DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in response to the amendment filed on 08 September 2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1 and 16 were amended.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 16-20 were previously rejected under 35 USC § 112. Applicant has successfully addressed these issues in the amendment filed on 08 September 2025. Accordingly, the rejections to the claims under 35 USC § 112 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell (WO 2007049040 A1), in view of Gerasimov et al. (US 20190178014 A1), herein referred to as Gerasimov.
Regarding claim 1, Powell discloses a guard lock device (fig 2) that is configured to lock an actuator in an actuator receptacle in an activated state (i.e., in the state shown in fig 2, the guard lock device of Powell is configured to lock an actuator), the guard lock device includes a bolt (10, 20, 35, 40) having a bearing element receptacle (formed by 20 and the portion of 35 which holds 46) integrally formed in the bolt and disposed proximate a free end of the bolt (see fig 2), and a bearing element (10) rotatably mounted in the bearing element receptacle, and the free end of the bolt engages with the actuator in order to lock the actuator in the actuator receptacle in the activated state.
Although Powell discloses using the guard lock device in a number of assemblies including a gate for the purpose of locking (see lines 1-2 on page 7), Powell does not explicitly disclose the structure with which the guard lock device interacts in order to lock the gate. Therefore, Powell does not disclose a safety gate monitoring module for monitoring a state of a safety gate, the safety gate monitoring module comprising: an actuator receptacle that is configured to receive an actuator and to produce a safety gate signal in response to the actuator being received in the actuator receptacle, wherein: the actuator receptacle includes the guard lock device.
Gerasimov, however, discloses that it is known for a guard lock device (34) similar to that of Powell to be used in a safety gate monitoring module as claimed (see fig 1). Specifically, Gerasimov discloses a safety gate monitoring module (12) for monitoring a state of a safety gate, the safety gate monitoring module comprising: an actuator receptacle (24) that is configured to receive an actuator (14) and to produce a safety gate signal in response to the actuator being received in the actuator receptacle (see paragraph 0047), wherein: the actuator receptacle includes the guard lock device (34). The purpose for the combination of the safety gate monitoring module and the guard lock device is to ensure protection of people, for example, from dangerous machines (see paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the guard lock device disclosed by Powell to be used in conjunction with the safety gate module as taught by Gerasimov in order to protect people from dangerous machines.
Regarding claim 5, Powell (in view of Gerasimov) discloses the safety gate monitoring module of claim 1 wherein the bearing element includes a ball (Powell 10).
Regarding claim 6, Powell (in view of Gerasimov) discloses the safety gate monitoring module of claim 1 wherein: the bearing element receptacle includes a first portion (upper portion of Powell 20) and a second portion (lower portion of Powell 20), the first portion is at least one of conical, spherical-cup-shaped, or cylindrical (upper portion is cylindrical), and the second portion is cylindrical (lower portion is cylindrical).
Regarding claim 7, Powell (in view of Gerasimov) discloses the safety gate monitoring module of claim 1 wherein more than half of the bearing element is arranged within the bearing element receptacle (see at least figs 3-6 of Powell).
Regarding claim 8, Powell (in view of Gerasimov) discloses the safety gate monitoring module of claim 1 further comprising a spring (Powell 30) that acts on the bolt.
Regarding claim 15, Powell (in view of Gerasimov) discloses the safety gate monitoring module of claim 1 wherein the bolt includes a plurality of bearing balls (at 21 & 23; see Powell fig 4) arranged in the bearing element receptacle.
Claim 16 is rejected as applied to claim 1 above, with Powell (in view of Gerasimov) further disclosing a safety gate monitoring system comprising: a safety gate (“a safety door”; see abstract of Gerasimov) defining an access to a safety area (see paragraph 0002 of Gerasimov); a safety gate monitoring module (at least via Gerasimov 40) for monitoring a state of the safety gate; and a control unit configured to receive a safety gate signal and to control a machine or system located in the safety area in accordance with the safety gate signal (see paragraph 0044 of Gerasimov).
