system of Rad that alerts people nearby to door movement by motor.
Regarding claim 2, the controller module (236) includes a proximity sensor (234) for detecting people or objects near the door and prevents movement of the door in Rad and , when provided with the time delay of Stolz and the foot pedal of Jain, the time delay would apply to the foot pedal, i.e. would delay the trigger of the motor after signal of the pedal to the controller module.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rad, Jain, Stolz, and Houser as applied to claim 2 (as well as claim 1) above, and further in view of US patent 11215003 to Nash (hereinafter Nash).
Regarding claim 3, the controller module (236) is configured to cause the linear actuator (514) to adjust in real time to maintain the desired amount of pressure between the drive wheel (502) and the floor surface or ground surface (see step 306 details as well as column 6 lines 3-5) and senses (via sensor 216) the current draw on the motor of the linear actuator (514) in Rad.
However, Rad does not teach a spring biased wheel.
A spring biased wheel is shown in Nash in figures 1-5 where spring (at lower end of 20) biases wheel (70) downward.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the hands-free door system of Rad, having the foot pedal of Jain, the wheel sensor of Stolz, and the time delay of Houser because spring biased wheel provided the known benefit of facilitating engagement between the wheel and the surface below it by pressing the wheel downward.
Regarding claim 4, the controller module (236) communicates with a sensor (245) to monitor wheel speed and the desired speed parameters can be programmed during set up (step 108) so the controller module, if programmed to do so, would controller the motor (510) and gear (509) to start slow, increase speed, and then slow down for closing (a common programming setting for doors) and the controller module (236) can detect obstructions (via sensor 234) and increase in current (via sensor 206) on the motor (510) and control the door appropriately (i.e. close and reset is within the programmable aspect of the controller) in Rad.
Regarding claim 5, proximity sensor (234) detects obstructions and signals controller module (236) to prevent contact between door and obstruction (i.e. door hold) in Rad.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619