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 .
Claims 1-15 have been presented for examination.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (see paragraph 0021). Applicants are required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically claim 5 claims a “second cryptographic signature” without claiming a first. It is unclear if claim 5 requires two cryptographic signatures or just a single cryptographic signature. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting “second cryptographic signature” as “cryptographic signature”.
In addition, claim 7 claims a “forth message” without claiming a third. It is unclear if claim 7 requires a “third message” or if claim 7 should depend on claim 2 which does recite a “third message”. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 7 as depending on claim 2.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8-10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotting et al [Kotting] WO 2019/162290 in view of Chen PGPUB 2021/0008728.
Referring to claim 1, Kotting teaches the method for enabling a safety-critical function of a machine, the method comprising:
monitoring a safety-critical region of the machine using a monitoring system, wherein the monitoring system comprises at least one monitoring sensor [pg. 15],
blocking the safety-critical function upon detecting by the monitoring system a first risk in a first signal of the monitoring sensor [pg. 15],
combining the first signal of the monitoring sensor at a first point in time with a first identifier to form a first message [pgs. 7-8],
sending the first message by the monitoring system to an enabling unit [pg. 15],
In summary, Kotting teaches disabling a machine if a person is detected within a danger zone by signaling to an actuator to shut down the machine [pg. 15]. Between the sensor detecting a user in the danger zone and the actuator shutting down the machine, there is a signaling chain wherein a security element is introduced to protect against hacking and cyber security issues by incorporating values into the message such as serial numbers, hash values public/private keys, or other hardware coding [pgs. 7-8].
While Kotting teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, it is not explicitly taught to receive from an enabling unit at a second time a second message; which is verified; and in response, enable the safety critical function if the second message is verified. In other words, Kotting differs from the claimed invention in that the monitoring system is not a two-way device for generating a second message that would include the first identifier.
Chen teaches a safety device that operates in substantially the same environment as Kotting wherein a user is provided with a remote device which can be used to monitor and control operation of a machine including shutting down and resuming its operation remotely via wireless connection [0034-0035, 0059, 0065]. In other words, Chen can receive information from the machine (i.e., robot) at a safety device and return operational instructions to the machine to resume its operation if stopped.
To rephrase, Kotting discloses a monitoring sensor detecting a person in a danger zone, a safety control unit blocking the machines operation in response, and a security architecture requiring identifier/credential information/signature verification on messages exchanged within the monitoring system to prevent unauthorized manipulation of the systems operational state.
Chen discloses a mobile terminal that receives status information from a machine (via display) and transmits control signals to the machine (via the enable switch and touch panel) including a signal that permits/resumes machine operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kotting and Chen because Chen would provide an operator with the ability to remotely monitor and control operation of the Kotting machine while doing so in a secure manner using the security architecture taught in Kotting.
Referring to claim 5, Kotting teaches the identifier being a signature which is further taught as a cryptographic signature which, if a mismatch is detected, indicates that there may be a manipulation attempt [pgs. 7-8].
Referring to claim 8, this is rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove. Kotting and Chen teach the method and therefore teach the system performing the method. Furthermore, machine 20 in Kotting is interpreted as the claimed machine while the remaining components are interpreted as comprising the monitoring system [Figs. 2-3]. The operation device 81 is interpreted as comprising the claimed enabling unit.
Referring to claim 9, while Kotting teaches using optoelectronic devices [pg. 15], it is not explicitly taught that those include cameras. The examiner is taking official notice that cameras are known optoelectronic devices that are used in safety environments like that in Kotting1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to cameras in the Kotting-Chen combination because doing so would allow for detection of people in the danger zone as required in Kotting.
Referring to claim 10, Kotting teaches using light barriers [pg. 2].
Referring to claim 15, this is rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6 and 11-14 are 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.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
PGPUB 2024/0417118 to Savioli teaches enabling a machine where no obstacles have been present for a period of time [0071].
PGPUB 2021/0373526 to Hammes teaches a sensor determining whether to enable a machine or maintain it in a safety mode [0032].
PGPUB 2021/0232114 to Stagg teaches remote device controller that uses coded messaging and identity verification when communicating between a safety stop device [0019].
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest either individually or in combination, providing a chronological order of the messages, including timestamps for the messages, failing verification if a second risk is detected before the second point in time as found in claims 2-4, 6-7 and 11-14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 7/25/26
1 See Hofmann PGPUB 20220244995 paragraph 0065.
Prosecution Insights