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 .
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 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.
Title Objection
1. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
2. Claim 6-7 and 17-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
3.1. Claim 6 is directed to “compare a first signal of the plurality of signals pertaining to a first portion of the e-stop relay system of the vehicle with a second signal of the plurality of signals pertaining to a second portion of the e-stop relay system of the vehicle; and determine, responsive to comparison of the first signal with the second signal, that a difference between the first signal and the second signal indicates that the at least one portion of e-stop relay system has failed”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements of dependent claim 6 “the circuit ...” and the additional element(s) of independent claim 1 “An e-stop relay system, comprising: a relay junction including a relay to control an operation of a vehicle; and a circuit in communication with the relay junction, the circuit configured to: receive a plurality of signals that correspond to operation of the relay; detect, using at least one signal of the plurality of signals, that at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed; and transmit one or more signals to a light source to cause the light source to produce light that indicates that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 6 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
3.2. Step 1 (Statutory Category): dependent claim 6 is directed to an e-stop relay system as set forth in claim 1, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
3.3.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): dependent claim 6 recites: “compare a first signal of the plurality of signals pertaining to a first portion of the e-stop relay system of the vehicle with a second signal of the plurality of signals pertaining to a second portion of the e-stop relay system of the vehicle; and determine, responsive to comparison of the first signal with the second signal, that a difference between the first signal and the second signal indicates that the at least one portion of e-stop relay system has failed”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
3.3.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): Neither dependent claim 6 nor independent claim 1 claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of industries including but not limited to fault detection of relays/switches, automobile and different types of vehicles, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration into a practical application because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
3.4. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): dependent claim 6 recites the additional element(s) “the circuit …”, and independent claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “An e-stop relay system, comprising: a relay junction including a relay to control an operation of a vehicle; and a circuit in communication with the relay junction, the circuit configured to: receive a plurality of signals that correspond to operation of the relay; detect, using at least one signal of the plurality of signals, that at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed; and transmit one or more signals to a light source to cause the light source to produce light that indicates that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
4.1. Claim 7 is directed to “determine, based on a difference between the at least one signal of the plurality of signals relay system of the vehicle has also failed; ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements of dependent claim 7 “the circuit configured to ... prevent, responsive to detection that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system of the vehicle has failed and that the at least one second portion of thee-stop relay system has also failed, the operation of the vehicle” and the additional element(s) of independent claim 1 “An e-stop relay system, comprising: a relay junction including a relay to control an operation of a vehicle; and a circuit in communication with the relay junction, the circuit configured to: receive a plurality of signals that correspond to operation of the relay; detect, using at least one signal of the plurality of signals, that at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed; and transmit one or more signals to a light source to cause the light source to produce light that indicates that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 7 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
4.2. Step 1 (Statutory Category): dependent claim 7 is directed to an e-stop relay system as set forth in claim 1, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
4.3.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): dependent claim 7 recites: “determine, based on a difference between the at least one signal of the plurality of signals relay system of the vehicle has also failed; ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
4.3.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): Neither dependent claim 7 nor independent claim 1 claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of industries including but not limited to fault detection of relays/switches, automobile and different types of vehicles, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration into a practical application because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
4.4. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): dependent claim 7 recites the additional element(s) “the circuit configured to ... prevent, responsive to detection that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system of the vehicle has failed and that the at least one second portion of thee-stop relay system has also failed, the operation of the vehicle”, and independent claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “An e-stop relay system, comprising: a relay junction including a relay to control an operation of a vehicle; and a circuit in communication with the relay junction, the circuit configured to: receive a plurality of signals that correspond to operation of the relay; detect, using at least one signal of the plurality of signals, that at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed; and transmit one or more signals to a light source to cause the light source to produce light that indicates that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
