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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/08/2024 the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 8 and 11, recite the term “and/or” is confusing and unclear. It is unclear whether “and” or “or” is intended and it is noted that the two terms (“and” and “or”) have different meanings making it imperative to know which term is intended in order to understand the metes and bounds of the claim. Applicant is advised to select EITHER “and” or “or”, but not both. The claim will be examined as best understood wherein “and/or” is taken to mean “or”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being participated by Pullmann et al. (US 2013/0020817).
Regarding claim 1, Pullmann teaches An unlocking system (see figures 1-5; fig. 1@ locking apparatus 22) for unlocking an opening of a door or gate ( fig. 1@ safety door 18), comprising: at least one power supply control device (fig. 1@ 34), interposed between a power supply network (fig. 1@ 32) and a load (fig. 1@ 12) to be supplied; and an unlocking unit, comprising: an actuator (fig. 3@ 48), comprising: a body (figs. 1 and 3@ 28) that can be fixed to a door or gate (fig. 1@ 18); and an engagement member (fig. 2@ 48); and an actuation unit (fig. 1@ 26), which can be fixed to a frame (fig. 1@ 16) in correspondence with an opening, closed by said door or gate (18), wherein said actuation unit (26) comprises a containment (26) containing: a blocking member (fig. 5@ blocking member 68), engageable with said engagement member (48) when said door or gate (18) are closed; and a logic control unit ( fig. 1@ 36 and par. [0096]), configured to control operation of said at least one power supply control device (22), so as to allow an interruption of a power supply of said load (12), and to activate the blocking member (68), releasing the engagement member (48), after a predefined or predefined time interval (see par. [0096-0097]).
Regarding claim 2, Pullmann teaches wherein said logic control unit (36) is connected to said blocking member (68) to control said blocking member, and said logic control unit (36) is configured or configurable to allow the power supply of said load following the engagement of said blocking member with said engagement member (par. [0096-0097]).
Regarding claim 3, Pullmann teaches wherein said actuation unit (26) comprises an actuator connected to said logic control unit (36), capable of driving said blocking member (68) (see par. [0096-0097]).
Regarding claim 6, Pullmann teaches wherein said actuation unit comprises a communication-reader device (see par. [0059], a transponder of this type can be an RFID unit, for instance, which can be read out from the frame part) operatively connected to said logic control unit, in that said actuator comprises an emitter device arranged in said body, so that when the engagement member is engaged with said blocking member, said emitter device is in correspondence with said communication-reader device for the communication-reader device to read said emitter device, wherein said emitter device has an identification code memorized (see par. [0059-0063]).
Regarding claim 7, Pullmann teaches wherein a communication reader device comprises an RFID reader (fig. 5@ 76; and par. [0120], transponder 76 is preferably realized as an RFID unit) operatively connected to said logic control unit, and an emitter device comprises a tag (see par. [0059-0063]).
Regarding claim 8, Pullmann teaches wherein said communication-reader device (see par. [0059], a transponder of this type can be an RFID unit, for instance, which can be read out from the frame part) and said emitter device are operatively connected by radio frequency, magnetic (see par. [0059-0063] and [0120]).
Regarding claim 9, Pullmann teaches wherein said logic control unit (36) is configured or configurable to control the operation of said at least one power supply control device (22), supplying said load (12) according to an identification code of an emitter device read by a communication reader device (see par. [0058-0063]).
Regarding claim 10, Pullmann teaches wherein said predefined or predefinable time interval, which is stored in said emitter device and detected by said communication-reader device (see par. [0096-0097] and [0058-0063]).
Regarding claim 12, Pullmann teaches wherein said at least one power supply control device (34) is integrated inside said body of said release unit (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Pullmann teaches An unlocking system (see figures 1-5; fig. 1@ locking apparatus 22), comprising: an actuator (fig. 3@ 48), comprising: a body (fig. 1@ 28), which can be fixed to a door or gate (fig. 1@ safety door 18); and an engagement member (fig. 2@ 48); and an actuation unit (fig. 1@ 26), which can be fixed to a frame (fig. 1@ 16) in correspondence with an opening, closed by said door or gate (18), comprising: a blocking member (fig. 5@ blocking member 68), engageable with said engagement member (48) when said door or gate (18) are closed; and a logic control unit (fig. 1@ 36 and par. [0096]), connectable to a power supply control device (fig. 1@ 34), configured to control the operation of at least one power supply control device (34), so as to allow an interruption of a power supply a load (fig. 1@ 12), and to actuate the blocking member (68), releasing the engagement member (48), after a predefined or predefined time interval (see par. [0096-0097]).
Regarding claim 14, Pullmann teaches wherein said actuation unit (26) comprises an actuator connected to said logic control unit (36), capable of driving said blocking member (68) (see par. [0096-0097]).
Regarding claim 15, Pullmann teaches wherein said actuation unit comprises a communication-reader device, such as an RFID reader (see par. [0059], a transponder of this type can be an RFID unit, for instance, which can be read out from the frame part), functionally connected to said logic unit control, and said actuator comprises an emitter device, arranged in said body, so that when the engaging member is engaged with said blocking member, said emitter device is located in correspondence with said RFID reader for the RFID reader to read said emitter device, wherein said emitter device has an identification code memorized (see par. [0059-0063]).
Regarding claim 16, Pullmann teaches An unlocking method, for controlling an unlocking system (see figures 1-5; fig. 1@ locking apparatus 22), comprising the steps of: receiving an unlocking instruction by a stop switch (34); sending a signal to interrupt the power supply of the load through at least one power control device (36); receiving a feedback signal that the power supply to the load (12) has been interrupted; starting a predefined timing (see par. [0097); and unlocking a door (18) by actuating a blocking member (68), which disengages an engagement member (48) of an actuator, which can be fixed to said door (18) to be blocked (see par. [0096-0097]).
Regarding claim 17, Pullmann teaches receiving an activation instruction by a start switch (34); blocking a door by actuating a blocking member (68), which engages an engagement member (48) of an actuator, which can be fixed to said door (18) to be locked; and sending a signal to enable the powering of the load (12) by said at least one power control device (36), (see par. [0096-0097]).
Regarding claim 18, Pullmann teaches wherein step of locking a door (18) by operating a blocking member (68) takes place following the step of recognizing an identification code stored in a tag arranged in said actuator by means of an RFID reader (see par. [0059-0063] and [0120], a transponder of this type can be an RFID unit, for instance, which can be read out from the frame part).
Regarding claim 19, Pullmann teaches wherein said timing is a function of said identification code stored in said tag (see par. [0059-0063]).
Regarding claim 21, Pullmann teaches a computer readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute the method steps according to claim 16 (see par. [0096-0097]).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pullmann et al. (US 2013/0020817) in view of Leska et al. (US 2011/0259060).
Regarding claim 4, Pullmann teaches the power supply control device (34), but does not explicitly teaches wherein said power supply control device is a remote control switch, comprising: a winding, connected to said logic control unit; a group of switches, connected to said power supply network, to control the power supply of said load; and a control switch or switching unit, connected to said logic control unit, by which said logic control logic unit detects a switching state of said group of switches.
Leska teaches power supply control device is a remote control switch (fig. 1@ safety switching device 26) (see par. [0056], the safety switching device 26 from FIG. 1 or another, remote safety controller), comprising: a winding, connected to said logic control unit (fig. 7@ 134); a group of switches (fig. 7@ 140, 142), connected to said power supply network, to control the power supply of said load (12); and a control switch (138) or switching unit, connected to said logic control unit (134), by which said logic control logic unit detects a switching state of said group of switches (see figures 1 and 7; and par. [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pullmann with the teachings of Leska by having power supply control device is a remote control switch, comprising: a winding, connected to said logic control unit; a group of switches, connected to said power supply network, to control the power supply of said load; and a control switch or switching unit, connected to said logic control unit, by which said logic control logic unit detects a switching state of said group of switches in order to allowing a low-power logic unit to safely detect and manage high-power network load.
Regarding claim 11, Pullmann teaches the logic control unit (36), but does not explicitly teach wherein said time interval of said logic control unit is programmable.
Leska teaches the logic control unit is programmable (see figure 1; and par. [0047], the safety switching device 26, the safety switch 16 could also be connected to a programmable safety controller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pullmann with the teachings of Leska by having the logic control unit is programmable in order to allowing for easy system modifications, rapid troubleshooting, and cost-effective updates without changing any physical wiring.
Regarding claim 20, Pullmann teaches the logic control unit (36) cause the computer to execute the steps of the method according to claim 16, (see par. [0096-0097]), but does not explicitly teach a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer.
Leska teaches the logic control unit is programmable (see figure 1; and par. [0047], the safety switching device 26, the safety switch 16 could also be connected to a programmable safety controller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pullmann with the teachings of Leska by having a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer in order to allowing for easy system modifications, rapid troubleshooting, and cost-effective updates without changing any physical wiring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUAN LY whose telephone number is (571)272-9885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7492. 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.
/XUAN LY/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights