DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to application filed on April 15, 2024.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on April 15, 2024. This drawing is accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims recite abstract ideas implemented using conventional components without significantly more, failing the Alice/Mayo test per MPEP § 2106.
Analysis Framework
The rejection follows the USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), applying the two-step framework:
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify judicial exceptions (abstract ideas).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Assess integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Evaluate "significantly more" beyond the judicial exception.
Detailed Claim Analysis:
Independent Claim 1 (System)
Step 2A, Prong One:
Recites abstract ideas in two categories:
Mental processes (observation/evaluation): "monitoring the STO and SBC operations" via circuitry could be performed by a human technician verifying safety states (e.g., checking power cutoffs/brake engagement).
Methods of organizing human activity: STO/SBC operations implement safety protocols for industrial machinery—a fundamental practice for mitigating physical risks (analogous to Electric Power Group’s data collection rules).
Generic components ("DSIB," "microcontrollers," "circuitry portions") serve as tools to automate these abstract protocols without technical specificity.
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integration):
No practical application:
The motor, brake, and DSIB are conventional industrial components.Arranging circuitry on a PCB (claim 2) is a routine engineering choice, not a technological solution (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Monitoring via dual microcontrollers (claim 9) is standard redundancy practice without novel architecture.
Safety protocols remain abstract "rules" without technical transformation of the system.
Step 2B (Significantly More):
No inventive concept:
Components (gate driver power supply in claim 4; DSP/inverter/digital isolator in claim 5; series switches in claim 6) are WURC in motor safety systems (Bosch v. Siemens, 2020 WL 1984108).
Switch selections (claims 7-8: contactors/relays) follow IEC 60204-1 § 9.4.3 for fail-safe designs.Combining these elements yields predictable results with no synergistic improvement (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Independent Claim 16 (Method)
Step 2A, Prong One:
Recites a mental process: Steps like "monitoring the cutting off of gate driver power" and "selectively blocking PWM signals" involve binary decision-making identical to human safety checks (e.g., verifying brake engagement).
Method of organizing human activity: Elevator safety protocols (STO/SBC) are fundamental industrial practices (cf. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d 1245).
Abstract idea dominates despite nominal hardware references ("DSIB," "microcontrollers").
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integration):
No practical application:
The elevator context is a field-of-use limitation (MPEP § 2106.05(h))."Arranging circuitry on a DSIB" (claim 17) and separating switches (claim 19) are conventional design choices.
Monitoring via dual microcontrollers (claim 20) lacks technical innovation beyond known redundancy.No improvement to elevator technology (e.g., reduced stopping distance, novel fault diagnostics).
Step 2B (Significantly More):
No inventive concept:
Digital isolators blocking PWM signals (claim 18) and series brake switches (claim 19) are WURC per ISO 13849-1:2015 Annex E.
Combining these on a PCB (claim 17) is routine packaging, not an unconventional arrangement (Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics, 839 F.3d 1138).
Dependent Claims 2-9 and 17-20
These claims fail to overcome the rejection:
Claims 2, 17: Single-PCB arrangement is a standard integration technique (MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Claims 3, 12: Separating brake circuitry from DSIB mirrors conventional modular safety designs (Siemens SINAMICS manuals).
Claims 4-6, 13, 18:
Gate driver cutoff (claim 4), DSP/inverter/isolator stack (claim 5), and series switches (claim 6) are textbook safety implementations (Rockwell Guard Logix systems).Claim 13’s "combining PWM signals" lacks unconventional signal processing.Claims 7-8, 14-15, 19: Switch types (relays/contactors) are dictated by industry standards (IEC 60947-4-1).
Claims 9, 20: Dual microcontrollers for cross-monitoring are routine in SIL3/PLe systems.
No dependent claim adds elements that:
(a) Improve computer functionality (e.g., error-correction algorithms),(b) Solve a technical problem (e.g., reducing switch arcing via novel circuitry), or(c) Transform physical components (e.g., adaptive brake torque modulation).
All rejected claims (1-9, 16-20) are directed to abstract safety protocols implemented using conventional industrial components. They lack:
Technical improvements to safety systems,
Unconventional component interactions, and
Elements amounting to "significantly more" than the judicial exception.Eligibility is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 101 per Alice/Mayo.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
In claims 1, 10 and 16 recite the limitations of “STO operation” “SBC operation” which are indefinite. Because these fail to clearly pointed out how STO and SBC operation are obtained.
Since the independent claims 1, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and hence the dependents claim of 1 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kattainen et al (US 20180327215 ) deals with a control circuit connecting the control coil of the contactor to a power supply, said control circuit comprising a manual control part provided with a manually operated first switch, and an electronical control part provided with an electronically operated second switch and a processor controlling the second switch.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8439. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 6:00pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272-2060. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Prosecution Insights