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 .
________________________________________
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 17, 2026 has been considered to the extent indicated in the record.
________________________________________
Claim Disposition
Pending Claims: 1-18.
Rejected Claims - 35 U.S.C. 112: 2 and 17.
Rejected Claims - 35 U.S.C. 103: 1-8 and 10-18.
Objected-to Claims: 9.
Allowed Claims: None.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2
The phrase "the PWM duty cycle comprises a motor current" is unclear because a PWM duty cycle is a temporal ratio, whereas motor current is an electrical quantity. It is uncertain whether the duty cycle commands, represents, limits, produces, or is selected according to a motor current. The metes and bounds of the claimed relationship therefore cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Suggested Correction - Claim 2
Claim 2 may be amended, if supported by the original disclosure, to recite "wherein the PWM duty cycle commands a motor current at the given motor input voltage" or another supported relationship that states how PWM duty cycle and motor current are related.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites "The method of claim 10," but claim 10 is an apparatus claim directed to a crossing gate mechanism. Claim 17 also recites "a detected obstruction" without inheriting an obstruction-detection step from claim 10. The inconsistent statutory class and missing antecedent relationship prevent the scope of claim 17 from being determined with reasonable certainty.
Suggested Correction - Claim 17
Claim 17 may be amended, if supported by the original disclosure, to depend from method claim 15 or 16 so that the method category and detected-obstruction antecedent are both supplied.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.--Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 purports to be a method dependent from apparatus claim 10 and therefore does not further limit subject matter in the same statutory class.
Suggested Correction - Claim 17
Claim 17 may be amended, if supported by the original disclosure, to depend from an appropriate method claim, such as claim 15 or 16.
________________________________________
References Used
Reference 1 (Primary) - US 2007/0130834 A1.
Reference 2 - US 2004/0174126 A1.
Reference 3 - US 2010/0090633 A1.
Reference 4 - US 2022/0356748 A1.
Reference 5 - US 2020/0266738 A1.
Reference 6 - US 6,388,412 B1.
Reference 7 - US 9,654,035 B1.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 1
Claim Text
A crossing gate mechanism comprising: a brushless direct current (BLDC) motor with at least one sensing device, a crossing gate arm operated via the BLDC motor, a control unit configured to control the BLDC motor to raise or lower the crossing gate arm in response to a gate control signal, wherein the control unit comprises position and speed proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers configured to output a pulse width modulation (PWM) command to a commutator logic, wherein the PWM command is converted to a motor direction and PWM duty cycle, and wherein the PWM duty cycle is variable depending on a given motor input voltage.
Analysis
Reference 1 teaches electronically controlled grade-crossing gate system 20, including crossing gate arm 12, gate-arm moving assembly 62, brushed/brushless DC gear motor 76, motor-control electronics 82, position-sensor assembly 92, and controller 122 with microcontroller 124. Motor 76 operates gate arm 12 in the up and down directions through gear assembly 64 and gears 66, 68, and 72. Controller 122 receives a wayside command and generates PWM signal 84 to control motor speed and position the gate arm. Position-sensor assembly 92 monitors gate-arm position, and gear-tooth sensor 108 can provide direction and speed information. Thus, Reference 1 teaches the claimed crossing-gate arm, brushless motor, sensing device, control unit, gate-control command, and raising/lowering operation.
Reference 2 teaches motor-control system 10 with motor controller 12, shaft-position encoder 22, speed-control loop 40, and position-adjustment loop 50. Speed PID controller 48 outputs PWM data 14. Position PID controller 58 outputs Speed_Ticks_Adjust to speed-control loop 40 so that motor position error modifies the speed command. Power driver 16 converts PWM data 14 into power signals 18 for motor 20. Reference 2 therefore teaches cascaded position and speed PID controllers in which the position loop adjusts the speed loop and the speed PID produces the PWM motor command.
