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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sano et al (US 5,175,780).
1). With regard to claim 1, Sano et al discloses a system (Figures 1, 18-22 and 33 etc.) comprising:
a housing (Figures 1 and 18, housing 1);
an optical circuit (having emitting optical fiber 3, the receiving optical fiber 4, and an optical transmission pathway (a beam 9/optical signal), which is emitted from the emitting optical fiber 3 passes through the left corner-reflecting surface 5b, and enters the light-conducting prism 5, passes through the right corner-reflecting surface 5b, and reaches the end of receiving optical fiber 4) disposed in the housing, the optical circuit comprising an emitter (emitting optical fiber 3) configured to emit an emitted optical signal, a receiver (receiving optical fiber 4) configured to receive a received optical signal, and an optical transmission pathway (Figures 1, 18-22 and 33 etc., from fiber 3 to left corner-reflecting surface 5c to gap 5d to right corner-reflecting surface 5c, to receiving optical fiber 4) extending from the emitter (emitting optical fiber 3) to the receiver (the receiving optical fiber 4), wherein the optical transmission pathway is indirect (from the emitting optical fiber 3 passes through the reflecting surfaces 5b and the light-conducting prism 5, and reaches the end of receiving optical fiber 4. Because of the prism 5 and gap 5d, the optical transmission pathway is indirect);
a manual actuator (the actuator 6) coupled to the housing having an engaged position (“when the actuator 6 is pushed down against the coil spring 7, the shutter 8 directly connected to the actuator 6 is inserted into the air gap 5d of the light-conducting prism 5 as shown by the alternate-long-and-short-dashed line in FIG. 1, so that the shutter 8 cuts off the beam 9 transmitted across the air gap 5d. Thus, the optical signal does not reach the receiving optical fiber 4, and hence the optical switch is changed into the OFF state”. And, Figure 22: “OFF” state) and a disengaged position (“an ON state of the optical switch: the shutter 8 is in the normal position in which the shutter 8 is placed above the air gap 5d of the light-conducting prism 5”. And, Figure 21: “ON” state. “Although the optical switch above is a normally-on switch, a normally-off switch can also be constructed. For example, an opening for passing beam 9 is provided at the middle of the shutter 8, and the shutter 8 is positioned so that it cuts off the beam 9 in the normal position. When the actuator 6 is pushed down, the shutter 8 moves down and transmits the beam 9 through the opening”; and Figures 19-20); and
a baffle (shutter 8) fixed to the manual actuator, wherein the baffle obstructs the optical transmission pathway when the manual actuator is in the engaged position (Figures 1 and 18-22, “when the actuator 6 is pushed down against the coil spring 7, the shutter 8 directly connected to the actuator 6 is inserted into the air gap 5d of the light-conducting prism 5 as shown by the alternate-long-and-short-dashed line in FIG. 1, so that the shutter 8 cuts off the beam 9 transmitted across the air gap 5d”; also refer to Figure 22) and the baffle is clear of the optical transmission pathway when the manual actuator is in the disengaged position (“the shutter 8 is placed above the air gap 5d of the light-conducting prism 5. A beam 9 or an optical signal emitted from the emitting optical fiber 3 passes through the focusing lens 5b, and enters the light-conducting prism 5”. And, Figure 21).
2). With regard to claim 2, Sano et al discloses wherein the emitter defines an emitter axis (defined by the emitting optical fiber 3; as shown in Figures 1 and 18-22, from the fiber 3 to lens 5b to the left side reflecting surface 5c) and the receiver defines a receiver axis (defined by the receiving optical fiber 4; as shown in Figures 1 and 18-22, from right side reflecting surface 5c to lens 5b to the fiber 4) and the emitter axis is parallel to the receiver axis (Figures 1 and 18-22).
3). With regard to claim 3, Sano et al discloses wherein the optical transmission pathway comprises a first mirror (e.g., the left corner-reflecting surfaces 5c in Figures 1 and 18-22).
4). With regard to claim 4, Sano et al discloses wherein the optical transmission pathway comprises a second mirror (the right corner-reflecting surface 5c) perpendicular to the first mirror (column 17 lines 36-37, “In FIG. 19 to FIG. 22, the corner-reflecting surfaces 5c of the light-conducting prism 5 are planar”; then the right corner-reflecting surface is perpendicular to the left corner-reflecting surface).
