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.
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to the amendments/arguments submitted by the Applicant(s) on 05/27/2026.
Response to Arguments
I. Status of the Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are still pending.
3. The drawings filed on 07/17/2024 have been accepted.
II. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and found persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and found not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
6. Page-9, the Applicant(s) argues that “The recited differential voltage measurement is not performed in the abstract- it is performed by a specific bridge-circuit topology (claims 3, 10, and 17) in which an impedance cable extending from the central controller to one of the outer towers ( claims 2, 11, and 14) is used in combination with the safety switch circuit to produce a measurable differential voltage that varies according to where along the safety switch circuit an open switch exists. This is precisely the kind of "particular machine" and "improvement to a technology or technical field" that the Guidance recognizes as integrating an exception into a practical application. … ”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) do not recite a particular machine/device, the additional elements/limitations is/are simply well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry despite the fact that include concrete components in addition to the mathematical calculations or mental steps. Therefore, do not amount to significantly more and fall in the concept of extra-solution activities and a field of use pursuant to the MPEP 2106.05(b) I. THE PARTICULARITY OR GENERALITY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS; MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity; and MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity; and 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
6.1. FIRST Argument in support to response to number 6 above.
2106.05(b) Particular Machine, … III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more ... Examiners may find it helpful to evaluate other considerations such as the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and the field of use and technological environment consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), when making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is a particular machine …
When determining whether a machine recited in a claim provides significantly more, the following factors are relevant.
I. THE PARTICULARITY OR GENERALITY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE MACHINE OR APPARATUS
The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines). One example of applying a judicial exception with a particular machine is Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 40 USPQ 199 (1939). In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. 306 U.S. at 95-96; 40 USPQ at 203. Another example is Eibel Process, in which gravity (a law of nature or natural phenomenon) was applied by a Fourdrinier machine (which was understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web. Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923).
2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high
level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility …
III. WHETHER ITS INVOLVEMENT IS EXTRA-SOLUTION ACTIVITY OR A FIELD-OF-USE, Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. This consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility ...
2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process ... An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent … As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional …
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the court, the analysis and test to determine if the additional elements add to significantly more than the abstract-idea by determining whether the additional elements are claiming a specifically identified particular device with sufficient particular structure (i.e. dimensions, shape, length, angles of arrangements, etc.) and not the general and basic structure of any and all machines, and/or, whether said additional elements fall into the concept of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception either pre-solution or post-solution activities, which includes that such additional elements to be recited at a high level of generality that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry; and whether said additional elements is amount to more than generally linked to a field of use and technological environment consideration.
With regards to the particularity of a machine under 2106.05(b), claim 1 does not claim a particular machine, it simply claims a plurality of towers, plurality of safety switches, and a central controller with a high degree of generality that could not be considered a particular tower, switches and/or central controller because they all lack particular description of their dimensions, shapes, lengths, angles of arrangements, structure forming them, etc. For example, the plurality of towers, switches and/or central controller, see Stewart, II et al. Patent No.: US 11,326,867 (hereinafter mentioned as “Stewart”), Fig. 4, plurality of wheeled-irrigation-towers 418a-418d, safety line 424 with switches 416a-416d and the controller/indicator-circuitry 426 and/or electronic device 502. Also see column 11, lines 25-67; and/or column 13, which was provided in the previous office action and submitted via IDS.
With regards to the Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity that includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g), the instant application, the independent claims simply recites the additional claim elements/limitations “a plurality of towers, at least a portion of the towers including a successive one of a plurality of safety switches, each safety switch being either closed or open, the safety switch of each tower electrically connected to at least one safety switch of another tower; and a central controller electrically connected to at least one of the safety switches, the central controller configured to: measure a differential voltage between a safety switch circuit load formed in part by the safety switches and a reference load” (hereinafter together mentioned as the “Routine-Devices-Activities-Of-The-Industry”), which are insignificant extra-solution activities that fall into the category of well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known to the systems and methods for irrigation comprising a plurality of towers and safety switches.
The prior art evidence in support that additional elements are extra solution activities (Pre-solution and Post-solution) as follows:
The independent claim(s) recites the limitation(s) “a plurality of towers, at least a portion of the towers including a successive one of a plurality of safety switches, each safety switch being either closed or open, the safety switch of each tower electrically connected to at least one safety switch of another tower”, see Stewart, Fig. 4, the plurality of wheeled-irrigation-towers 418a-418d, safety line 424 with switches 416a-416d and the controller/indicator-circuitry 426 and/or electronic device 502. Also see column 11, lines 25-67; and/or column 13.
The independent claim(s) further recites the limitation(s) “a central controller electrically connected to at least one of the safety switches”, see Stewart, Fig. 4, the plurality of wheeled-irrigation-towers 418a-418d, safety line 424 with switches 416a-416d and the controller/indicator-circuitry 426 and/or electronic device 502. Also see column 11, lines 25-67; and/or column 13.
The independent claim(s) further recites the limitation(s) “measure a differential voltage between a safety switch circuit load formed in part by the safety switches and a reference load”, see Potter et al. Pub. No.: US 2022/0077671 (hereinafter mentioned as “Potter”), Fig. 2, Potter. Also see [0023], which was provided in the previous office.
Furthermore, the claims at issue as a whole are simply directed to gathering and analyzing collected information about a signal with conventional techniques, which have similarities in a general way with the case of TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48 where the courts have indicated that “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” are not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
Therefore, the claim 1 simply recite the insignificant extra-solution activity related to irrigation system, which is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity to the irrigation industry that is performed using well-understood and routine structure to said industry such as sensors, processors/microprocessors, data collection, etc., which do not amount to an inventive concept.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because in summary the additional element individually and/or in combination of elements as whole fall into the concept(s) of “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity” to the judicial-exception/Abstract-idea and “well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry”, which do not amount to an inventive concept.