Reference 3 teaches BLDC motor 40, controller 66, XY Hall-effect sensor 60, PWM registers 70, and power-bridge transistors 74. Controller 66 determines motor state, executes commutation logic, and drives transistors 74 to regulate current in the motor windings so that the rotor follows the commanded direction and speed. Reference 3 further teaches modifying the PWM duty-cycle command by the reciprocal of motor-rail voltage to normalize performance as input supply voltage changes. The combined teachings provide a speed-PID PWM command delivered to BLDC commutation logic, conversion into the switching state and duty cycle that establish motor direction and drive, and a PWM duty cycle that varies with motor input voltage.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the cascaded position/speed PID architecture of Reference 2 and the voltage-normalized BLDC commutation of Reference 3 in the electronically controlled crossing-gate system of Reference 1 so that gate-arm position and speed can be accurately controlled while gate motion remains consistent as field supply voltage changes. The combination makes technical sense because Reference 1 already uses position and speed sensing with PWM-controlled brushless gate motion, Reference 2 provides a known feedback architecture that turns position error into a speed correction and a PWM command, and Reference 3 provides the corresponding BLDC commutation, motor-current drive, and motor-rail-voltage normalization. Each teaching performs its established motor-control function in the combined gate controller.
Claim 2
Claim Text
The crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, wherein the PWM duty cycle comprises a motor current at the given motor input voltage.
Analysis
Claim 2 includes every limitation of claim 1 and is therefore rejected over References 1-3 for the reasons stated for claim 1. Under the reasonable interpretation that the PWM duty cycle commands, establishes, or corresponds to motor current at the given motor input voltage, Reference 3 teaches that power-bridge transistors 74 regulate current in the selected motor windings, that higher PWM duty cycles produce higher motor currents, and that the permitted PWM command is bounded according to current limit, motor resistance, velocity, and normalized motor-rail voltage. Reference 3 therefore relates PWM duty cycle to motor current at the prevailing motor input voltage.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to express the speed-PID output of the combined controller as a PWM duty cycle corresponding to the motor current available at the sampled input voltage because Reference 3 teaches that duty cycle controls winding current and must be bounded according to the voltage rail and current limit. Applying that relationship to Reference 1's gate motor predictably protects the motor and drive electronics while supplying the current needed to move gate arm 12.
Claim 3
Claim Text
The crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, wherein the PWM duty cycle is delivered, by the speed PID controller, to the commutator logic to command a specific level of current to the BLDC motor.
Analysis
Claim 3 includes every limitation of claim 1 and is therefore rejected over References 1-3 for the reasons stated for claim 1. Reference 2 teaches speed PID controller 48 producing PWM data 14 to drive motor 20. Reference 3 teaches controller 66 executing commutation logic and using power-bridge transistors 74 to regulate current in the selected BLDC windings. Reference 3 also teaches that PWM duty cycle controls motor current. Combining the speed-PID output of Reference 2 with the commutation and bridge-current control of Reference 3 provides the claimed delivery of PWM duty cycle from the speed PID controller to commutator logic to command a specific motor-current level.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to deliver the PWM output of Reference 2's speed PID controller 48 to Reference 3's commutation logic because the speed loop must control the same bridge transistors 74 that regulate BLDC winding current. This connection uses the known output of the feedback controller as the known input to the BLDC power stage and predictably converts speed error into the motor current needed to move the gate arm.
Claim 4
Claim Text
The crossing gate mechanism of claim 2, wherein the control unit comprises an analog-to-digital converter configured to provide a motor voltage sample of the motor input voltage to a scale desired speed logic, wherein the scale desired speed logic issues a PWM command limit which sets a maximum motor current at the given motor input voltage.
Analysis
Claim 4 includes every limitation of claims 1 and 2 and is therefore rejected over References 1-3 for the reasons stated for those claims. Reference 3 teaches controller 66 with internal analog-to-digital converters 68 and PWM registers 70. Reference 3's control algorithm uses motor-rail voltage in a feed-forward calculation that modifies the PWM command by the reciprocal of motor-rail voltage. Reference 3 further teaches a sensorless current-limit boundary in which the maximum permitted PWM command is calculated from motor velocity, current limit, motor resistance, and normalized voltage rail. Figure 18 expressly identifies the resulting PWM-command limit.