5.1. Claim 17 is directed to “compare a first signal of the plurality of signals pertaining to a first portion of the e-stop relay system of the vehicle with a second signal of the plurality of signals pertaining to a second portion of the e-stop relay system of the vehicle; and determine, responsive to comparison of the first signal with the second signal, that a difference between the first signal and the second signal indicates that the at least one portion of e-stop relay system has failed”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements of dependent claim 14 “the vehicle ...” and the additional element(s) of independent claim 14 “A vehicle, comprising: a relay junction including a relay to control an operation of a vehicle; and a circuit in communication with the relay junction, the circuit configured to: receive a plurality of signals that correspond to operation of the relay; detect, using at least one signal of the plurality of signals, that at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed; and transmit one or more signals to a light source to cause the light source to produce light that indicates that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 17 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
5.2. Step 1 (Statutory Category): dependent claim 17 is directed to a vehicle as set forth in claim 1, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
5.3.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): dependent claim 17 recites: “compare a first signal of the plurality of signals pertaining to a first portion of the e-stop relay system of the vehicle with a second signal of the plurality of signals pertaining to a second portion of the e-stop relay system of the vehicle; and determine, responsive to comparison of the first signal with the second signal, that a difference between the first signal and the second signal indicates that the at least one portion of e-stop relay system has failed”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
5.3.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): Neither dependent claim 17 nor independent claim 14 claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of industries including but not limited to fault detection of relays/switches, automobile and different types of vehicles, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration into a practical application because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
5.4. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): dependent claim 17 recites the additional element(s) “the vehicle …”, and independent claim 14 recites the additional element(s) “A vehicle, comprising: a relay junction including a relay to control an operation of a vehicle; and a circuit in communication with the relay junction, the circuit configured to: receive a plurality of signals that correspond to operation of the relay; detect, using at least one signal of the plurality of signals, that at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed; and transmit one or more signals to a light source to cause the light source to produce light that indicates that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
6.1. Claim 18 is directed to “determine, based on a difference between the at least one signal of the plurality of signals relay system of the vehicle has also failed; ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements of dependent claim 18 “the vehicle configured to ... prevent, responsive to detection that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system of the vehicle has failed and that the at least one second portion of thee-stop relay system has also failed, the operation of the vehicle” and the additional element(s) of independent claim 14 “A vehicle, comprising: a relay junction including a relay to control an operation of a vehicle; and a circuit in communication with the relay junction, the circuit configured to: receive a plurality of signals that correspond to operation of the relay; detect, using at least one signal of the plurality of signals, that at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed; and transmit one or more signals to a light source to cause the light source to produce light that indicates that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 18 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
6.2. Step 1 (Statutory Category): dependent claim 18 is directed to a e-stop relay system as set forth in claim 1, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
6.3.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): dependent claim 18 recites: “determine, based on a difference between the at least one signal of the plurality of signals relay system of the vehicle has also failed; ...”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
6.3.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): Neither dependent claim 18 nor independent claim 14 claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of industries including but not limited to fault detection of relays/switches, automobile and different types of vehicles, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration into a practical application because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
6.4. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): dependent claim 18 recites the additional element(s) “the circuit configured to ... prevent, responsive to detection that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system of the vehicle has failed and that the at least one second portion of thee-stop relay system has also failed, the operation of the vehicle”, and independent claim 14 recites the additional element(s) “A vehicle, comprising: a relay junction including a relay to control an operation of a vehicle; and a circuit in communication with the relay junction, the circuit configured to: receive a plurality of signals that correspond to operation of the relay; detect, using at least one signal of the plurality of signals, that at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed; and transmit one or more signals to a light source to cause the light source to produce light that indicates that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Examiner’s Note
7. All the words in the language of the claims of which the specifications do not provide a definition in the form stated in the MPEP, the examiner has interpreted them by their plain meanings, pursuant to the MPEP 2111.01 “Plain Meaning” and MPEP 2173.01.
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 of this title, 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.
8. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8-15 and 19-20 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitch et al. (Pub. No.: US 2010/0117585 hereinafter mentioned as “Fitch”) in view of NAKAGAWA (Pub. No.: US 2023/0178976 hereinafter mentioned as “Nakagawa”).
