DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected under new grounds. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. A response to Applicant’s arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
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) 1, 5, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohme (US 2021/0001908 A1) in view of Reed et al. (US 2021/0265898 A1).
Referring to Claim 1: Bohme teaches a crossing gate mechanism comprising:
an electric brushless direct current (BLDC) motor (320) (Para. [0007], “brushless 12 VDC motor”) with at least one sensing device (Para. [0028], “Hall effect sensors”),
a crossing gate arm (7) operated via the BLDC motor (Para. [0018]), and
a controller (312) configured to control the BLDC motor (Para. [0031]) (Fig. 3),
wherein the controller is configured to control the BLDC motor to raise or lower the crossing gate arm in response to a gate control signal (via 340), and wherein the controller comprises a Hall state encoder (Para. [0028]) configured to determine a direction of an arm motion based on signals from the at least one sensing device (Para. [0007]).
Bohme does not teach that the Hall state encoder is configured to determine direction by encoding Hall effect sensor signals into Hall states, where Hall states received in a first order indicate forward direction and Hall states received in a second order indicate reverse direction. However, Reed teaches a Hall sensor fault detection for gate crossing mechanisms, wherein the Hall state encoder is configured to determine direction (abstract) by encoding Hall effect sensor signals into Hall states, where Hall states received in a first order indicate forward direction and Hall states received in a second order indicate reverse direction (Para. [0035]) (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bohme to determine the motor rotation using a Hall state encoder and the indicated Hall states, as taught by Reed, in order to determine the direction of the rotation of the shaft of the motor with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 5: Bohme teaches the crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensing device comprises one or more Hall effect sensor(s) (Para. [0028]).
Referring to Claim 6: Bohme teaches the crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, wherein the controller (312) comprises a position estimator that, together with the Hall state encoder (Para. [0028]), is configured to track an arm position of the crossing gate arm (Para. [0038]).
Referring to Claim 9: Bohme teaches the crossing gate mechanism of claim 8, wherein the controller (312) is configured to implement the drive-strength command by commutating multiple phases of the BLDC motor (320) based on output signals from the Hall state encoder (Para. [0007] and [0028]).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohme in view of Reed and Harp (US 2021/0086810 A1).
Referring to Claim 2: Although Bohme teaches that the controller (312) is a printed circuit board (PCB) capable of being programmed by a human using an on-site interface (310) (Para. [0030]), Bohme does not specifically recite “a field-programmable gate array (FPGA)”. However, Harp teaches a shunt frequency check and transit system, wherein the controller is implemented as a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) or an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit). (Para. [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bohme to use an FPGA as the controller, as taught by Harp, because an FPGA is a well-known type of processor capable of being repeatedly programmed according to the special purposes needed with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 3: Although Bohme teaches that the controller (312) is a printed circuit board (PCB) capable of being programmed by a human using an on-site interface (310) (Para. [0030]), Bohme does not specifically teach that the controller is implemented in a real-time central processing unit (CPU), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a complex programmable logic device (CPLD) or a system-on-chip (SoC). However, Harp teaches a shunt frequency check and transit system, wherein the controller is implemented as a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) or an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit). (Para. [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bohme to use an ASIC as the controller, as taught by Harp, because an ASIC is a well-known type of circuit capable of performing specific processing functions in a cost effective manner with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohme in view of Reed, Harp and Fox et al. (US 2021/0053597 A1).
Referring to Claim 4: Although Bohme teaches that the controller (312) is a printed circuit board (PCB) capable of being programmed by a human using an on-site interface (310) (Para. [0030]), Bohme does not specifically teach that the SoC comprises a CPU and an FPGA. However, Fox teaches remote control of traffic gates, wherein “[t]he controllers 204, 218 (and indeed the electronic circuit 105) can comprise one or more processors, microprocessors, microcontrollers, electronic control modules (ECMs), system on chip (SOC) such as application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), electronic control units (ECUs), or any other suitable means” (Para. [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bohme to implement the controller as an SoC comprising a CPU and an FPGA, as suggested by Fox, because an SOC, a CPU and an FPGA are all well-known types of processors suitable for performing specific processing functions in a cost effective manner with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohme in view of Reed and Ozaki et al. (US 2019/0360255 A1).
Referring to Claim 7: Bohme teaches the crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, wherein the controller comprises a gate control state machine (340), and a position
Bohme does not specifically teach that the position controller is a PID controller. However, Ozaki teaches a door control device and method, wherein “[t]o the speed regulator unit 2003, a controller for feedback control such as, for example, a PID (Proportional Integral Differential) controller may be applied as desired” (Para. [0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bohme to implement the position controller as a PID controller, as taught by Ozaki, because a PID controller is commonly used to provide feedback control for more precise position and speed control of electric motors with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 8: Bohme does not specifically teach that the controller comprises a speed PID (proportional-integral-derivative) controller that is configured to compare the desired speed to an actual speed of the crossing gate arm and provide a drive-strength command to the BLDC motor. However, Ozaki teaches a door control device and method, wherein “[t]o the speed regulator unit 2003, a controller for feedback control such as, for example, a PID (Proportional Integral Differential) controller may be applied as desired” (Para. [0045]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bohme to implement the position controller as a PID controller, as taught by Ozaki, because a PID controller is commonly used to compare values and provide feedback control for more precise position and speed control of electric motors with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 10: Bohme in view of Ozaki, as applied to claim 8, further teaches the crossing gate mechanism of claim 8, wherein the speed PID controller is configured to output a PWM (pulse width modulation) command to a commutator (Para. [0007]), wherein the PWM command is converted into a motor direction and PWM duty cycle (Para. [0044] and [0046]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohme in view of Reed, Ozaki and Crosby et al. (US 2017/0294819 A1).
Referring to Claim 11: Bohme does not specifically teach that the commutator is configured to activate half-bridge field-effect transistors (FETs) that provide current to the multiple phases of the BLDC motor. However, Crosby teaches a brushless motor for a power tool, wherein the commutator is configured to activate field-effect transistors (FETs) that provide current to the multiple phases of the BLDC motor (200) (Para. [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Bohme to configure the commutator to activate FETs to provide current to the BLDC motor, as taught by Crosby, because FETs are commonly used to regulate the power to multiple phases of a motors using PWM for more precise position and speed control with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the instant claimed steps of method claims 12-20, note that the operation of the prior structure of claims 1, 3 and 5-11, respectively, inherently requires the method steps as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Bohme fails to teach that the Hall state encoder is configured to determine direction by encoding Hall effect sensors into Hall states, where Hall states received in a first order indicate forward direction and Hall states received in a second order indicate reverse direction. Further, the rest of the prior art references, including Reed, Ozaki, Harp, Fox and Crosby, fail to remedy the deficiencies of Bohme, regarding the motor direction detection. Examiner agrees. However, the newly introduced Reed teaches a Hall state encoder that is configured to determine direction (abstract) by encoding Hall effect sensor signals into Hall states, where Hall states received in a first order indicate forward direction and Hall states received in a second order indicate reverse direction (Para. [0035]) (Fig. 2). Thus, the amended claims are obvious in view of Reed. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection citing Reed that are presented in this Final Rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617