Reference 2 teaches that position PID controller 58 modifies the desired-speed value supplied to speed-control loop 40 and that limiting blocks constrain the speed error and PWM output. Supplying the digitized motor-rail-voltage value from ADC 68 to the desired-speed/PWM limiting path yields the claimed motor-voltage sample, scale-desired-speed logic, and voltage-dependent PWM command limit that sets maximum motor current.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to digitize the motor-rail voltage used by Reference 3 and apply its voltage-normalized current-limit boundary in the desired-speed/PWM path of Reference 2 because the controller must represent the analog supply voltage numerically before performing the disclosed reciprocal-voltage calculation. Placing that limit in the speed-command path predictably prevents the crossing-gate controller from requesting more motor current than the available voltage and drive electronics can safely provide.
Claim 5
Claim Text
The crossing gate mechanism of claim 4, wherein the PWM command limit is sent to the speed PID controller configured to output PWM commands, the PWM commands including commanded motor direction and the PWM duty cycle.
Analysis
Claim 5 includes every limitation of claims 1, 2, and 4 and is therefore rejected over References 1-3 for the reasons stated for those claims. Reference 2 teaches applying limits in the integrated position/speed control path and teaches speed PID controller 48 outputting PWM data 14. Reference 3 teaches limiting the permitted PWM command before power-bridge drive and teaches commutation logic that causes the motor to follow the commanded direction and speed. Reference 1 teaches operating gate arm 12 in opposite up and down directions according to the wayside gate command. Applying Reference 3's voltage-dependent PWM limit to Reference 2's speed-PID command path results in PWM commands constrained by the limit and containing the direction and duty information used by the BLDC commutation stage.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to send the voltage-dependent PWM command limit to the speed PID control path because speed PID controller 48 is the source of the PWM drive request and the limit must act before that request reaches power-bridge transistors 74. The arrangement predictably preserves commanded up/down direction while clipping duty cycle to a safe current-producing value at the measured input voltage.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 4.
Claim 6
Claim Text
The crossing gate mechanism of claim 4, wherein the scale desired speed logic comprises a closed-loop control for measuring ascent time and descent time of the crossing gate arm, in response to received desired ascent time and descent time as inputs.
Analysis
Claim 6 includes every limitation of claims 1, 2, and 4 and is therefore rejected over References 1-3 for the reasons stated for those claims. Reference 4 teaches a gate controller that determines travel time between open and closed positions, establishes a desired time-to-open or time-to-close, and calculates and sets motor speed according to the travel time. Reference 4 further teaches using encoder or gate-status feedback and changing motor speed while the gate travels when the gate is delayed or ahead of its intended position. Applied to Reference 1's vertically moving crossing gate arm 12, open travel corresponds to ascent and close travel corresponds to descent. The feedback-based measurement and correction provide a closed-loop scale-desired-speed function responsive to desired ascent and descent times.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Reference 4's travel-time measurement and feedback-based motor-speed adjustment into the voltage-limited speed-control path of References 1-3 so that gate arm 12 reaches its raised and lowered positions within selected operating times despite wind, snow, load, and supply variation. The combination makes sense because Reference 4 addresses the same problem of controlling an electric gate to meet desired opening and closing times, while References 1-3 already provide the sensors, PID speed path, and PWM gate drive needed to implement the correction.
Claim 7
Claim Text
The crossing gate mechanism of claim 4, wherein the control unit comprises logic to detect obstruction of the crossing gate arm, wherein the logic receives as inputs the PWM command limit, the PWM command and an actual velocity of the crossing gate arm, and wherein the logic is configured to flag or detect an obstruction when approaching a maximum current for the respective motor input voltage.
Analysis
Claim 7 includes every limitation of claims 1, 2, and 4 and is therefore rejected over References 1-3 for the reasons stated for those claims. Reference 1 teaches intrusion-sensing assembly 132 with arm-position sensor 134 and motor-current sensor 136. The controller confirms an intrusion when arm position remains unchanged while motor current increases. Reference 1's gear-tooth sensor 108 can provide speed and direction, supplying actual gate-arm velocity.
Reference 3 teaches the commanded PWM value, motor velocity, and a maximum allowed PWM boundary calculated from current limit, motor resistance, and normalized motor-rail voltage. Comparing the actual PWM command to that voltage-dependent boundary while monitoring gate velocity applies Reference 1's current-plus-motion intrusion test using signals already available in the combined digital controller. When the command approaches the boundary but the arm slows or stops, the condition identifies an obstruction while the motor approaches maximum allowed current for that input voltage.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to implement Reference 1's gate-intrusion test with Reference 3's PWM command, motor velocity, and voltage-normalized current-limit boundary because those digital values represent the same commanded effort, actual motion, and maximum-current conditions that Reference 1 measures with sensors 134 and 136. The combination provides earlier obstruction detection without waiting for an overcurrent condition and reduces the risk of bending gate arm 12 or overstressing motor 76.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 5.
Claim 8
Claim Text
The crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, comprising an input voltage range of 9V to 36V for the BLDC motor.
Analysis
Claim 8 includes every limitation of claim 1 and is therefore rejected over References 1-3 for the reasons stated for claim 1. Reference 5 teaches DC motor control unit 1, control module 20, input-voltage sensor 21, motor-current sensor 22, and switching elements 23. Reference 5 adjusts PWM duty cycle according to measured input voltage and discloses a high-voltage range from 8 V to 36 V. That disclosed range encompasses the claimed 9 V to 36 V range. Reference 3 separately teaches BLDC control over a supply range greater than four to one using motor-rail-voltage normalization.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to configure the voltage-normalized BLDC gate controller of References 1-3 to operate over the 9 V to 36 V portion of Reference 5's 8 V to 36 V PWM motor-control range because both systems adapt PWM duty cycle to variable DC input voltage. Selecting the slightly narrower overlapping range predictably accommodates common low-voltage field supplies while retaining Reference 3's current and performance normalization.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3.
Claim 10
Claim Text
The crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensing device comprises one or more Hall effect sensor(s).
Analysis
Claim 10 includes every limitation of claim 1 and is therefore rejected over References 1-3 for the reasons stated for claim 1. Reference 1 teaches that gear-tooth sensor 108 can be a Hall-effect sensor and can provide gate position, speed, and direction. Reference 3 expressly teaches XY Hall-effect sensor 60 adjacent shaft magnet 44 to determine BLDC rotor angle, position, and commutation state. The claimed sensing device is therefore expressly taught in the combined gate and BLDC controller.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use one or more Hall-effect sensors in the combined gate controller because References 1 and 3 teach Hall sensing as a known noncontact means for obtaining the position and speed information needed for gate monitoring and BLDC commutation. The use provides reliable feedback without mechanical sensor wear.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 7.
Claim 11
Claim Text
The crossing gate mechanism of claim 1, wherein the control unit is implemented as a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), 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).
Analysis
Claim 11 includes every limitation of claim 1 and is therefore rejected over References 1-3 for the reasons stated for claim 1. Reference 7 expressly teaches FPGA 10 controlling half bridges 12, 14, and 16 to commutate and PWM-control BLDC motor 18. Because the claim recites alternative implementation platforms, Reference 7's express FPGA implementation satisfies the added limitation.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to implement the combined crossing-gate BLDC control unit in FPGA 10 as taught by Reference 7 because FPGA hardware predictably provides deterministic, parallel, real-time generation of commutation and PWM signals. The implementation is particularly suitable for the simultaneous position sensing, speed control, gate-state processing, and bridge switching required by the combined controller.
Claims 12-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3 and Reference 4.
Claim 12
Claim Text
A method for controlling a crossing gate mechanism, the method comprising: measuring ascent time or descent time of a crossing gate arm, scaling a desired motor speed, receiving a gate control command to lower or raise the gate arm, sampling a motor input voltage, and creating a PWM command limit based on a sampled motor input voltage.
Analysis
Reference 1 teaches controlling grade-crossing gate arm 12 using controller 122, microcontroller 124, motor 76, PWM signal 84, and position-sensor assembly 92. Controller 122 receives a wayside command to raise or lower gate arm 12, and the stored field data include the time interval between a command and gate-arm operation. Reference 1 therefore teaches the crossing-gate method, gate-control command, raising/lowering operation, gate-motion sensing, and PWM motor drive.
Reference 4 teaches determining gate travel time between open and closed positions, establishing desired time-to-open or time-to-close, and calculating and setting motor speed from the measured travel time. Applied to the vertically moving crossing gate of Reference 1, those teachings measure ascent/descent time and scale desired motor speed.
Reference 3 teaches controller 66 with ADCs 68 and a control algorithm that uses motor-rail voltage to modify the PWM command. Reference 3 further teaches creating an allowed PWM-command boundary based on normalized voltage rail, motor resistance, current limit, and motor velocity. The combined method therefore samples motor input voltage and creates a PWM command limit based on the sampled voltage.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine Reference 1's electronically controlled crossing-gate method with Reference 4's travel-time-based speed scaling and Reference 3's sampled-voltage PWM limiting so that the gate reaches the raised or lowered position within a selected time while motor current remains safe across input-voltage variation. The combination uses existing sensors and controller calculations for complementary timing and electrical-control purposes and produces predictable gate motion under changing mechanical and supply conditions.
Claim 13
Claim Text
The method of claim 12, further comprising: generating a PWM command and converting the PWM command to a motor direction and PWM duty cycle.
Analysis
Claim 13 includes every limitation of claim 12 and is therefore rejected over References 1, 3, and 4 for the reasons stated for claim 12. Reference 1 teaches microcontroller 124 generating PWM signal 84 and commanding motor 76 to drive gate arm 12 up or down. Reference 3 teaches controller 66 executing commutation logic, determining motor state, and driving power-bridge transistors 74 with PWM to produce the commanded direction and speed. The combined controller therefore generates a PWM command and converts it into motor direction and PWM duty cycle for the BLDC bridge.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to convert the gate controller's PWM request into direction and duty-cycle values because Reference 1 requires opposite motor directions to raise and lower gate arm 12 and Reference 3 teaches that BLDC commutation must select bridge states and PWM duty to produce the commanded direction and speed. The conversion is the predictable interface between the gate-state command and the BLDC power stage.
Claim 14
Claim Text
The method of claim 12, wherein the method is repeated to establish a closed-loop control to achieve a desired ascent time or descent time.
Analysis
Claim 14 includes every limitation of claim 12 and is therefore rejected over References 1, 3, and 4 for the reasons stated for claim 12. Reference 4 teaches using gate-position or encoder feedback, determining time of travel, and changing motor speed while the gate travels when the gate is delayed or ahead of its intended position. It further teaches calculating motor speed after desired time-to-open or time-to-close is established. Repeating the measurement and speed correction produces closed-loop control that achieves the desired opening or closing time, corresponding to ascent or descent of Reference 1's crossing gate arm 12.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to repeat the travel-time measurement and speed adjustment of Reference 4 in the crossing-gate method because feedback control necessarily compares updated motion with the desired completion time and corrects motor speed when the gate is early or late. Repetition predictably compensates for load and environmental changes and allows gate arm 12 to meet required ascent and descent times.
Claim 15
Claim Text
The method of claim 12, further comprising: detecting an obstruction of the crossing gate arm based on the PWM command limit, the PWM command and an actual velocity of the crossing gate arm.