As per claim 1, Fitch, in the embodiment of Fig. 4, discloses:
An e-stop relay system (See MPEP 2111.02, Effect of Preamble, and II. Preamble Statements Reciting Purpose or Intended Use. However, Fig. 2, see the safety control module 10. Also see [0057] and [0041]), comprising:
a relay junction including a relay to control an operation of a vehicle (Fig. 2, see the E-Stop relay assembly 222. Also see [0057] and [0041]); and
a circuit (Also see [0058]. The central processor of the safety control module 10 of Fitch) in communication with the relay junction (Fig. 2, see the E-Stop relay assembly 222. Also see [0057] and [0041]),
the circuit configured to:
receive a plurality of signals (Also see [0058]. The central processor of the safety control module 10 of Fitch implicitly receive signals, see Fig. 4) that correspond to operation of the relay (Fig. 2, see the E-Stop relay assembly 222. Also see [0057] and [0041]);
detect, using at least one signal of the plurality of signals, that at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed (Fig. 4, see the steps 496 and/or 498. Also see [0057] and [0041]).
Fitch discloses said circuit but does not explicitly disclose it transmits
one or more signals to a light source to cause the light source to produce light that indicates that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed.
However, Nakagawa further discloses:
one or more signals to a light source to cause the light source to produce light that indicates that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed (see abstract [0083], [0030] and [0057]. The implicit light source of the display of Nakagawa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “one or more signals to a light source to cause the light source to produce light that indicates that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed” disclosed by Nakagawa into Fitch, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by enabling an user/operator can take a measure such as replacement or repairing of all the switches/relays (Nakagawa, Paragraph [0057]).
As per claim 3, the combination of Fitch and Nakagawa discloses the e-stop relay system of claim 1 as described above.
Fitch further discloses:
the relay junction including a second relay coupled with the first relay (Fig. 2, see the E-Stop relay assembly 222 including relays 1 and 2. Also see [0057], [0045], [0048] and [0041]);
the relay and the second relay controllable by the plurality of signals (see [0031], [0044]-[0045] [0058]. The shutdown assembly 25) ; and
the relay and the second array arranged such that failure in the at least one portion of the e-stop relay prevents the operation of the vehicle (see [0047]-[0048]).
As per claim 4, the combination of Fitch and Nakagawa discloses the e-stop relay system of claim 1 as described above.
Fitch further discloses:
the relay junction including a second relay having one or more terminals (Fig. 2, see the E-Stop relay assembly 222 including relays 1 and 2. Also see [0057], [0045], [0048] and [0041]);
the one or more terminals of the second relay coupled with one or more terminals of the relay; and
the one or more terminals of the second relay configured to receive one or more control signals (see [0031], [0044]-[0045] [0058]. The shutdown assembly 25) to control the operation of the vehicle responsive (see [0047]-[0048]) to detecting that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed (Fig. 4, see the steps 496 and/or 498. Also see [0057] and [0041]).
As per claim 8, the combination of Fitch and Nakagawa discloses the e-stop relay system of claim 1 as described above.
Fitch further discloses:
the relay including one or more coils coupled with one or more contacts of a second relay of the relay junction (Fig. 2, see the E-Stop relay assembly 222 including relays 1 and 2. Also see [0043]-[0045]); and
the second relay configured to receive, via the one or more contacts, one or more control signals (see [0031], [0044]-[0045] [0058]. The shutdown assembly 25) intended for the relay responsive to a failure in the relay (Fig. 4, see the steps 496 and/or 498. Also see [0057] and [0041]).
As per claim 9, the combination of Fitch and Nakagawa discloses the e-stop relay system of claim 1 as described above.
Fitch further discloses:
where the operation of the vehicle pertains to at least one of operating a payload of the vehicle (Fig. 1, see the vehicle 5 and any of its cargo, equipment or any other moveable element. Also see [0057] and [0041]) or a weaponry action .
As per claim 10, the combination of Fitch and Nakagawa discloses the e-stop relay system of claim 1 as described above.
Fitch further discloses:
wherein the vehicle is an unmanned ground vehicle (see [0020], [0029] and/or claim-1. The automated vehicle could be a robotic system, which is unmanned).