Claims 2-4, 9-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Powell (WO 2007049040 A1), in view of Gerasimov et al. (US 20190178014 A1), herein referred to as Gerasimov, and in further view of Croxson (DE 1815534 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Powell (in view of Gerasimov) discloses the safety gate monitoring module of claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the bolt includes a loss prevention element that holds the rotatably mounted bearing element captive on the bolt.
Croxson, however, discloses that it is known in the art for a bolt (see fig 1) similar to that of Powell to include a loss prevention element (12) that holds a rotatably mounted bearing element (19) captive on the bolt (see fig 1). The purpose for including the loss prevention element is prevent the bearing element from being disconnected from the bolt housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bolt disclosed by Powell with a loss prevention element as taught by Croxson in order to prevent the ball of Powell from being disconnected from the housing of the bolt.
Regarding claim 3, Powell (in view of Gerasimov and Croxson) discloses the safety gate monitoring module of claim 2 wherein the loss prevention element includes a cross-sectional constriction (at Croxson 17) of the bearing element receptacle.
Regarding claim 4, Powell (in view of Gerasimov and Croxson) discloses the safety gate monitoring module of claim 3 wherein a diameter of the cross-sectional constriction is smaller than a diameter of the bearing element (see Croxson fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, Powell (in view of Gerasimov and Croxson) discloses the safety gate monitoring module of claim 1 wherein: the bolt includes: a main body (at least Powell 20); and a bearing shell (Croxson 12) inserted in the main body; and the bearing shell inserted in the main body forms at least part of the bearing element receptacle (per the combination of Powell and Croxson).
Regarding claim 10, Powell (in view of Gerasimov and Croxson) discloses the safety gate monitoring module of claim 9 but does not explicitly disclose wherein: the main body of the bolt includes a first material; and the bearing shell includes a second material different from the first material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the main body of the bolt from metal to ensure durability and to have formed the bearing shell from a softer material such as plastic to protect the surface of the ball, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 11, Powell (in view of Gerasimov and Croxson) discloses the safety gate monitoring module of claim 1 wherein: the bolt includes: a main body (at least Powell 20); and a sleeve (Croxson 12) secured on the main body; and the sleeve secured on the main body forms at least part of the bearing element receptacle (per the combination of Powell and Croxson).
Regarding claim 12, Powell (in view of Gerasimov and Croxson) discloses the safety gate monitoring module of claim 11 wherein the sleeve is screwed, riveted, pinned, stamped and/or materially connected to the main body (see Croxson fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, Powell (in view of Gerasimov and Croxson) discloses the safety gate monitoring module of claim 2 wherein: the bolt includes: a main body (at least Powell 20); and a sleeve (Croxson 12) secured on the main body; the sleeve secured on the main body forms at least part of the bearing element receptacle; and the sleeve forms at least part of the loss prevention element (per the combination of Powell and Croxson).
Regarding claim 14, Powell (in view of Gerasimov and Croxson) discloses the safety gate monitoring module of claim 13 wherein the sleeve is screwed, riveted, pinned, stamped and/or materially connected to the main body (see Croxson fig 1).
Claim 17 is rejected as applied to claim 2 above.
Claim 18 is rejected as applied to claim 3 above.
Claim 19 is rejected as applied to claim 4 above.
Claim 20 is rejected as applied to claim 5 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant mistakenly states “[t]he Office Action equates primary plunger 40…to the claimed bolt.” However, in the previous Office Action and above, the bolt is interpreted as the combination of elements 10, 20, 35, and 40. Therefore, the argument that “plunger 40 of Powell does not include a receptacle that receives ball 10” is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 Christine M Mills whose telephone number is (571) 272-8322. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday - Thursday, 7:30 - 5:30 EST.
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, Joe Thomas, can be reached on (571) 272-8004. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675