Analysis
Claim 15 includes every limitation of claim 12 and is therefore rejected over References 1, 3, and 4 for the reasons stated for claim 12. Reference 1 teaches intrusion-sensing assembly 132 with arm-position sensor 134 and motor-current sensor 136. It detects an intrusion when gate arm 12 fails to move while motor current increases. Gear-tooth sensor 108 provides speed and direction information. Reference 3 teaches the actual motor-velocity value, PWM command, and voltage-normalized allowed PWM boundary corresponding to a current limit. Using those digital values in Reference 1's command-versus-motion intrusion test detects obstruction from the claimed PWM command limit, PWM command, and actual gate-arm velocity.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to perform Reference 1's gate-intrusion test using Reference 3's PWM command, voltage-dependent command limit, and actual velocity because those controller values directly represent commanded effort, maximum safe effort, and resulting motion. The digital comparison predicts obstruction before an overcurrent condition damages the gate arm or drive mechanism.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 3 and Reference 4, and further in view of Reference 6.
Claim 16
Claim Text
The method of claim 15, generating an error code in response to a detected obstruction.
Analysis
Claim 16 includes every limitation of claims 12 and 15 and is therefore rejected over References 1, 3, and 4 for the reasons stated for those claims. Reference 6 teaches control system 201 for a motor-driven door or gate operator. When microcontroller 284 detects a motor stall because the commanded closure fails to reach its monitored position, it shuts off motor 48, begins braking, and displays a suitable error code. Nonvolatile memory 287 stores generated error codes, and display 370 displays them. A stall caused by the commanded gate failing to move is the same detected-obstruction condition established by the parent combination.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to generate and store an error code when the combined crossing-gate controller detects an obstruction because Reference 6 teaches error-code reporting for the same motor-stall condition in a powered gate or closure. The error code predictably identifies the fault for maintenance personnel and permits the controller to preserve a machine-readable record of the obstruction event.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and Reference 3, and further in view of Reference 6.
Claim 17
Claim Text
The method of claim 10, further comprising: halting operation of the crossing gate arm in response to a detected obstruction.
Analysis
Claim 17 incorporates the subject matter of claim 10, which incorporates claim 1, and is therefore rejected over References 1-3 for the reasons stated for claims 1 and 10. Reference 1 also teaches detecting intrusion with arm-position sensor 134 and motor-current sensor 136. Reference 6 teaches obstruction-detector input circuit 302a and reference 302c. Upon receiving an obstruction signal, microcontroller 284 immediately deenergizes motor 48, applies brake 66, and enters halt mode. Reference 6 therefore expressly teaches halting a powered gate or closure in response to detected obstruction.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to halt Reference 1's gate-arm motor when the combined controller detects an obstruction because Reference 6 teaches immediate motor deenergization and braking in response to an obstruction-detector signal. The safety response predictably prevents continued force from being applied to the obstruction and limits damage to gate arm 12 and its drive assembly.
Claim 18
Claim Text
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing executable instructions, which, when executed by a computer, perform a method for controlling a crossing gate mechanism as claimed in claim 12.
Analysis
Claim 18 incorporates the entire method of claim 12 and is therefore rejected over References 1, 3, and 4 for the reasons stated for claim 12. Reference 1 teaches field-programmable microcontroller 124 executing software for the gate-control functions and teaches nonvolatile memory connected to controller 122. Reference 3 teaches controller software that computes motor-control algorithms and flash nonvolatile memory 72 that stores controller parameters and software-related control data. Storing the combined gate-control instructions in the disclosed nonvolatile controller memory provides the claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to store the executable instructions for the combined method in nonvolatile memory because References 1 and 3 expressly implement their gate and BLDC control functions in programmable controller software and provide nonvolatile storage. This implementation predictably preserves the control program across power cycles and allows the same controller to execute the claimed method.
________________________________________
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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, and if all outstanding formal matters are overcome. The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the particular maximum PWM duty-cycle schedule of 90% when motor voltage is less than 11 V and 28% when motor voltage is equal to or greater than 34 V.
________________________________________
Conclusion
US 2019/0360255 A1 was considered for obstruction detection in a powered transit door, but US 6,388,412 B1 provides more direct error-code and motor-halt teachings for a powered gate or closure. US 5,834,914 A was considered for crossing-gate descent-time adjustment, but US 2022/0356748 A1 provides closer feedback-based travel-time measurement and motor-speed control for the timing limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights