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.
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.
1. Claim 1-12 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.
2. 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.
Dependent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
2.1. 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).
2.2.1. 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).
2.2.2. 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, 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 mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, thus, monopolizing the mental-steps/mathematical-calculations in a variety of technologies including but not limited to irrigation and fields also using voltage sensors, current sensors, magnetic sensors, switching devices, etc. (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).
2.3. 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”, 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 (systems and a methods for irrigation system). 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).
3. Claim 2 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 2 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 2 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.
4. Claim 3 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 3 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 3 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim 10 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 including, or in electronic communication with, a differential voltage measurement circuit comprising: a voltage source configured to output a varying voltage; a safety switch circuit load formed in part by the safety switches, a 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 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” 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 10 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
11.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 10 is directed to an irrigation system, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
11.2.1. 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).
11.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 10 does not 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 mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, thus, monopolizing the mental-steps/mathematical-calculations in a variety of technologies including but not limited to irrigation and fields also using voltage sensors, current sensors, magnetic sensors, switching devices, etc. (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).
11.3. 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 10 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 including, or in electronic communication with, a differential voltage measurement circuit comprising: a voltage source configured to output a varying voltage; a safety switch circuit load formed in part by the safety switches, a 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 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”, 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 made of record below and on the IDS). 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).
12. Claim 11 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 11 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 11 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.
13. Claim 12 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 12 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 12 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.
14. Claim 13 is directed to “determining the position of, or the distance to, an open safety switch according to the differential voltage”, which could also be mental-steps/mathematical-calculations that could also be performed by a general purpose processor. The additional elements “A method for determining a position of, or a distance to, an open safety switch in an irrigation system that includes a plurality of towers, at least a portion of the towers including successive one of a plurality of safety switches, the method comprising: 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; applying a varying voltage to the safety switch circuit and a reference load; measuring a differential voltage between a voltage drop across the safety switch circuit and a voltage drop across the 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.
Dependent claim 13 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
14.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 10 is directed to a method, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a process (Step 1: YES).
14.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 13 recites: “determining the position of, or the distance to, an open safety switch according to the differential voltage”, which are mental-steps/mathematical-calculations. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
14.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 13 does not 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 mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, thus, monopolizing the mental-steps/mathematical-calculations in a variety of technologies including but not limited to irrigation and fields also using voltage sensors, current sensors, magnetic sensors, switching devices, etc. (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).
14.3. 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 10 recites the additional element(s) “A method for determining a position of, or a distance to, an open safety switch in an irrigation system that includes a plurality of towers, at least a portion of the towers including successive one of a plurality of safety switches, the method comprising: 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; applying a varying voltage to the safety switch circuit and a reference load; measuring a differential voltage between a voltage drop across the safety switch circuit and a voltage drop across the reference load”, 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 made of record below and on the IDS). 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).
15. Claim 14 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 14 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 14 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.
16. Claim 15 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 15 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 15 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.
17. Claim 16 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 16 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 16 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.
18. Claim 17 depends on claim 16 that depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 17 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 17 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.
19. Claim 18 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 18 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 18 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.
20. Claim 19 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 19 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 19 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.
21. Claim 20 depends on claim 13, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 20 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 20 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.
22. The prior art of record does not teach the limitations of the mental-steps/ mathematical-calculations above in the independent claims.
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 above to achieve the features of the independent claims. In addition, it will further require substantial structural modification of the components that will also require substantial modification of the circuit configurations to achieve the features of said claims.
23. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Stewart, II (Patent No.: US 11,326,867) teaches “Circuitry for identifying a misaligned wheeled irrigation tower within a plurality of wheeled irrigation towers is described. The circuitry includes a test resistance configured for installation in a center pivot irrigation system. The circuitry also includes a plurality of resistances. Each of the plurality of resistances is configured for installation in a wheeled irrigation tower of the center pivot irrigation system and to be coupled in series with the test resistance. Each of the plurality of resistances is configured to be coupled to a corresponding switch of a respective wheeled irrigation tower and a neutral line” (Abstract).
b) Boll (Pub. No.: US 2012/0229938) teaches “A safety-related communication system includes a safety relay with signal inputs of an input signal current circuit that connect the safety relay to a control device for monitoring the input signal circuit. The safety relay also includes at least two load outputs of a load current circuit for connecting to a load. Switching elements are connected in parallel and configured to switch the load current circuit on or off based on an activation signal at the input signal current circuit. A diagnostic device monitors faults in the load current circuit and/or the safety relay.” (Abstract).
c) Kastl (Pub. No.: US 2019/0350145) teaches “a system and method which combines sensor inputs, control systems, field mapping, motor controls, and high speed and variable speed motor designs within an irrigation machine. According to a preferred embodiment, the present invention provides systems which are capable of full torque operation, even at speeds less than the rated speed of the motor” (Abstract).
d) Xu (Pub. No.: US 2021/0278464) teaches “a condition assessment method for an outdoor post-mounted vacuum switch. The method includes: establishing a condition assessment mathematical model for the post-mounted vacuum switch and acquiring scores of condition indicators of the post-mounted vacuum switch; and acquiring a condition assessment score based on the condition assessment mathematical model of the post-mounted vacuum switch and according to the scores of the condition indicators of the post-mounted vacuum switch so as to realize on-line monitoring of a health condition of the post-mounted vacuum switch and assess the health condition of the post-mounted vacuum switch” (Abstract).
e) MURAHARI (Pub. No.: US 2022/0043036) teaches that “An energy monitoring device includes a power supply circuit electrically coupled to a power source via a hot conductor and a load via a load conductor; a relay circuit including a relay and a relay driver circuit, where the relay includes a plurality of coils and the relay contact electrically coupled to the hot conductor and the load conductor; a sensing circuit including a hot voltage sensor and a load voltage sensor; and a controller electrically coupled to the power supply circuit, the relay driver circuit, and the sensing circuit, and structured to receive a hot voltage from the hot voltage sensor and a load voltage from the load voltage sensor, and determine a load current based at least in part on a relay contact resistance of the relay contact and a delta between the hot voltage and the load voltage” (Abstract).
f) Potter (Pub. No.: US 2022/0077671) teaches that “Series arcing in wiring is a potentially catastrophic situation that has proven to be difficult to detect reliably with existing methods. This invention allows for the quick and accurate detection of series arcing in an electrical circuit. The method works with AC or DC power sources, and at any voltage or current level. This method will also detect high resistance in a circuit, which is another indicator of a potentially hazardous fault condition” (Abstract).
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