As per claim 11, the combination of Fitch and Nakagawa discloses the e-stop relay system of claim 1 with the vehicle as described above but does not explicitly disclose that said vehicle is combat vehicle.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would find an obvious choice to try implementing the feature relative the teachings of the combination of Fitch and Nakagawa into a “combat vehicle” with the motivation and expected benefit related to expanding the invention to all types of vehicles (Fitch, Paragraph [0069]).
As per claim 12, the combination of Fitch and Nakagawa discloses the e-stop relay system of claim 1 with the vehicle as described above but does not explicitly disclose that said vehicle is access equipment vehicle.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would find an obvious choice to try implementing the feature relative the teachings of the combination of Fitch and Nakagawa into a “access equipment vehicle” with the motivation and expected benefit related to expanding the invention to all types of vehicles (Fitch, Paragraph [0069]).
As per claim 13, the combination of Fitch and Nakagawa discloses the e-stop relay system of claim 1 as described above.
The combination of Fitch and Nakagawa, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-1, further discloses:
transmit one or more second signals to a device of the vehicle or a user device that controls the vehicle (Fitch, Fig. 1, see the vehicle's main power circuit 30. Also see [0031] and [0041]), the one or more second signals to cause a user interface to display an indication that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed (Nakagawa, see abstract [0083], [0030] and [0057]. The implicit light source of the display of Nakagawa).
As per claim 14, Fitch, in the embodiment of Fig. 4, discloses:
A vehicle (see [0031] and [0041]), comprising:
controllable element (Fig. 2, see the vehicle's main power circuit 30. Also see [0031] and [0041]); and
an e-stop relay system (Fig. 2, see the safety control module 10. Also see [0057] and [0041]) configured to control the controllable element (Fig. 2, see the vehicle's main power circuit 30. Also see [0031] and [0041]),
the e-stop relay system comprising:
a relay junction including a relay to control an operation of a vehicle (Fig. 2, see the E-Stop relay assembly 222. Also see [0057] and [0041]); and
a circuit (Also see [0058]. The central processor of the safety control module 10 of Fitch) in communication with the relay junction (Fig. 2, see the E-Stop relay assembly 222. Also see [0057] and [0041]),
the circuit configured to:
receive a plurality of signals (Also see [0058]. The central processor of the safety control module 10 of Fitch implicitly receive signals, see Fig. 4) that correspond to operation of the relay (Fig. 2, see the E-Stop relay assembly 222. Also see [0057] and [0041]);
detect, using at least one signal of the plurality of signals, that at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed (Fig. 4, see the steps 496 and/or 498. Also see [0057] and [0041]).
Fitch discloses said circuit but does not explicitly disclose it transmits
one or more signals to a light source to cause the light source to produce light that indicates that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed.
However, Nakagawa further discloses:
one or more signals to a light source to cause the light source to produce light that indicates that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed (see abstract [0083], [0030] and [0057]. The implicit light source of the display of Nakagawa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “one or more signals to a light source to cause the light source to produce light that indicates that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed” disclosed by Nakagawa into Fitch, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by enabling an user/operator can take a measure such as replacement or repairing of all the switches/relays (Nakagawa, Paragraph [0057]).
As per claim 15, the combination of Fitch and Nakagawa discloses the vehicle of claim 14 as described above.
Fitch further discloses:
the relay junction including a second relay having one or more terminals (Fig. 2, see the E-Stop relay assembly 222 including relays 1 and 2. Also see [0057], [0045], [0048] and [0041]);
the one or more terminals of the second relay coupled with one or more terminals of the relay; and
the one or more terminals of the second relay configured to receive one or more control signals (see [0031], [0044]-[0045] [0058]. The shutdown assembly 25) to control the operation of the vehicle responsive (see [0047]-[0048]) to detecting that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed (Fig. 4, see the steps 496 and/or 498. Also see [0057] and [0041]).
As per claim 19, the combination of Fitch and Nakagawa discloses the vehicle of claim 14 as described above.
Fitch further discloses:
the relay including one or more coils coupled with one or more contacts of a second relay of the relay junction (Fig. 2, see the E-Stop relay assembly 222 including relays 1 and 2. Also see [0043]-[0045]); and
the second relay configured to receive, via the one or more contacts, one or more control signals (see [0031], [0044]-[0045] [0058]. The shutdown assembly 25) intended for the relay responsive to a failure in the relay (Fig. 4, see the steps 496 and/or 498. Also see [0057] and [0041]).
As per claim 20, Fitch, in the embodiment of Fig. 4, discloses:
A circuit for an e-stop relay system (Also see [0058]. The central processor of the safety control module 10 of Fitch), the circuit configured to:
receive a plurality of signals (Also see [0058]. The central processor of the safety control module 10 of Fitch implicitly receive signals, see Fig. 4) that correspond to operation of the relay (Fig. 2, see the E-Stop relay assembly 222. Also see [0057] and [0041]);
detect, using at least one signal of the plurality of signals, that at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed (Fig. 4, see the steps 496 and/or 498. Also see [0057] and [0041]); and
Fitch discloses said circuit but does not explicitly disclose it transmits
one or more signals to a light source to cause the light source to produce light that indicates that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed.
However, Nakagawa further discloses:
one or more signals to a light source to cause the light source to produce light that indicates that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed (see abstract [0083], [0030] and [0057]. The implicit light source of the display of Nakagawa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the “one or more signals to a light source to cause the light source to produce light that indicates that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed” disclosed by Nakagawa into Fitch, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by enabling an user/operator can take a measure such as replacement or repairing of all the switches/relays (Nakagawa, Paragraph [0057]).
9. Claim(s) 5 and 16 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitch in view of Nakagawa, and further in view of HATANAKA (Pub. No.: US 2017/0015200 hereinafter mentioned as “Hatanaka”).
As per claim 5, the combination of Fitch and Nakagawa discloses the e-stop relay system of claim 1 as described above.
Fitch further discloses:
wherein the at least one portion of e-stop relay system (Fig. 2, see the safety control module 10. Also see [0057] and [0041]) includes the relay (Fig. 2, see the E-Stop relay assembly 222. Also see [0057] and [0041]).
The combination of Fitch and Nakagawa does not explicitly disclose that said circuit is configured to
detect that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed in response to the relay being welded.
Hatanaka further discloses:
wherein the circuit is configured to detect that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed in response to the relay being welded (see [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the detecting that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed in response to the relay being welded disclosed by Hatanaka into Fitch in view of Nakagawa, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by determining whether to permit the vehicle to travel can be reliably executed based on the result of the welding diagnosis and the open-closed state of the lid according to this vehicle (Hatanaka, Paragraph [0014]), while also providing a welding diagnosis is so the safety can be further enhanced (Hatanaka, Paragraph [0016]).
As per claim 16, the combination of Fitch and Nakagawa discloses the vehicle of claim 14 as described above.
Fitch further discloses:
wherein the at least one portion of e-stop relay system (Fig. 2, see the safety control module 10. Also see [0057] and [0041]) includes the relay (Fig. 2, see the E-Stop relay assembly 222. Also see [0057] and [0041]).
The combination of Fitch and Nakagawa does not explicitly disclose that said circuit is configured to
detect that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed in response to the relay being welded.
Hatanaka further discloses:
wherein the circuit is configured to detect that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed in response to the relay being welded (see [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to the detecting that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed in response to the relay being welded disclosed by Hatanaka into Fitch in view of Nakagawa, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system and measurements by determining whether to permit the vehicle to travel can be reliably executed based on the result of the welding diagnosis and the open-closed state of the lid according to this vehicle (Hatanaka, Paragraph [0014]), while also providing a welding diagnosis is so the safety can be further enhanced (Hatanaka, Paragraph [0016]).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim(s) 2 are/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.
11. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the objection:
12. Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the below underlined limitations incorporated together with the other claimed limitations not mentioned herein:
the circuit including a plurality of logic gates;
a first logic gate of the plurality of logic gates communicably coupled with the light source such that the light source receives the one or more signals from the first logic gate; and
the light source configured to produce light having a given color or illumination amount to indicate that the at least one portion of the e-stop relay system has failed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. 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.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858