5). With regard to claim 5, Sano et al discloses wherein engaging the manual actuator translates the baffle between the first mirror and the second mirror (igures 1, 18-22 and 33 etc., the manual actuator 6 translates the baffle 8 between the first mirror, the left corner-reflecting surface, and the second mirror, the right corner-reflecting surace).
6). With regard to claim 10, Sano et al discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising an indicator assembly (Abstract and Figures 18-22, “the beam is switched to be transmitted to the primary receiving optical fiber or to the secondary receiving optical fiber according to the position of the shutter. Thus, the ON/OFF state of the optical switch can be indicated, or a transfer-type optical switch can be obtained by using the secondary receiving optical fiber as well as the primary receiving optical fiber as switching circuits”; column 16 line 65 to column 17 line 2, “the operating state of the optical switch can be indicated by connecting the secondary receiving optical fiber 12 to a switch-operation indicator so as to display the ON/OFF state of the optical switch according to the output of the secondary receiving optical fiber 12”) coupled to the housing, wherein the indicator assembly is configured to provide visual indication of the operating state of the system (column 6 line 23-26,“the ON/OFF state of the optical switch can be indicated by guiding the beam transmitted through the secondary receiving optical fiber to an indicator as a monitor signal”, and “the operating state of the optical switch can be indicated by connecting the secondary receiving optical fiber 12 to a switch-operation indicator so as to display the ON/OFF state of the optical switch according to the output of the secondary receiving optical fiber 12”).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al (US 5,175,780) in view of Banner (Banner Engineering Corp., “PICO-GUARD™ Application and Design Guide”, August 2004, https://info.bannerengineering.com/cs/groups/public/documents/literature/116394.pdf).
Sano et al discloses all of the subject matter as applied to claim 1 above. But, Sano et al does not expressly disclose wherein the manual actuator is configured to maintain an engaged position until manual disengagement and the manual actuator is configured to maintain a disengaged position until manual engagement.
However, Banner, discloses a fiber optic emergency stop button (Figure 2, E-Stop 13 and 13; Figures 3 and 6: E-Stop button 6; pages 26 and 96-97); as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 6, a plurality of fiber optic emergency stop buttons are installed in a system, and the E-Stops are associated with a controller (Figures 2-3, PICO-GUARD Optic Safety System Controller; or 5 in Figure 6), and the controller can issue a Stop signal to the machine (page 12), and “These controllers also have electrical Universal Safety Stop Interface (USSI) inputs that can connect to other safeguards, E-stop devices, process controls or actuators. Regardless of the combination of optical elements and external safeguards used, when the system detects an interruption of an optical path or receives a safety stop request, it provides a stop signal to the machine control circuit. The machine control circuit then reacts to protect personnel from hazards, or to protect equipment, critical tooling, or critical materials in process”; and “Once activated, the E-stop switch must open its contacts and return to the closed-contact position only after deliberate action (such as twisting, pulling, or unlocking). The switch should be a positive-opening type, as described by IEC 60947-5-1 (see figure 23 on page 26).” (page 26) and “The optical E-stop switch provides a “closed” optical path, which is clear (beam is “made”) when the switch is in the armed position. When activated, the E-stop switch blocks the optical path and clears only after deliberate twisting of the red button” (page 96). Therefore, the combination of Sano et al and Banner teaches/discloses an E-Stop, wherein the manual actuator is configured to maintain an engaged position until manual disengagement and the manual actuator is configured to maintain a disengaged position until manual engagement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Banner to the system/method of Sano et al so that the optical switch can be used with a controller to protect personnel from hazards, or to protect equipment, critical tooling, or critical materials in process.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al (US 5,175,780) in view of Dipoala et al (US 2009/0114801) and Gelineau et al (US 2018/0025614).
Sano et al discloses all of the subject matter as applied to claim 1 above. But, Sano et al does not expressly disclose wherein the emitter is configured to emit a pulsed signal in a predetermined pattern.
However, Dipoala et al discloses a similar optical switch (Figures 2-3 etc.), which comprises an optical circuit (emitter 50, controller 48 and receiver 52 and optical transmission pathway 50->44>22->46->52), and “a controller 48 that may be electrically connected to both optical emitter 50 and optical receiver 52, such as through lines 54, 56, respectively. Through line 58, controller 48 may be electrically connected to a control panel (not shown) or some other centralized device that is capable of causing some type of alarm signal or tamper signal to be issued in response to controller 48 determining that door 14 has been opened without authorization. A determination that door 14 has been opened may be made by controller 48 as a result of sensing that receiver 52 is not receiving an optical beam that corresponds to or that is related to the optical beam that is being emitted by emitter 50” ([0034]); and the emitter is configured to emit a signal in a predetermined pattern ([0040]-[0046], “a unique identifying signal”, “the signal carried by emitted beam 44 may vary from electronic module to electronic module, or may vary with time” and “it is possible to oscillate emitted beam 44 at some particular frequency that gets passed on to reflected beam 46. Thus, this characteristic frequency may be used by processor 70 and/or signal analyzer 74 to distinguish reflected beam 46 from ambient light. Household current may be typically oscillated at about 60 Hz. In one embodiment, emitted beam 44 is oscillated at a frequency of about 1000 Hz in order that reflected beam 46 may be more easily distinguished from ambient light”). But, Dipoala et al does not expressly state that the unique identifying signal or the signal with particular frequency is a pulsed signal. However, another prior art, Gelineau et al, discloses a similar optical switch (Figures 1-4 etc.), and “The processor 505 may receive from the emitter I/O 530 information regarding characteristics (e.g., pulse signature) of an incident light signal transmitted from an emitter” ([0042]), and “The light signal may be transmitted in accordance with a predetermined pulse signature to decrease the likelihood of a reflective object entering, with reference to FIG. 1, the light stream 112 undetected” ([0047]), and “the emitter may generate infrared light signals, flashing light signals, pulsating light signals, or a continuous light signal.” ([0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Dipoala et al and Gelineau et al to the system/method of Sano et al so that an emitter can emit a specific signal with “pulse signature”, and a controller/Signal Analyzer can conveniently and easily identify and determine whether the received signal matches the emitted signal.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Gelineau et al as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Banner (Banner Engineering Corp., “PICO-GUARD™ Application and Design Guide”, August 2004, https://info.bannerengineering.com/cs/groups/public/documents/literature/116394.pdf)
Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Gelineau et al discloses all of the subject matter as applied to claims 1 and 7 above. And the combination of Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Gelineau et al further discloses the system of claim 7, further comprising a controller having a processor (Dipoala: Figures 2-3 etc.; Gelineau: Figure 5) in data communication with the optical circuit (Dipoala: Figures 2-3 etc.; Gelineau: Figure 5), wherein the processor is configured to determine whether a signal received by the receiver matches the predetermined pattern of the pulsed signal (Diopala: [0034]-[0048]. Gelineau: [0027], “In response to the received alert, the electrical device 125 may initiate an emergency stop of the machinery 114, via the machinery operations station 134, to prevent the obstruction from contacting the machinery 114 during operation”; Figure 7, steps 755 and 760, and [0049]-[0050] etc., “If, at 750, the processor 505 determines the determined light signal intensity is not within the predetermined range of the stored light signal intensity, the processor 505 generates, at 755, a stop command because an obstruction has been detected. At 760, the processor 505 transmits the generated stop command to the machinery 114 to cease operating. In various embodiments, the processor 505, at 760, may transmit the generated stop command to, with reference to FIG. 1, the electrical device 125”). In Figures 1-6 etc., Gelineau et al shows the controller generates a stop command because an obstruction has been detected, and Gelineau et al does not expressly show an emergency stop button/device. However, another prior art, Banner, discloses a fiber optic emergency stop button (Figure 2, E-Stop 13 and 13; Figures 3 and 6: E-Stop button 6; pages 26 and 96-97); as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 6, a plurality of fiber optic emergency stop buttons are installed in a system, and the E-Stops are associated with a controller (Figures 2-3, PICO-GUARD Optic Safety System Controller; or 5 in Figure 6), and the controller can issue a Stop signal to the machine (page 12), and “These controllers also have electrical Universal Safety Stop Interface (USSI) inputs that can connect to other safeguards, E-stop devices, process controls or actuators. Regardless of the combination of optical elements and external safeguards used, when the system detects an interruption of an optical path or receives a safety stop request, it provides a stop signal to the machine control circuit. The machine control circuit then reacts to protect personnel from hazards, or to protect equipment, critical tooling, or critical materials in process.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Banner to the system/method of Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Gelineau et al so that the optical switch can be used with controller as an emergency stop (E-Stop) to protect personnel from hazards, or to protect equipment, critical tooling, or critical materials in process.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al (US 5,175,780) in view of Dipoala et al (US 2009/0114801) and Banner (Banner Engineering Corp., “PICO-GUARD™ Application and Design Guide”, August 2004, https://info.bannerengineering.com/cs/groups/public/documents/literature/116394.pdf)
Sano et al discloses all of the subject matter as applied to claim 1 above. But, Sao et al does not expressly disclose the system of claim 1, further comprising a controller having a processor in data communication with the optical circuit, wherein the processor is configured to issue a stop command when the receiver does not receive an emitted optical signal.
