DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term "wherein the first power output channel is connected to a second protection circuit" should read "wherein the second power output channel is connected to a second protection circuit". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitations of a "safety power channel" and a "standard power channel". It is unclear what comprises "safety power" versus "standard power". The meaning of the term is not clear from the claims or specification.
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 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) 1-6, 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haensgen et al, US Patent Pub US 20180024605 A1 (hereinafter Haensgen).
Claim 1
Haensgen discloses a power supply for use in an industrial automation environment, comprising: a housing (Haensgen, para 2-3 – A power supply used in an industrial environment with a housing enclosing the components.); a safety input interface (Haensgen, para 51 – Safety input.); a switched-mode power supply contained within the housing (Haensgen, para 37 – Switched voltage/”switched mode power supply” injected into the switched power zone.); safe-off circuitry contained within the housing and connected to the switched-mode power supply (Haensgen, para 49 – Safe-off circuitry withing housing and connected to the switched voltage/”switched mode power supply”.); a first power output channel that is connected to the switched-mode power supply for providing power to first industrial automation equipment (Haensgen, para 36, 42-43 – A first power output channel connected to the switched voltage/”switched mode power supply” to provide power to industrial equipment.); a first protection circuit that is connected to the first power output channel and configured to protect the first power output channel (Haensgen, para 36, 42-43 Fig. 1B refs(117-126, 145-146) – First protection circuits including voltage sensor, current sensor, filter, and switch to protect the first power output channel.); a second power output channel that is connected to the switched-mode power supply for providing power to second industrial automation equipment (Haensgen, para 36, 42-43 – A second power output channel connected to the switched voltage/”switched mode power supply” to provide power to industrial equipment.); a second protection circuit that is connected to the second power output channel and configured to protect the second power output channel (Haensgen, para 36, 42-43 Fig. 1B refs(128-136, 147-148) – Second protection circuits including voltage sensor, current sensor, filter, and switch to protect the second power output channel.); and a processor configured to: receive a safety input signal via the safety input interface, the safety input signal instructing the power supply to shut off the power that is provided to the first industrial automation equipment via the first power output channel; and cause the safe-off circuitry to shut off the power that is provided to the first industrial automation equipment via the first power output channel. (Haensgen, para 49-51 Fig. 1B refs(112-113, 126, 136, 152) – Microcontrollers/processor configured to receive the safety input signal to open a switch that shuts off power to the first or second power output channels.)
This rejection also applies to claim 17.
Claim 2
Haensgen discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Haensgen further discloses the processor is configured to cause the safe-off circuitry to shut off the power that is provided to the first industrial automation equipment via the first power output channel without causing the safe-off circuitry to shut off the power that is provided to the second industrial automation equipment via the second power output channel. (Haensgen, para 49-51 Fig. 1B refs(112-113, 126, 136, 152) – Microcontrollers/processor configured to receive the safety input signal to open a switch that shuts off power to the first or second power output channels individually.)
Claim 3
Haensgen discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Haensgen further discloses the processor is configured to receive the safety input signal from a safety controller in the industrial automation environment that is separate from the power supply. (Haensgen, para 51, 75 – Receiving the safety input signal from a safety sensing device/controller wired to the dedicated safety input separate from the power supply.)
This rejection also applies to claims 15 and 18.
Claim 4
Haensgen discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Haensgen further discloses the processor is configured to receive the safety input signal from an emergency stop device in the industrial automation environment that is separate from the power supply. (Haensgen, para 51 – Receiving the safety input signal from an emergency stop pushbutton wired to the dedicated safety input separate from the power supply.)
This rejection also applies to claim 16.
Claim 5
Haensgen discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Haensgen further discloses the emergency stop device is hard-wired to the power supply. (Haensgen, para 51 – Receiving the safety input signal from an emergency stop pushbutton wired to the dedicated safety input separate from the power supply.)
This rejection also applies to claim 19.
Claim 6
Haensgen discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Haensgen further discloses the first protection circuit is configured to prevent the power supply from delivering more than a first threshold amount of current via the first power output channel; and the second protection circuit is configured to prevent the power supply from delivering more than a second threshold amount of current via the second power output channel. (Haensgen, para 43 – The current limit circuits may limit output current from the intelligent safety power tap within a preset current threshold, where the output current includes switched output current.)
Claim 11
Haensgen discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Haensgen further discloses the first power output channel is configured as a safety power channel; and the second power output channel is configured as a standard power channel. (Haensgen, para 36, 42-43 Fig. 1B refs(117-126, 145-146) – First and second protection circuits including voltage sensor, current sensor, filter, and switch to protect the first and second power output channels to provide standard power and safety responses/”safety power”.)
Claim 12
Haensgen discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Haensgen further discloses a third power output channel that is connected to the switched-mode power supply for providing power to third industrial automation equipment; and a third protection circuit that is connected to the third power output channel and configured to protect the third power output channel. (Haensgen, para 54 - The system may also include additional switched power zones/”third power output channel”.)
Claim 13
Haensgen discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Haensgen further discloses at least one of the first protection circuit or the second protection circuit comprises a current sensor. (Haensgen, para 36, 42-43 Fig. 1B refs(120, 130) – First and second protection circuits including current sensors to protect the first and second power output channels.)
Claim 14
Haensgen discloses a method for supplying power in an industrial automation environment (Haensgen, para 2-3 – A power supply used in an industrial environment with a housing enclosing the components.), the method comprising: providing, via a first power output channel of a power supply device, power to first industrial automation equipment in the industrial automation environment (Haensgen, para 36, 42-43 – A first power output channel connected to the switched voltage/”power supply” to provide power to industrial equipment.), wherein the first power output channel is connected to a first protection circuit of the power supply device configured to prevent the power supply from delivering more than a first threshold amount of current to the first industrial automation equipment via the first power output channel (Haensgen, para 36, 42-43 Fig. 1B refs(117-126, 145-146) – First protection circuits including voltage sensor, current sensor, filter, and switch to protect the first power output channel.); providing, via a second power output channel of the power supply device, power to second industrial automation equipment in the industrial automation environment (Haensgen, para 36, 42-43 – A second power output channel connected to the switched voltage/”power supply” to provide power to industrial equipment.), wherein the second power output channel is connected to a second protection circuit of the power supply device configured to prevent the power supply from delivering more than a second threshold amount of current to the second industrial automation equipment via the second power output channel (Haensgen, para 36, 42-43 Fig. 1B refs(128-136, 147-148) – Second protection circuits including voltage sensor, current sensor, filter, and switch to protect the second power output channel.); receiving, via a safety input interface of the power supply device, a safety input signal instructing the power supply device to shut off the power that is provided to the first industrial automation equipment; and causing the power supply device to shut off the power provided to the first industrial automation equipment via the first power output channel responsive to receiving the safety input signal via the safety input interface without causing the safe-off circuitry of the power supply device to shut off the power provided to the second industrial automation equipment via the second power output channel. (Haensgen, para 49-51 Fig. 1B refs(112-113, 126, 136, 152) – Microcontrollers/processor configured to receive the safety input signal to open a switch that shuts off power to the first or second power output channels individually.)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haensgen et al, US Patent Pub US 20180024605 A1 (hereinafter Haensgen) as applied to claims 1-6 11-19 above, and in view of Coghlan, “NEC Class 2 circuits: power supply and circuit requirements”, May 2023, Coghlan Contact, pp 1-3 (hereinafter Coghlan).
Claim 7
Haensgen discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Haensgen fails to specify the first power output channel provides the power to the first industrial automation equipment in the industrial automation environment in accordance with National Electric Code (NEC) Class 2 standards.
However Coghlan teaches the first power output channel provides the power to the first industrial automation equipment in the industrial automation environment in accordance with National Electric Code (NEC) Class 2 standards. (Coghlan, p 1-2 – NEC Class 2 standards for power supply circuits.)
Haensgen and Coghlan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to industrial control systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above industrial control system, as taught by Haensgen, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Coghlan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide safe low-voltage/low-current power circuits for electrical distributions by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Coghlan (p1).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haensgen et al, US Patent Pub US 20180024605 A1 (hereinafter Haensgen) as applied to claims 1-6 11-19 above, and in view of Hou et al, US Patent Pub US 20230226692 A1 (hereinafter Hou).
Claim 8
Haensgen discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Haensgen fails to clearly specify the first industrial automation equipment comprises a first industrial robot; and the second industrial automation equipment comprises a second industrial robot.
However Hou teaches the first industrial automation equipment comprises a first industrial robot; and the second industrial automation equipment comprises a second industrial robot. (Hou, para 57 – Industrial automation equipment including industrial robots with safety circuits in a safety unit to cut power to the robotic servo drives in an emergency.)
Haensgen and Hou are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to industrial control systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above industrial control system, as taught by Haensgen, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Hou.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to greatly improve work efficiency by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Hou (para 2).
Claim(s) 9, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haensgen et al, US Patent Pub US 20180024605 A1 (hereinafter Haensgen) as applied to claims 1-6 11-19 above, and in view of Qui et al, Chinese Patent Num CN217739753U (hereinafter Qui).
Claim 9
Haensgen discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Haensgen fails to clearly specify the housing of the power supply is mounted outside of an electrical panel and on a barrier that at least partially surrounds at least one of the first industrial automation equipment or the second industrial automation equipment.
However Qui teaches the housing of the power supply is mounted outside of an electrical panel and on a barrier that at least partially surrounds at least one of the first industrial automation equipment or the second industrial automation equipment. (Qui, lines 94-113 – Mounting the power control switches/”power supply” in a housing located outside of automatic machinery/”electrical panel” on a fence safety system/barrier that surrounds the automatic machinery.)
Haensgen and Qui are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to industrial safety systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above industrial safety system, as taught by Haensgen, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Qui.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide a safety system to shut off equipment by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Qui (lines 73-79 ).
This rejection also applies to claim 20.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haensgen et al, US Patent Pub US 20180024605 A1 (hereinafter Haensgen) as applied to claims 1-6 11-19 above, and in view of Electrical Engineering, “Housing a Power Supply”, 2021, Stack Exchange, pp 1-3 (hereinafter EESE).
Claim 10
Haensgen discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Haensgen fails to specify the housing of the power supply is mounted inside of an electrical panel in the industrial automation environment.
However EESE teaches the housing of the power supply is mounted inside of an electrical panel in the industrial automation environment. (EESE, p1-2 – Housing a power supply in an electrical panel enclosure in an industrial environment.)
Haensgen and EESE are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to industrial safety systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above industrial safety system, as taught by Haensgen, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Qui.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide protection for exposed electrical connection by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by EESE (p1-2).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dotson, US Patent Pub US 20180364670 A1 relates to claims regarding a safety controller that interrupts power to industrial automation devices or puts the system into a safe state upon command.
Kumar et al, US Patent Pub US 20180101156 A1 relates to claims regarding a circuit to provide an output to a field device in a hazardous or potentially hazardous zone, the circuitry configured to limit energy to the field device by limiting a current of the output.
Campbell et al, US Patent Pub US 20220247165 A1 relates to claims regarding power modules of an industrial automation device that command a driver power circuitry to prevent power from being provided to the driver circuitry.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/DAVID EARL OGG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119