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 .
Claim Status
Applicant's preliminary amendments filed on 11/13/23 have been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 7, the drawing title recites “with a protection glas in front” and it appears that the word “glas” is a typographical error. It is suggested to replace the word with --glass-- to improve clarity.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhein et al. US20190057824 in view of Fu et al. US20210247490.
Regarding independent claim 1, Rhein discloses, in Figures 1-6,
A system (Rhein; Fig. 1-6) for determining a position of a movable arm (Rhein; blade 205) of a high voltage disconnecting switch (Rhein; high voltage switch 110; [0016] “high voltage”), the system comprising: a high voltage disconnecting switch (Rhein; high voltage switch 110; [0016] “high voltage”) with a movable arm (Rhein; blade 205) for opening and closing the high voltage disconnecting switch; a sensor (Rhein; optical sensor 305; [0020] “optical sensor”) configured to determine a (Rhein; [0020] optical sensor 305 senses when the blade 205 is in the “closed position”); and a control device (Rhein; collector 115 that comprises controller 400) configured to determine, based on the, whether the high voltage disconnecting switch is in an open state or in a closed state (Rhein; [0020] the collector 115 with controller 400 and in communication with the optical sensor 305 determines when the blade 205 is in the “closed position”).
Rhein is silent regarding a time of flight sensor (7) configured to determine a distance value indicating a distance between the time of flight sensor (7) and the movable arm (3); and a control device (9) configured to determine, based on the distance value, whether the high voltage disconnecting switch (5) is in an open state or in a closed state.
Fu teaches a fast-scanning FMCW lidar system 102 that detects and assigns an object distance and an object velocity to each pixel for each frame for the purpose of providing “high angular resolution, strong signal to noise ratio (SNR), immunity to ambient light, and measuring range and velocity at the same time” (Fu; fast-scanning FMCW lidar system 102; [0014] “By scanning each pixel in a sequence of frames, range and range-rate (e.g., distance and velocity) of objects can be inferred.” and “The beat frequencies from different chirps are decomposed into object distance or "range" and object velocity or "range-rate" for each pixel during each frame. The process repeats for each frame.”; [0001] “because lidar allows for high angular resolution, strong signal to noise ratio (SNR), immunity to ambient light, and measuring range and velocity at the same time”]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the optical sensor as taught by Rhein with the fast-scanning FMCW lidar as taught by Fu for the purpose of providing “high angular resolution, strong signal to noise ratio (SNR), immunity to ambient light, and measuring range and velocity at the same time” (Fu; [0001] “because lidar allows for high angular resolution, strong signal to noise ratio (SNR), immunity to ambient light, and measuring range and velocity at the same time”]).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Rhein teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The system of claim 1, wherein the movable arm (Rhein; blade 205) is configured to rotationally (Rhein; blade 205 rotates at hinge 235; hinge 235 is shown in Fig. 2) move within a plane of the rotational movement and wherein the time of flight sensor is arranged outside the plane (Rhein; Fig. 3B; sensor 305 is located beside the rotational plane of the blade 305) and directed towards the plane, such that at least a part of the movable arm is within a field of view of the time of flight sensor during at least a part of a movement of the movable arm from the closed state to the open state (Rhein; Fig. 3B; sensor 305 is configured to detect the position of the blade 305 as modified/substituted with Fu’s fast-scanning FMCW lidar system 102).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Rhein teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The system of claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to determine a velocity of the movable arm, based on the distance value (Fu; fast-scanning FMCW lidar system 102; [0014] “By scanning each pixel in a sequence of frames, range and range-rate (e.g., distance and velocity) of objects can be inferred.” and “The beat frequencies from different chirps are decomposed into object distance or "range" and object velocity or "range-rate" for each pixel during each frame. The process repeats for each frame.”; velocity is based on distance, time, and direction).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Rhein teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The system of claim 1, wherein the time of flight sensor comprises an image sensor with a plurality of pixels, the image sensor being configured to output a distance value for each one of the plurality of pixels, wherein the control device is configured to determine whether the high voltage disconnecting switch is in the open state or in the closed state based on the plurality of distance values for the plurality of pixels (Fu; fast-scanning FMCW lidar system 102; [0014] “By scanning each pixel in a sequence of frames, range and range-rate (e.g., distance and velocity) of objects can be inferred.” and “The beat frequencies from different chirps are decomposed into object distance or "range" and object velocity or "range-rate" for each pixel during each frame. The process repeats for each frame.”; Fig. 3-3 and [0032] show lidar data and pixels 312 that characterizes the object located in the field-of-view 106).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Rhein teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The system (1) of claim 5, wherein the time of flight sensor (7) comprises an image sensor with a plurality of pixels, the image sensor being configured to output a distance value for each one of the plurality of pixels, wherein the control device (9) is configured to determine the velocity of the movable arm (3) based on the plurality of distance values for the plurality of pixels (Fu; fast-scanning FMCW lidar system 102; [0014] “By scanning each pixel in a sequence of frames, range and range-rate (e.g., distance and velocity) of objects can be inferred.” and “The beat frequencies from different chirps are decomposed into object distance or "range" and object velocity or "range-rate" for each pixel during each frame. The process repeats for each frame.”; Fig. 3-3 and [0032] show lidar data and pixels 312 that characterizes the object located in the field-of-view 106).
Regarding independent claim 10, Modified Rhein teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Modified Rhein teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 5.
Regarding claim 12, Modified Rhein teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, Modified Rhein teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 7.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhein and Fu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roby et al. US20190252135.
Regarding claims 3-4, Modified Rhein teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The system of claim 1, wherein the movable arm (Rhein; blade 205) is configured to rotationally (Rhein; blade 205 rotates at hinge 235; hinge 235 is shown in Fig. 2) move a plane of the rotational movement and wherein the time of flight sensor is arranged the plane and directed towards the movable arm, such that at least a part of the movable arm is within a field of view of the time of flight sensor in the closed state (Rhein; Fig. 3B; sensor 305 is configured to detect the position of the blade 305 as modified/substituted with Fu’s fast-scanning FMCW lidar system 102).
Modified Rhein does not teach wherein the time of flight sensor is arranged within the plane; wherein the time of flight sensor is arranged such that the movable arm is within the field of view of the time of flight sensor both in the open state and in the closed state.
Roby teaches wherein the time of flight sensor is arranged within the plane and directed towards the movable arm, such that at least a part of the movable arm is within a field of view of the time of flight sensor in both the closed state and the open state (Roby; [0018] the assembly of light source 12 and light detection device 15 that optically monitors the travel path of moving part 6 of circuit breaker 5; [0019] “travel curve is to be monitored during a switching operation”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sensor location as taught by Modified Rhein so that the sensor is positioned within the movable arm’s rotational plane to monitor both the open and closed states as taught by Roby for the purpose of monitoring the travel curve of the switching operation (Roby; [0019] “travel curve is to be monitored during a switching operation”).
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhein and Fu as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Roby et al. US20190252135 and Zadeh US20180328781.
Regarding claim 8, Modified Rhein teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The system of claim 1, wherein the control device (Rhein; collector 115 that comprises controller 400) is further configured to the time of flight sensor detecting a change in the distance value (Fu; fast-scanning FMCW lidar system 102).
Modified Rhein does not teach wherein the control device is further configured to switch on at least one additional sensor in response to the time of flight sensor detecting a change in the distance value.
Roby teaches having an accelerometer 8 mounted to a circuit breaker 5 for the purpose of identifying “a change of direction of movement of the moving part 6 of the circuit breaker 5” (Roby; accelerometer 8; [0019] “the vibration signal is employed to identify a change of direction of movement of the moving part 6 of the circuit breaker 5”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as taught by Modified Rhein to include an accelerometer as taught by Roby for the purpose of identifying “a change of direction of movement of the moving part 6 of the circuit breaker 5” (Roby; [0019] “the vibration signal is employed to identify a change of direction of movement of the moving part 6 of the circuit breaker 5”).
Modified Rhein does not teach wherein the control device is further configured to switch on at least one additional sensor in response to the time of flight sensor detecting a change in the distance value.
Zadeh teaches a first sensor that triggers a second sensor to wake up from an from an off/idle, power conservation mode and to be in an active mode for the purpose of gathering additional data when an object’s condition/status needs to be monitored (Zadeh; [0117] “the second one only gets activated (and being read by the central processor), when the first sensor detects the object in the first place, to trigger the second sensor to work/measure, to conserve the overall system resources for the second sensors, when not needed (i.e., when the first sensor does not detect any object in the first place, there is no need to measure accurately or in a fine manner, by the second sensor, and the second sensor circuitry and activity is off or idle”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control device configuration as taught by Modified Rhein so that it switches on the additional sensor/accelerometer as taught by Zadeh for the purpose of gathering additional data when an object’s condition/status needs to be monitored.
Regarding claim 14, Modified Rhein teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhein and Fu as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Roby et al. US20190252135 and Hsu US20140124647.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Rhein teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The system of claim 1, wherein the control device is further configured to switch off at least one additional sensor in response to the time of flight sensor detecting no change in the distance value for at least a predetermined time.
Modified Rhein does not teach wherein the control device is further configured to switch off at least one additional sensor in response to the time of flight sensor detecting no change in the distance value for at least a predetermined time.
Roby teaches having an accelerometer 8 mounted to a circuit breaker 5 for the purpose of identifying “a change of direction of movement of the moving part 6 of the circuit breaker 5” (Roby; accelerometer 8; [0019] “the vibration signal is employed to identify a change of direction of movement of the moving part 6 of the circuit breaker 5”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system as taught by Modified Rhein to include an accelerometer as taught by Roby for the purpose of identifying “a change of direction of movement of the moving part 6 of the circuit breaker 5” (Roby; [0019] “the vibration signal is employed to identify a change of direction of movement of the moving part 6 of the circuit breaker 5”).
Modified Rhein does not teach wherein the control device is further configured to switch off at least one additional sensor in response to the time of flight sensor detecting no change in the distance value for at least a predetermined time.
Hsu teaches that when an objection is detected to be motionless for a predetermined period of time, then a control unit 330 turns off a sensing device 315 for the purpose of reducing power consumption (Hsu; [0020] “allowing the sensing device 315 to enter a low power consumption operating state or stop operating” and “Once it is found that there is no obvious difference between these detection results SR_1 (i.e. the object is motionless) or the object leaves from the specific space L”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control device configuration as taught by Modified Rhein so that it switches off the additional sensor as taught by Hsu for the purpose of reducing power consumption (Hsu; [0020] “allowing the sensing device 315 to enter a low power consumption operating state or stop operating”).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Rhein teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rister et al. US20100025209 teaches detecting a switch position based on an optical signal.
Meinherz et al. US6697247 teaches a high voltage system with a camera 9 that detects the position of a switch by monitoring an axially-movable contact pin 4.
Rumfield US5566041 teaches a light detector mechanism 44 that monitors the position of linkage arm 28 for a circuit breaker B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 1/13/26