However, since Sano’s device is an optical switch, which can generate ON and OFF states; then it is obvious to one skilled in the art that a receiver that is associated with the fiber 4 can identify lack of receipt of the emitted optical signal, and then a controller can issue a controlling command (or stop command) to another device based on the identification of the lack of receipt of the emitted optical signal.
Dipoala et al discloses a similar optical switch (Figures 2-3 etc.), which comprises an optical circuit (emitter 50, controller 48 and receiver 52 and optical transmission pathway 50->44>22->46->52), and “a controller 48 that may be electrically connected to both optical emitter 50 and optical receiver 52, such as through lines 54, 56, respectively. Through line 58, controller 48 may be electrically connected to a control panel (not shown) or some other centralized device that is capable of causing some type of alarm signal or tamper signal to be issued in response to controller 48 determining that door 14 has been opened without authorization. A determination that door 14 has been opened may be made by controller 48 as a result of sensing that receiver 52 is not receiving an optical beam that corresponds to or that is related to the optical beam that is being emitted by emitter 50” ([0034]). Another prior art, Banner, discloses a fiber optic emergency stop button (Figure 2, E-Stop 13 and 13; Figures 3 and 6: E-Stop button 6; pages 26 and 96-97); as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 6, a plurality of fiber optic emergency stop buttons are installed in a system, and the E-Stops are associated with a controller (Figures 2-3, PICO-GUARD Optic Safety System Controller; or 5 in Figure 6), and the controller can issue a Stop signal to the machine (page 12), and “These controllers also have electrical Universal Safety Stop Interface (USSI) inputs that can connect to other safeguards, E-stop devices, process controls or actuators. Regardless of the combination of optical elements and external safeguards used, when the system detects an interruption of an optical path or receives a safety stop request, it provides a stop signal to the machine control circuit. The machine control circuit then reacts to protect personnel from hazards, or to protect equipment, critical tooling, or critical materials in process.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Dipoala et al and Banner to the system/method of Sano et al so that the optical switch can be used with controller to protect personnel from hazards, or to protect equipment, critical tooling, or critical materials in process.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al (US 5,175,780) in view of Dipoala et al (US 2009/0114801) and Banner (Banner Engineering Corp., “PICO-GUARD™ Application and Design Guide”, August 2004, https://info.bannerengineering.com/cs/groups/public/documents/literature/116394.pdf).
1). With regard to claim 11, Sano et al discloses a method comprising:
emitting an emitted optical signal (Figures 1, 18-22 and 33 etc., “A beam 9 or an optical signal emitted from the emitting optical fiber 3”) by an emitter (emitting optical fiber 3) within a housing (Figures 1 and 18, housing 1);
transmitting the emitted optical signal along an optical transmission pathway (Figures 1, 18-22 and 33 etc., from fiber 3 to left corner-reflecting surface 5c to gap 5d to right corner-reflecting surface 5c, to receiving optical fiber 4) within the housing from the emitter towards a receiver (receiving optical fiber 4) via a mirror (corner-reflecting surface 5c);
obstructing the optical transmission pathway resulting from engagement of a manual actuator (the actuator 6, “when the actuator 6 is pushed down against the coil spring 7, the shutter 8 directly connected to the actuator 6 is inserted into the air gap 5d of the light-conducting prism 5 as shown by the alternate-long-and-short-dashed line in FIG. 1, so that the shutter 8 cuts off the beam 9 transmitted across the air gap 5d. Thus, the optical signal does not reach the receiving optical fiber 4, and hence the optical switch is changed into the OFF state”).
But, Sano et al does not expressly disclose the method comprising: identifying lack of receipt of the emitted optical signal by the receiver; and issuing a stop command by a controller upon identification of the lack of receipt of the emitted optical signal.
However, since Sano’s device is an optical switch, which can generate ON and OFF states; then it is obvious to one skilled in the art that a receiver that is associated with the fiber 4 can identify lack of receipt of the emitted optical signal, and then a controller can issue a controlling command (or stop command) to another device based on the identification of the lack of receipt of the emitted optical signal.
Dipoala et al discloses a similar optical switch (Figures 2-3 etc.), which comprises an optical circuit (emitter 50, controller 48 and receiver 52 and optical transmission pathway 50->44>22->46->52), and “a controller 48 that may be electrically connected to both optical emitter 50 and optical receiver 52, such as through lines 54, 56, respectively. Through line 58, controller 48 may be electrically connected to a control panel (not shown) or some other centralized device that is capable of causing some type of alarm signal or tamper signal to be issued in response to controller 48 determining that door 14 has been opened without authorization. A determination that door 14 has been opened may be made by controller 48 as a result of sensing that receiver 52 is not receiving an optical beam that corresponds to or that is related to the optical beam that is being emitted by emitter 50” ([0034]). Another prior art, Banner, discloses a fiber optic emergency stop button (Figure 2, E-Stop 13 and 13; Figures 3 and 6: E-Stop button 6; pages 26 and 96-97); as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 6, a plurality of fiber optic emergency stop buttons are installed in a system, and the E-Stops are associated with a controller (Figures 2-3, PICO-GUARD Optic Safety System Controller; or 5 in Figure 6), and the controller can issue a Stop signal to the machine (page 12), and “These controllers also have electrical Universal Safety Stop Interface (USSI) inputs that can connect to other safeguards, E-stop devices, process controls or actuators. Regardless of the combination of optical elements and external safeguards used, when the system detects an interruption of an optical path or receives a safety stop request, it provides a stop signal to the machine control circuit. The machine control circuit then reacts to protect personnel from hazards, or to protect equipment, critical tooling, or critical materials in process.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Dipoala et al and Banner to the system/method of Sano et al so that the optical switch can be used with controller to protect personnel from hazards, or to protect equipment, critical tooling, or critical materials in process.
2). With regard to claim 12, Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner disclose all of the subject matter as applied to claim 11 above. And the combination of Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner further discloses wherein obstructing the optical transmission pathway comprises translating a baffle (Sano: shutter 8) across the optical transmission pathway (Sano: Figures 1, 18-22 and 33).
3). With regard to claim 13, Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner disclose all of the subject matter as applied to claim 11 above. And the combination of Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner further discloses wherein obstructing the optical transmission pathway comprises translating the optical transmission pathway across a baffle (Sano: Figures 1, 18-22 and 33; across the shutter 8).
4). With regard to claim 14, Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner disclose all of the subject matter as applied to claim 11 above. And the combination of Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner further discloses wherein obstructing the optical transmission pathway comprises translating the mirror (Sano: Figures 1, 18-22 and 33, reflecting surface 5c).
5). With regard to claim 15, Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner disclose all of the subject matter as applied to claim 11 above. And the combination of Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner further discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising providing an electronic output signal to the controller by the receiver correlating to a received optical signal (Dipoala: [0034], “a controller 48 that may be electrically connected to both optical emitter 50 and optical receiver 52, such as through lines 54, 56, respectively. Through line 58, controller 48 may be electrically connected to a control panel (not shown) or some other centralized device that is capable of causing some type of alarm signal or tamper signal to be issued in response to controller 48 determining that door 14 has been opened without authorization. A determination that door 14 has been opened may be made by controller 48 as a result of sensing that receiver 52 is not receiving an optical beam that corresponds to or that is related to the optical beam that is being emitted by emitter 50” [0034]; and Banner: the E-Stop sends electronic output signal to the PICO-GUARD contro
6). With regard to claim 16, Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner disclose all of the subject matter as applied to claims 11 and 15 above. And the combination of Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner further discloses wherein identifying lack of receipt of the emitted optical signal by the receiver comprises determining that the emitted optical signal is not received by the receiver by a processor comparing the electronic output signal to the emitted optical signal and determining that the electronic output signal does not match the emitted optical signal (Diopala: [0034]-[0048]).
7). With regard to claim 17, Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner disclose all of the subject matter as applied to claim 11 above. And the combination of Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner further discloses wherein the emitted optical signal has a predetermined pattern (Diopala: [0040]-[0045], “a unique identifying signal”, “the signal carried by emitted beam 44 may vary from electronic module to electronic module, or may vary with time” and “it is possible to oscillate emitted beam 44 at some particular frequency that gets passed on to reflected beam 46. Thus, this characteristic frequency may be used by processor 70 and/or signal analyzer 74 to distinguish reflected beam 46 from ambient light. Household current may be typically oscillated at about 60 Hz. In one embodiment, emitted beam 44 is oscillated at a frequency of about 1000 Hz in order that reflected beam 46 may be more easily distinguished from ambient light”).
8). With regard to claim 18, Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner disclose all of the subject matter as applied to claims 11 and 17 above. And the combination of Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner further discloses wherein the electronic output signal has a different pattern than the predetermined pattern (Diopala: [0040], “the signal carried by beam 44 may undergo some transformation within reflector arrangement 22 before being carried by beam 46, but it may be a somewhat predictable transformation. For example, the signal carried by reflected beam 46 may be reduced in amplitude, and/or shifted in phase, as compared to the signal carried by emitted beam 44. Signal analyzer 74 may ascertain the characteristics of the signal carried by reflected beam 46 based upon communications that analyzer 74 receives from receiver 52”).
9). With regard to claim 19, Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner disclose all of the subject matter as applied to claim 11 above. And the combination of Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner further discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising withholding a stop command by a controller when the emitted optical signal is received by the receiver (Dipoala: [0034], “A determination that door 14 has been opened may be made by controller 48 as a result of sensing that receiver 52 is not receiving an optical beam that corresponds to or that is related to the optical beam that is being emitted by emitter 50”, [0045], “A determination that door 14 has been opened may be made by controller 48 as a result of sensing that receiver 52 is not receiving an optical beam that corresponds to or that is related to the optical beam that is being emitted by emitter 50”; that is, when the receiver does not receive an optical signal, or when the pattern of the received signal does not match the pattern of the emitted signal, the alarm or control signal is issued; that also indicates that when the receiver does receive an optical signal, or when the pattern of the received signal does match the pattern of the emitted signal, no alarm s is issued or no action should be taken; or the combination of Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner teaches/suggests: withholding a stop command by a controller when the emitted optical signal is received by the receiver. Banner: page 26, “Once activated, the E-stop switch must open its contacts and return to the closed-contact position only after deliberate action (such as twisting, pulling, or unlocking). The switch should be a positive-opening type, as described by IEC 60947-5-1 (see figure 23 on page 26).”; page 96 “The optical E-stop switch provides a “closed” optical path, which is clear (beam is “made”) when the switch is in the armed position. When activated, the E-stop switch blocks the optical path and clears only after deliberate twisting of the red button.”).
10). With regard to claim 20, Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner disclose all of the subject matter as applied to claims 11 and 19 above. And the combination of Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner further discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising providing an electronic output signal to the controller from the receiver correlating to a received optical signal (Dipoala: [0034], “a controller 48 that may be electrically connected to both optical emitter 50 and optical receiver 52, such as through lines 54, 56, respectively. Through line 58, controller 48 may be electrically connected to a control panel (not shown) or some other centralized device that is capable of causing some type of alarm signal or tamper signal to be issued in response to controller 48 determining that door 14 has been opened without authorization. A determination that door 14 has been opened may be made by controller 48 as a result of sensing that receiver 52 is not receiving an optical beam that corresponds to or that is related to the optical beam that is being emitted by emitter 50” [0034]; and Banner: the E-Stop sends electronic output signal to the PICO-GUARD controller), wherein the emitted optical signal has a predetermined pattern and the electronic output signal has the same pattern as the predetermined pattern (Diopala: [0040]-[0046], “a unique identifying signal”, “the signal carried by emitted beam 44 may vary from electronic module to electronic module, or may vary with time” and “it is possible to oscillate emitted beam 44 at some particular frequency that gets passed on to reflected beam 46. Thus, this characteristic frequency may be used by processor 70 and/or signal analyzer 74 to distinguish reflected beam 46 from ambient light. Household current may be typically oscillated at about 60 Hz. In one embodiment, emitted beam 44 is oscillated at a frequency of about 1000 Hz in order that reflected beam 46 may be more easily distinguished from ambient light”; the signal analyzer/processor 74/70 etc. determine whether the electronic output signal has the same pattern as the predetermined pattern so to determine if an alarm or control signal needs to be sent. That is, the combination of Sano et al and Dipoala et al and Banner teaches/discloses: the emitted optical signal has a predetermined pattern and the electronic output signal has the same pattern as the predetermined pattern).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120167646 A1
US 4315147 A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1084. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 8 pm.
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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at (571)272-3078. 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.
/LI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634 June 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights