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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20110298579 A1 (Hereafter Hardegger).
Regarding Claim 1, Hardegger anticipates:
A protective device for a machine, comprising (Paragraph 48 anticipates: "This also facilitates elimination of static protection devices such as mechanical fences or fixed safety sensing devices that allows increased and closer interaction with machinery." Anticipates this device as a protection device for machinery and its operation.):
a sensor array disposed on the machine, the sensor array having a plurality of time-of-flight (TOF) sensors arranged to form a sensible field for TOF measurements (Paragraph 40 anticipates: "...TOF sensors can be mounted on irregularly shaped machines have different sizes and dimensions, where the mountings can occur in each location where a potential machine movement may occur." Anticipates mounting the TOF sensors on machines, and Paragraph 42 anticipates: "As noted previously, TOF sensors can be placed in various directions to provide monitoring from multiple directions or dimensions." Anticipates a TOF field for covering an area.); and
a controller operably coupled to the sensor array, the controller configured to (Paragraph 31 anticipates: "In another aspect, an industrial control system 110 is employed to monitor and control a safety zone 110." Anticipates a controller for the safety zone, which is confirmed to be made by sensor arrays in the sensible field quote.):
define a safety area within the sensible field (Paragraph 25 anticipates: "As shown, the safety zone 110 includes a dynamically adjustable dimension, region, or area that can be adjusted according to multiple dimensions or directions as will be described in more detail below." Anticipates a safety zone/area within the sensible field.);
detect an object within the sensible field (Paragraph 25 anticipates: "As objects (or people) 160 approach the operating zone 130, the TOF sensors 140 detect the speed or direction of the objects that is computed and determined by the controller 120." Anticipates detecting an object within the field.); and
generate a safety output that controls an operation of the machine in response to the object being detected within the safety area (Paragraph 27 anticipates: "On fast approaching objects 160 that include people or machines, the area or other dimension of the safety zone 110 can be increased in order that equipment operation can be altered or disabled in view of such detected movement." Anticipates changing operations (safety output that controls an operation of the machine) when the safety area is breached.).
Regarding Claim 2, Hardegger anticipates:
The protective device of claim 1, wherein the operation is turning off the machine (Paragraph 27 anticipates: "… equipment operation can be altered or disabled in view of such detected movement." Anticipates disabling/turning off equipment when the safety area is breached.).
Regarding Claim 4, Hardegger anticipates:
The protective device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to define the safety area as an area of the sensible field less than a threshold value (Fig. 8 anticipates: External sensors defining a safety zone around a machine with an upper and lower bound.).
Regarding Claim 5, Hardegger anticipates:
The protective device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to define the safety area as an area of the sensible field between a first threshold value and a second threshold value (Fig. 8 anticipates: External sensors defining a safety zone around a machine with an upper and lower bound.).
Regarding Claim 7, Hardegger anticipates:
The protective device of claim 1, wherein the sensor array is disposed on a movable head of the machine that is movable relative to a working plane of the machine (Paragraph 40 anticipates: "As can be appreciated, other TOF sensors can be applied to the machine 510 to account for other movements and directions of motion for the machine." Anticipates applying sensors to the moving parts of a machine to account for its movement.).
Regarding Claim 8, Hardegger anticipates:
The protective device of claim 7, further comprising a head position TOF sensor disposed on the machine and a corresponding reflective material, and configured to determine a position of the movable head (Paragraph 45, depicted in Fig. 7, anticipates:” …that applies dynamically adjustable safety zones to moving components of a machine.” “As can be appreciated, substantially any type of machine, appendage, or movement can be tracked via one or more TOF sensors.” And further in Paragraph 46: “To continuously monitor this virtual space Time of flight (TOF) sensing devices are built on or around a moving part of a machine. Those TOF devices are mounted in such a way that they can detect in any direction the machine or mobile part moves.”. Paragraph 52 anticipates “basically independent of reflective characteristics of the objects.”, thus nearly any material meets the “reflective material” as currently written.).
Regarding Claim 9, Hardegger anticipates:
The protective device of claim 8, wherein the head position TOF sensor is on the movable head, and the reflective material is disposed on a fixed portion of the machine (Paragraph 45, as shown in Fig. 7, anticipates: "As shown, the arm 720 includes a head 730 where multiple sensors may be employed to define a dynamically adjustable safety zone 740 over the travel of the arm." Anticipates attaching sensors to the head of a machine to determine its position and speed.).
Regarding Claim 10, Hardegger anticipates:
The protective device of claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to adjust one or more threshold values defining the safety area responsive to the position of the movable head determined by the head position TOF sensor (Paragraph 49, as shown in Fig. 8, anticipates: " In this example, a machine 810 is controls movement via an arm 820 that is attached to a head 830." Anticipates attaching sensors to fixed positions determine its position and speed of the machine head.).
Regarding Claim 12, Hardegger anticipates:
A method of operating a protective device, the method comprising (Paragraph 48 anticipates: "This also facilitates elimination of static protection devices such as mechanical fences or fixed safety sensing devices that allows increased and closer interaction with machinery." Anticipates this device as a protection device for machinery and its operation.):
projecting a sensible field for TOF measurements from a sensor array having a plurality of time-of-flight (TOF) sensors disposed on a machine (Paragraph 34 anticipates: "When any of the beams are blocked by intrusion in the sensing field, the light curtain control circuit sends a signal to the machine's e-stop." Anticipates prior TOF safety systems create fields.);
defining, via a controller of the protective device, a safety area within the sensible field of the sensor array (Paragraph 40 anticipates: "...TOF sensors can be mounted on irregularly shaped machines have different sizes and dimensions, where the mountings can occur in each location where a potential machine movement may occur." Anticipates mounting the TOF sensors on machines, and Paragraph 42 anticipates: "As noted previously, TOF sensors can be placed in various directions to provide monitoring from multiple directions or dimensions." Anticipates a TOF field for covering an area.);
detecting an object within the sensible field via the controller coupled to the sensor array (Paragraph 25 anticipates: "As objects (or people) 160 approach the operating zone 130, the TOF sensors 140 detect the speed or direction of the objects that is computed and determined by the controller 120." Anticipates detecting an object within the field.); and
generating a safety output that controls an operation of the machine in response to the object being detected within the safety area (Paragraph 27 anticipates: "On fast approaching objects 160 that include people or machines, the area or other dimension of the safety zone 110 can be increased in order that equipment operation can be altered or disabled in view of such detected movement." Anticipates changing operations (safety output that controls an operation of the machine) when the safety area is breached.).
Regarding Claim 13, Hardegger anticipates:
The method of claim 12, wherein controlling the operation of the machine includes turning off the machine (Paragraph 27 anticipates: "… equipment operation can be altered or disabled in view of such detected movement." Anticipates disabling/turning off equipment when the safety area is breached.).
Regarding Claim 14, Hardegger anticipates:
The method of claim 12, wherein controlling the operation of the machine includes:
generating at least one of a visual or an audible alert without turning off the machine responsive to one or more outer TOF sensors of the sensor array detecting the object being within the safety area (Paragraph 30 anticipates: "For example, this can include a warning zone where warning is shown, a slow down zone where communication to the machine to reduce the speed, a switch off zone, and so forth." Anticipates having a visual warning when a zone is crossed.); and
turning off the machine responsive to one or more inner TOF sensors of the sensor array detecting the object being within the safety area (Paragraph 5 anticipates: "In machine applications, light curtains cause a machine stop as soon as they are interrupted." Anticipates turning off a machine when a boundary is crossed.).
Regarding Claim 17, Hardegger anticipates:
A protective system, comprising (Paragraph 48 anticipates: "This also facilitates elimination of static protection devices such as mechanical fences or fixed safety sensing devices that allows increased and closer interaction with machinery." Anticipates this device as a protection device for machinery and its operation.):
a machine (Paragraph 2 anticipates: "In one case, international standards have addressed the application of safety instrumented systems for process industries and machine safety industries." Anticipating this safety device being used on a machine.);
a protective device disposed on the machine for providing safety monitoring around the machine, the protective device comprising (Paragraph 34 anticipates: "When any of the beams are blocked by intrusion in the sensing field, the light curtain control circuit sends a signal to the machine's e-stop." Anticipates prior TOF safety systems create fields.);
a sensor array disposed on the machine, the sensor array having a plurality of time-of-flight (TOF) sensors arranged to form a sensible field for TOF measurements (Paragraph 40 anticipates: "...TOF sensors can be mounted on irregularly shaped machines have different sizes and dimensions, where the mountings can occur in each location where a potential machine movement may occur." and Paragraph 42 anticipates: "As noted previously, TOF sensors can be placed in various directions to provide monitoring from multiple directions or dimensions." Anticipates mounting TOF sensors on a moving machine.); and
a controller operably coupled to the sensor array, the controller configured to (Paragraph 31 anticipates: "In another aspect, an industrial control system 110 is employed to monitor and control a safety zone 110." Anticipates a controller for the safety zone, which is confirmed to be made by sensor arrays in the sensible field quote.):
define a safety area within the sensible field (Paragraph 25 anticipates: "As shown, the safety zone 110 includes a dynamically adjustable dimension, region, or area that can be adjusted according to multiple dimensions or directions as will be described in more detail below." Anticipates a safety zone/area within the sensible field.);
detect an object within the sensible field (Paragraph 25 anticipates: "As objects (or people) 160 approach the operating zone 130, the TOF sensors 140 detect the speed or direction of the objects that is computed and determined by the controller 120." Anticipates detecting an object within the field.);
and generate a safety output that controls an operation of the machine in response to the object being detected within the safety area (Paragraph 27 anticipates: "On fast approaching objects 160 that include people or machines, the area or other dimension of the safety zone 110 can be increased in order that equipment operation can be altered or disabled in view of such detected movement." Anticipates changing operations (safety output that controls an operation of the machine) when the safety area is breached.).
Regarding Claim 19, Hardegger anticipates:
The protective system of claim 17, further comprising another protective device, wherein the protective device is disposed on a first side of the machine and the another protective device is disposed on a second side of the machine (Paragraph 39 anticipates: "As can be appreciated, TOF sensors can be applied to any shape or direction in order to monitor objects that may be able to approach from the respective direction." Anticipates applying TOF sensors on different sides for extra coverage.).
Regarding Claim 20, Hardegger anticipates:
The protective system of claim 19, wherein the first side of the machine and the second side of the machine are opposing sides of the machine (Paragraph 39 anticipates: "In another example, a surface 420 has TOF sensors positioned above and below the surface in order to detect movements above or below the respective operating plane." Anticipates TOF sensors on opposing sides (above and below the surface).).
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) 3, 11, 15, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110298579 A1 (Hardegger) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of US 20190001496 A1 (Hereafter Lorenzoni).
Regarding Claim 3, Hardegger anticipates all limitation of Claim 1, but only partially teaches:
The protective device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to generate the safety output only responsive to consecutive TOF sensors of the sensor array detecting the object within the safety area of the sensible field (Paragraph 59 anticipates: "The speed of the particles is calculated by knowing the spacing between the two beams. If there is only one detector, then the time difference can be measured via autocorrelation. If there are two detectors, one for each beam, then direction can also be known. Since the location of the beams is relatively easy to determine, the precision of the measurement depends primarily on how small the setup can be made." Teaches consecutive TOF sensors detecting an object.).
Regarding Claim 3, Lorenzoni teaches:
The protective device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to generate the safety output only responsive to consecutive TOF sensors of the sensor array detecting the object within the safety area of the sensible field (Paragraph 20 teaches: "This advantageously enables, on the one side, to detect light beams breaches by human body (as requested by said safety standards) and, on the other side, to avoid light beams breaches by smaller objects such as wood shavings, debris and dust particles that may cause false alarms." Teaching ignoring objects too small to breach two beams.).
Regarding Claim 3, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include the advantages that allow Lorenzoni to work in particulate environments including woodworking taught by Lorenzoni into the system taught by Hardegger above. This would have been obvious because both are TOF machinery safety devices that include tracking the moving head of the machinery. Further, the reason for its advantage is given in Lorenzoni Paragraph 20 “In particular, said vertical distance is of about 500 mm for a body resolution, with a minimum distance from the ground of 250 mm, preferably 300 mm. This advantageously enables, on the one side, to detect light beams breaches by human body (as requested by said safety standards) and, on the other side, to avoid light beams breaches by smaller objects such as wood shavings, debris and dust particles that may cause false alarms.”.
Regarding Claim 11, Hardegger anticipates all limitations of claim 5, and loosely anticipates:
The protective device of claim 1, wherein the TOF sensors of the sensor array are equidistant from each other and aligned so that emission beams remain substantially parallel through at least the safety area (Paragraph 59 anticipates: "The speed of the particles is calculated by knowing the spacing between the two beams." Teaches parallel equidistant beams to know beam spacing for speed calculation.).
Regarding Claim 11, Lorenzoni teaches:
The protective device of claim 1, wherein the TOF sensors of the sensor array are equidistant from each other and aligned so that emission beams remain substantially parallel through at least the safety area (Paragraph 90 teaches: “As schematically shown in FIG. 5, each TOF sensor F1, F2, F3, F4 is adapted to emit light pulses with light beams 115 generally parallel to each other and parallel to the X axis in the plane of the light curtain 110. The light beams 115 form a light barrier of the light curtain 110.” Teaches parallel TOF sensors. Paragraph 88 teaches: “In the embodiment shown in FIG. 5, the TOF sensor F1, F3, F2, F4 are equally spaced in the vertical direction. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 5, the TOF sensor F1, F3, F2, F4 are equally spaced in the vertical direction of a distance of about 500 mm, with a minimum distance from the floor of the lowest TOF sensor (e.g. F4) higher than 250 mm, preferably of at least 300 mm.” Teaching each TOF sensor being equally spaced.).
Regarding Claim 11, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to swap the Hardegger TOF sensors to achieve the array taught by Lorenzoni into the system taught by Hardegger above. This would have been obvious because both are TOF, machinery safety devises that track the moving head of the machinery. Further, the reason for its advantage is given in Lorenzoni Paragraph 20 “In particular, said vertical distance is of about 500 mm for a body resolution, with a minimum distance from the ground of 250 mm, preferably 300 mm. This advantageously enables, on the one side, to detect light beams breaches by human body (as requested by said safety standards) and, on the other side, to avoid light beams breaches by smaller objects such as wood shavings, debris and dust particles that may cause false alarms.”.
Regarding Claim 15, Hardegger in view of Lorenzoni teaches all limitations of claim 11, and Hardegger further teaches:
The method of claim 11, further comprising detecting the object being within the safety area based on a plurality of TOF sensors of the sensor array simultaneously detecting the object being within the safety area (Paragraph 59 teaches: "Moreover, multiple particles could reside between them at any given time, and this would corrupt the signal since the particles are indistinguishable. For such a sensor to provide valid data, it must be small relative to the scale of the flow and the seeding density. Optical time of flight sensors can be constructed as a 3D camera with a time of flight camera chip." Teaches TOF sensors detecting an object when multiple TOF sensors simultaneously detecting an object.).
Regarding Claim 16, Hardegger in view of Lorenzoni teaches all limitations of claim 11, and Hardegger further teaches:
The method of claim 11, further comprising detecting the object being within the safety area based on a plurality of TOF sensors of the sensor array sequentially detecting the object being within the safety area in an expected order indicative of the object moving toward the machine (Paragraph 59 teaches: "If there is only one detector, then the time difference can be measured via autocorrelation. If there are two detectors, one for each beam, then direction can also be known" Teaches TOF sensors being activated in sequence to determine direction. Paragraph 9 teaches: "In one aspect, safety zones are monitored via one or more time-of-flight (TOF) sensors in order to detect movement toward the zones." Teaches TOF sensors detecting an object and its motion towards a safety area.).
Regarding Claim 18, Hardegger anticipates all limitations of claim 17, but does not teach:
wherein the machine is a woodworking machine.
Regarding Claim 18, Lorenzoni teaches:
wherein the machine is a woodworking machine (Paragraph 2 teaches: "In particular, the present invention relates to the field of safety devices for industrial machinery such as, for example, wood working machines." Teaches the safety system being used on a wood working machine.).
Regarding Claim 18, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include the advantages that allow Lorenzoni to work in particulate environments including woodworking taught by Lorenzoni into the system taught by Hardegger above. This would have been obvious because both are TOF machinery safety devices that include tracking the moving head of the machinery. Further, the reason for its advantage is given in Lorenzoni Paragraph 20 “In particular, said vertical distance is of about 500 mm for a body resolution, with a minimum distance from the ground of 250 mm, preferably 300 mm. This advantageously enables, on the one side, to detect light beams breaches by human body (as requested by said safety standards) and, on the other side, to avoid light beams breaches by smaller objects such as wood shavings, debris and dust particles that may cause false alarms.”.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110298579 A1 (Hardegger) as applied to claim5 above, and further in view of US 20180149748 A1 (Hereafter Yang).
Regarding Claim 6, Hardegger anticipates all limitations of Claim 5. Hardegger does not teach:
wherein the first threshold value and the second threshold value are user configurable values set by a user through a user interface operably coupled to the controller.
Regarding Claim 6, Yang teaches:
wherein the first threshold value and the second threshold value are user configurable values set by a user through a user interface operably coupled to the controller (Paragraph 42 teaches: "…determines whether the DD.sub.TOF signal from the TOF sensor 102 indicating the detected distance D.sub.TOF to the person 104 is within the recognition range RW, namely (D.sub.MIN<D.sub.TOF.sub._.sub.CAP<D.sub.MAX). If the determination in step 304B is negative, the process goes to step 306B and the processing circuitry 108 may either determine no person 104 is present…" Teaches assigning an upper and lower threshold to assignable variables.).
Regarding Claim 6, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include two thresholds as taught by Yang into the system taught by Hardegger above. This would have been obvious because both are TOF sensors for detecting an object in a predetermined area. Further, Yang teaches the importance of these parameters for finding interaction distance in Paragraph 24 “…the person 104 must be positioned within a field of view FOV.sub.CAM of the camera 106 to enable the camera to properly capture an image of the face or Iris of the person being authenticated…”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20180003807-A1, US-20180143321-A1, US-20210173084-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DAVID OELBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (7:30-17:00).
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/ANDREW DAVID OELBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights