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 .
Response to Arguments
In response to the last Office Action mailed on 4/02/2026, Applicant has canceled claims 7- 17, amended claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 13, 18 and 20. Accordingly, the claims are definite and enable within the meaning of 35 USC § 112(b) 112(a), thus, 35 USC § 112(b) and (a) rejections and objections are withdrawn. Thus, claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are currently pending in the subject application.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/01/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant submitted:
Kande's control system monitors motor parameters for general motor operation but does not disclose using feedback on the gate arm's speed and position to implement a specific soft start/soft stop algorithm that provides soft start/soft stop motor control.
the Examiner has not provided a sufficient rationale for combining Kande and Pani to arrive at the claimed invention.
Examiner asserts that Kande discloses a program control logic shown in Figs. 2, 11 and 12 to control the acceleration and a deceleration of the BLDC motor that provides a relatively smooth operation of the crossing gate arm when it reaches both horizontal and vertical positions (“accurate position and speed control is possible by closed loop control of the transverse flux machine 78” column 5, lines 9- 10). According to figure 12, for instance, a clear indication of feedback on the gate arm's speed and position is depicted (see Kande, Fig. 12 duplicated and annotated by the Examiner). The only difference between the claimed invention and Kandle is storing data and process it within a central processing unit (CPU such as a Field-Programmable Gate Array circuit FPGA).
Examiner cited to Pani to support the obviousness of using a state machine motor controller to accurately determine the position of BLDC motor using sensor assembly 114 mechanically coupled to the gate arm shaft 112 and using it as feedback (see Pani, Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
858
1140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
758
997
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both cited refence use position/speed control system by implementing feedback loop control that acquires data from sensor/encoder regarding position and speed of the gate arm shaft in order to calibrate and to continuously monitor the accuracy of the detected position of the gate arm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kande et al. (US 7195211 B2) in view of Pani (US 20230121985 A1)
Re. claims 1 and 11, Kande discloses a crossing gate mechanism/method (10) comprising:
an electric brushless direct current (BLDC) motor (motor 76) which has at least one internal sensing device (“a Hall effect sensor” column 7, lines 40) that is used as a closed feedback loop (“accurate position and speed control is possible by closed loop control of the transverse flux machine 78” column 5, lines 9- 10) to determine a position of the BLDC motor and accurately control a speed of the BLDC motor (“Motor control electronics 82 receives a signal from the controller 122 and controls the speed of the transverse flux machine 78” column 4, lines 60- 62);
a crossing gate arm (gate arm 12) operated via the BLDC motor (78); and
a digital control system configured to control operation of the BLDC motor, wherein the digital control system is configured to provide a motor control signal that of the results in a soft start motion and a soft stop motion crossing gate arm (Fig. 11), wherein
Kande discloses a program control logic shown in Fig. 11 to control the acceleration and a deceleration of the BLDC motor that provides a relatively smooth operation of the crossing gate arm when it reaches both horizontal and vertical positions (“accurate position and speed control is possible by closed loop control of the transverse flux machine 78” column 5, lines 9- 10), and wherein the BLDC motor is controlled so that a rotation of an electric brake comes to a stop before the electric brake is energized to keep the crossing gate arm in the vertical position (column 5, lines 30- 61)
Kande does not disclose the program control logic is a state-machine logic stored within a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA)/a central processing unit (CPU). However, Pani discloses a state machine motor controller used to accurately determine the position of BLDC motor; Hence, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Kande with the teaching of Pani implement state-machine logic stored within a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA)/a central processing unit (CPU) which can be pick up "off the shelf" to control the speed and torque of the motor with high efficiency (Pani, ¶. [0009].)
wherein the digital control system uses feedback loops on a speed and a position of the crossing gate arm to implement a soft start/soft stop algorithm that effectively provides soft start/soft stop motor control (see Figures above).
Re. claims 2- 4, 10, 12- 14 and 20, the combination of Kandi and Pani discloses the used Pani state-machine logic stored within (FPGA), ASIC, CPLD or SoC) in central processing unit (CPU) which can be pick up "off the shelf" to design the controller to control the speed and torque of the motor with high efficiency (Pani, ¶. [0009].)
Re. claims 5 and 15, the combination of Kandi and Pani discloses one internal sensing device comprises one or more Hall effect sensor (“a Hall effect sensor” column 7, lines 40).
Re. claims 6 and 16, the combination of Kandi and Pani discloses microcontroller 122 which can be modified by Pani teaching to include a memory that stores a menu software that provides an ascent time and a decent time and an angle calculation software that provides a main shaft angle (Pani, ¶. [0010]- [0012]).
Re. claims 8- 9 and 18- 19, the combination of Kandi and Pani discloses wherein the digital control system uses feedback loops on a speed and a position of the crossing gate arm to implement a soft start/soft stop algorithm that effectively provides soft start/soft stop motor control (“accurate position and speed control is possible by closed loop control of the transverse flux machine 78” column 5, lines 9- 10) to determine a position of the BLDC motor and accurately control a speed of the BLDC motor (“Motor control electronics 82 receives a signal from the controller 122 and controls the speed of the transverse flux machine 78” column 4, lines 60- 62).
Conclusion
4. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 SAID BOUZIANE whose telephone number is (571)272-7592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-15:00.
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 at Colon-Santana. 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.
/SAID BOUZIANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights