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 .
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 12-21, 23-26 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.
Claim 12 claims “A method for operating a pivot drive…” The claim is written in a manner which does not actually positively recite any steps or actions to be performed. All the limitations within the claim are either set forth as intended use clauses or contingent clauses. Thus, there is not actual steps being performed. At best, the only positively limitations are the output element and the braking device which are not method steps per se. In addition to this, the wherein clauses are contingent and do not actually recite steps for operating the pivot drive. That is, it is unclear how these limitations, even if properly claimed, are related to a step of operating a pivot drive (there appears to be a limitation missing which ties the state of the braking device to operation of the pivot drive).
In general, this claim and dependent claims, as necessary, needs to clearly define the steps being performed in a positive manner and further avoid contingent/intended use clauses which muddle the scope of the claim. It is recommended to rewrite the claim and necessary dependent claims in a manner consistent with standard protocol for method or process claims.
For purpose of compact prosecution, prior art will be applied under the assumption of what may appear to be the intended limitations Applicant is seeking coverage for. Correction is still required as the scope of the claim is not clear.
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) 12-28, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (USP 10087999) in view of Thomas (DE 102012008547 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Shi et al. discloses a method for operating a pivot drive (10 reads on a pivot drive), comprising an output element (22 reads on an output element) that can be driven to make a rotational movement, and an electrically actuatable braking device (26 reads on the brake) for braking and/or fixing the output element.
As best understood, Shi discloses the act of releasing the brake when the pivot drive is to be operated so as to rotate the output element (col.4, lines 29-39).
Shi fails to explicitly disclose wherein a time development of at least one characteristic parameter of the energization of the braking device is determined during an actuation of the braking device and a state of the braking device is determined on the basis of an analysis of the time development of the characteristic parameter.
Thomas teaches the within a similar field of drives and brakes and controls thereof, the concept of providing a control unit which provides the functionality of wherein a time development of at least one characteristic parameter of the energization of the braking device is determined during an actuation of the braking device and a state of the braking device is determined on the basis of an analysis of the time development of the characteristic parameter (as can be understood by reading the machine translation, the control unit in Thomas, monitors the current provided to a brake so as to determine a time development or time delta for when the brake reaches a buckling state or a state where it is completely open or released. This allows the drive to be safely operated or turned on).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the brake and/or drive in Shi to include the specific controls and functionality, as taught by Thomas, in order to provide the predictable result of further enhancing the safety of the pivot drive by allowing it to be operated only when the brake is fully disengaged. In addition, this system has the added benefit of being able to monitor brake wear as discussed in Thomas.
Regarding claim 13, Shi discloses wherein the braking device is designed such that it is opened by an energization (already mentioned in Shi, see col.3, and col.4: “configured to release holding force…when the brake is in the energized state”).
Regarding claim 14, Shi in view of Thomas disclose wherein the characteristic parameter is a current intensity (as taught by Thomas, Current is being measured).
Regarding claim 15, Thomas discloses wherein the analysis comprises a determination of a local maximum or a local minimum and/or of a characteristic change in the time development of the characteristic parameter (clearly seen in figure 1 in Thomas).
Regarding claim 16, Thomas disclsoes wherein a characteristic duration of a predefined part of the actuation of the braking device is used as a measure for the state of the braking device (seen in fig.1, duration between t1 and t2; also described: “A third use of the output signal is used for the timely control of an electric motor, which should be started as exactly as possible when the release of the brake takes place, so the buckling of the current takes place. At this time t2, so the detected buckling of the current, the engine is bootable. Thus, the engine is started just when the brake is released. So the engine does not have to work against the brake”).
Regarding claim 17, Thomas discloses wherein the characteristic duration is determined by determining a time period from the start of the energization up to a local maximum or local minimum and/or up to a characteristic change in the time development of the characteristic parameter (fig.1; the time is measured between t1 and t2, t1 being the start up and t2 being the point of fully opening the brake).
Regarding claim 18, Thomas discloses wherein the characteristic duration is compared with a nominal duration and a correction signal and/or a warning signal is/are output if a nominal duration is fallen below and/or exceeded (this functionality is described in Thomas: “A second use of the output signal is the monitoring of brake wear. In this case, therefore, the time interval between the control signal generated at time t1 for energizing the power semiconductor switch which controls the supply voltage of the brake coil and the time t2, ie the occurrence of the buckling of the coil current, is determined. As soon as this period of time exceeds a critical value, warning information is forwarded and / or displayed. Thus, a maintenance of the brake can be carried out in time, especially where the brake pads are replaced and renewed.”)
Regarding claim 19, Thomas discloses wherein a drive of the output element is controlled in dependence on the state of the braking device (as noted above for claim 16; in addition Shi provides this functionality as well independently of the teaching).
Regarding claim 20, Thomas discloses wherein a drive of the output element is only activated if it is recognized that the braking device is completely open (that is described in rejection of claim 16; only when the brake is completely open at t2, will the drive be operated).
Regarding claim 21, Thomas discloses wherein a predetermined delay interval or a delay interval determined in dependence on the state of the braking device is provided, by which delay interval an activation of the drive of the output element is delayed after a complete opening of the braking device has been detected (Thomas further discloses the functionality that reads on this: “A fourth use of the output signal can be used to increase security. On the one hand, the drive signal is supplied to the power semiconductor switch arranged in the current path of the brake and, on the other hand, to a safety device which monitors whether the brake is subsequently released. For this purpose, the drive signal is delayed by a safely guaranteed period of time and then monitored whether the buckling of the current has occurred. Thus, a feedback signal is assigned to the drive signal, so that the effect of the drive signal can be checked.”)
Regarding claim 22, please see the rejection of claim 16 as it is equally applicable, Thomas being responsible for teaching the control unit per se.
Regarding claim 23 and claim 27, Shi discloses wherein the pivot drive is a rotary indexing table (22 reads on a rotary indexing table given BRI. It is also important to note that many other cited references could also function as base references and also read on the use of indexing tables with brakes).
Regarding claim 24 and claim 28, Shi discloses wherein the output element can be driven to make a rotational movement of a turntable (22 can be read on a turntable given BRI).
Regarding claim 25, Thomas discloses wherein the local maximum and/or the local minimum and/or the characteristic change are interpreted as an indication of a complete opening of the braking device (as discussed above, t2 represents the complete opening of the braking device and is utilized as the point for initiating the drive).
Regarding claim 26, Thomas discloses wherein the duration of the predefined part of the actuation is determined by means of the analysis (difference between t1 and t2 reads on this and is analyzed by the control unit).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 2169308 also could function as a base reference for indexing tables (1). Similarly, USP 4558611, USpgpub 20080125904 could also function. There are also many other potential teaching references for the control concepts such as JPH 0842613A, WO 2018054545 A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS C DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5461. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/THOMAS C DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617