6.2 SECOND Argument in support to response to number 6 above.
2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment, Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The courts often cite to Parker v. Flook as providing a classic example of a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use or adding token post solution components did not make the concept patentable") (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 (1978)). In Flook, the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm limit (a numerical limit on a process variable such as temperature, pressure or flow rate) according to a mathematical formula "in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons." … Although the applicant argued that limiting the use of the formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields should make the claim eligible because this limitation ensured that the claim did not preempt all uses of the formula, the Supreme Court disagreed. 437 U.S. at 588-90, 198 USPQ at 197-98 … Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: … vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) …
In summary, the MPEP and the courts have found that simply linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not sufficient for the claims to be eligible.
In the instant application, the claim 1 but simply linked to the “Technological Environment” relative to the irrigation systems. Therefore, the limitations amount to merely indicating a the use, which in a general way is similar to Parker v. Flook where the claim recited steps of calculating an updated value for an alarm is linked to the field/industry related to chemical conversion of hydrocarbons in which the court found the claims ineligibles under 101.
Furthermore, the claims as a whole do not amount to more than estimating the result of an endurance test using conditions that are algorithms/equations themselves, using a general purpose processor that performs machine learning tasks such as executing said abstract-idea/judicial exception.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the abstract-idea/judicial-exception are mathematical algorithms and formulas and is not implemented into a practical application but simply linking it to a particular technological environment or field of use.
7. Page-9, the Applicant(s) argues that “In particular, the specific arrangement of a safety switch circuit load and a reference load with two resistors forming a bridge circuit driven by a varying-voltage source, together with an impedance cable positioned in proximity to the safety switch cable … ”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim 1 does not recite the two resistors forming a bridge circuit driven by a varying-voltage source, together with an impedance cable positioned in proximity to the safety switch cable.
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.
8. Claim 1 and 4-9 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.
9. Claim 1 is directed to “determine, according to the differential voltage, at least one of a location of the open safety switch, a distance from a reference point, and an identifier of the tower associated with the open safety switch”, which could also be mental-steps/mathematical-calculations that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “An irrigation system comprising: a plurality of towers, at least a portion of the towers including a successive one of a plurality of safety switches, each safety switch being either closed or open, the safety switch of each tower electrically connected to at least one safety switch of another tower; and a central controller electrically connected to at least one of the safety switches, the central controller configured to: measure a differential voltage between a safety switch circuit load formed in part by the safety switches and a reference load” 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Dependent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
9.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to an irrigation system, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
9.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites: “determine, according to the differential voltage, at least one of a location of the open safety switch, a distance from a reference point, and an identifier of the tower associated with the open safety switch”, which are mental-steps/mathematical-calculations. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
9.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 1 does not claim a particular machine because the plurality of towers and plurality of safety switches is not claimed with sufficient specificity and the central controller is simply a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the irrigation context, is simply linking the claim to a technological environment, industry or field of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the irrigation technology. 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 the irrigation technologies using safety switches, sensors, etc., and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to the technological field relative to systems and a methods for irrigation system).
9.3. 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): claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “An irrigation system comprising: a plurality of towers, at least a portion of the towers including a successive one of a plurality of safety switches, each safety switch being either closed or open, the safety switch of each tower electrically connected to at least one safety switch of another tower; and a central controller electrically connected to at least one of the safety switches, the central controller configured to: measure a differential voltage between a safety switch circuit load formed in part by the safety switches and a reference load”, of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or 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 Stewart and Potter as indicated above, which provided in the previous office action as prior art made of record, and on the references of the IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do 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).
10. Claim 4 depends on claim 3 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
11. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
12. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
13. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
14. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
15. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve 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 and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
16. Claim(s) 2-3 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.
17. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the objection:
18. 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:
wherein the safety switch circuit load is formed by
the safety switches,
a switch cable including a plurality of sections that electrically connect the central
controller to a first safety switch and the safety switches to one another, and an impedance cable electrically connected to the central controller and extending from the central controller to one of the outer towers.
19. Regarding claim 3, 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:
wherein the central controller includes, or is in electronic communication with, a differential voltage measurement circuit including
a voltage source configured to output a varying voltage;
the safety switch circuit load, the reference load, and two resistors electrically connected to one another to form a bridge circuit that is electrically connected to the voltage source; and
a voltmeter configured to measure the differential voltage,
Reasons for Allowability / Allowable Subject Matter
20. Claims 10-20 are allowed.
21. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
22. Regarding claim 10, 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:
a differential voltage measurement circuit comprising: ... a voltmeter configured to measure a differential voltage from a first point between the safety switch circuit load and a first resistor to a second point between the reference load and a second resistor;
wherein the central controller further includes a processor configured to determine, according to the differential voltage, at least one of a location of the open safety switch, a distance from a reference point, and an identifier of the tower associated with the open safety switch.
23. Claims 11-12 are allowed due to the fact that they further limit and depend on claim 10.
24. Regarding claim 13, 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:
positioning an impedance cable in proximity to a safety switch cable that electrically connects the safety switches to one another to form a safety switch circuit;
determining the position of, or the distance to, an open safety switch according to the differential voltage.
25. Claims 14-20 are allowed due to the fact that they further limit and depend on claim 13.
26. The prior art of record does not anticipate the limitations of the independent claims 10 and 13.
Furthermore, there is not any obvious motivation for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine some and/or all of the features of the prior art of record to achieve the features of the independent claims 10 and 13. In addition, it will further require substantial structural modification of the components that will also require substantial modification of the measurements, signal processing and configurations to achieve the features of the allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon thru Fri from 8:00am to 5pm.
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
Prosecution Insights