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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 have been examined and claims 12-68 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vidri et al. (US 2008/0169918 A1) in view of Phillips et al. (US 2004/0232859 A1) and further in view of Furman (US 2016/0166453A1).
Claim 1: VIDRI discloses a stop arm for a school bus comprising a stop sign and a drive unit mounted to a side of the school bus for selectively moving the stop sign between a deployed position and a retracted position, wherein the drive unit includes a motor operably coupled to the stop sign to perform such movement (VIDRI-P0027, VIDRI-P0028, VIDRI-P0038–VIDRI-P0039), position sensors operable to detect the presence of the stop sign in deployed and retracted positions using Hall effect sensors and associated magnetic elements (VIDRI-P0034, VIDRI-P0038–VIDRI-P0039), and a controller operably coupled to the motor for controlling operation of the motor via electronic control modules (VIDRI-P0034, VIDRI-P0035). However, VIDRI does not expressly disclose the controller being configured to monitor operating characteristics of the motor for conditions indicative of an obstruction to movement of the stop sign. PHILLIPS teaches a motor-driven safety device system in which the drive motors operate under load conditions and stall at forward and reverse end stops, thereby evidencing that motor load and stall conditions are indicative of mechanical resistance or obstruction during movement of a safety arm (PHILLIPS-[0033], PHILLIPS-[0036]). FURMAN further teaches monitoring operating characteristics of an electric motor, including current and/or voltage supplied to the motor, and using such motor electrical characteristics to determine obstruction or abnormal load conditions indicative of stall or impeded motion (FURMAN-P0048, FURMAN-P0049). It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify the controller of VIDRI to include monitoring of motor operating characteristics as taught by FURMAN in view of PHILLIPS, such that obstruction conditions could be detected not only via position sensing but also via motor load or electrical behavior, because PHILLIPS establishes that motor stall conditions correspond to obstruction or resistance, and FURMAN provides an explicit and predictable technique for detecting such conditions through motor current or voltage monitoring. VIDRI further teaches monitoring position sensor signals to confirm whether the stop sign has reached deployed or retracted positions (VIDRI-P0038–VIDRI-P0039), and the combination of VIDRI, PHILLIPS, and FURMAN would have yielded a system in which both position confirmation and motor characteristic monitoring are used to determine whether the stop sign has reached a commanded position or is being obstructed, thereby improving safety and reliability through redundant and predictable control feedback. The combination merely involves applying a known motor condition monitoring technique to a known motor-driven safety device to achieve predictable results, and therefore would have been obvious at the time the invention was made.
It would be an implementation of applying known techniques to a known device to yield predictable results.
Claim 2: VIDRI discloses a stop arm system including a controller operatively coupled to a motor for driving a stop sign between deployed and retracted positions, wherein the motor is controlled by electronic control modules and position feedback is provided via Hall effect sensors detecting magnet alignment corresponding to deployed and retracted states (VIDRI-P0034, VIDRI-P0038–VIDRI-P0039). However, VIDRI does not explicitly disclose the controller being configured, on start-up, to initiate operation of the motor in a retracting direction and to terminate such operation upon detection of both (i) obstruction conditions and (ii) confirmation of the stop sign reaching the retracted position. PHILLIPS teaches a motor-driven safety system in which motor operation includes return-to-retracted motion under control logic responsive to system state changes, including conditions where motor operation is controlled until a reverse stop is reached and motor operation is ceased upon completion of retraction as indicated by sensor feedback and motor stall/end-of-travel conditions (PHILLIPS-[0034]–PHILLIPS-[0037]). PHILLIPS further teaches that motor movement is automatically controlled based on system state transitions, including door closure triggering motor reversal and retraction of safety devices. FURMAN additionally teaches monitoring motor operating characteristics, including current and voltage behavior, to determine obstruction or abnormal load conditions during motor operation, and using such motor characteristic feedback in conjunction with position sensing to determine whether a device has reached a commanded position or is being obstructed (FURMAN-P0048, FURMAN-P0049). It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify the controller of VIDRI to include a start-up initiated retracting operation as taught by PHILLIPS, in which the motor is driven toward a retracted position upon system activation, and further to terminate motor operation upon detection of both obstruction conditions and confirmation of the retracted position as taught by the combined teachings of VIDRI and FURMAN, because VIDRI already provides position-based feedback for retracted state detection, PHILLIPS teaches automatic initiation of retracting motion upon system state change and termination upon reaching end-of-travel conditions, and FURMAN teaches using motor electrical characteristics to detect obstruction conditions during motion. The combination merely applies known motor control initiation and termination logic to a known stop arm system to achieve predictable and improved safety control.
It would be an implementation of applying known techniques to a known device to yield predictable results.
Claim 3: VIDRI discloses a stop arm system including position sensing for both deployed and retracted positions using Hall effect sensors 79 and 80 that detect alignment of magnets 73 and 71 with respective sensors to generate signals indicating the deployed and stored positions of the stop arm (VIDRI-P0034, VIDRI-P0038, VIDRI-P0039). However, VIDRI discloses a plurality of position sensors rather than a single sensor system. PHILLIPS teaches a simplified position detection arrangement in which a single magnetic sensor (MS1) is used to detect the proximity and relative movement of a magnetized element on a safety device, such that the same sensor is used to determine multiple positional states of the device, including both movement toward and away from a retracted position (PHILLIPS-[0024], PHILLIPS-[0033], PHILLIPS-[0038]). PHILLIPS further teaches that a single magnetic sensor can detect both the approach to and departure from a reference position based on changes in magnetic proximity, thereby enabling detection of multiple device states using one sensor. It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify the position sensing system of VIDRI to utilize a single sensor system as taught by PHILLIPS in order to reduce component complexity and cost while maintaining reliable detection of both deployed and retracted stop arm positions, because VIDRI already provides position-based feedback and PHILLIPS demonstrates that a single magnetic sensor is capable of detecting multiple positional states of a movable safety device in a predictable manner. The modification would merely involve substituting the multiple sensor arrangement of VIDRI with the single sensor arrangement of PHILLIPS to achieve predictable results.
It would be an implementation of applying known techniques to a known device to yield predictable results.
Claim 4: VIDRI shows a stop arm system including a controller and position sensing arrangement for detecting deployed and retracted positions of a stop arm.
For example:
VIDRI discloses an actuator assembly with a motor-driven stop arm controlled by an electronic control module:
“Actuator assembly 14 includes a bidirectional electric motor… controlled by an electronic control module 57…” (VIDRI-P0045)
VIDRI further discloses position detection via Hall-effect sensing:
“Hall effect sensors 79 and 80 that sense the positions of a motor driven input member 94…” (VIDRI-P0045)
VIDRI does not explicitly disclose a “limit switch” as a position sensor element.
Instead, it relies on Hall effect sensors and magnet-based position detection (non-mechanical switching structure).
PHILLIPS shows a vehicle safety device control system that includes discrete switch-based control elements and mechanical/electrical switching logic used for controlling actuator states.
Specifically:
PHILLIPS discloses switch-based system control:
“S1 is a momentary switch, normally open and closing on depression” (PHILLIPS-[0028])
PHILLIPS further discloses discrete switching elements controlling motor operation:
“drive circuit 50 operates using relays K1, K2, K3, and K4…” (PHILLIPS-[0028], PHILLIPS-[0032])
PHILLIPS explicitly uses switch-type control inputs for actuator state control:
“DS1 is the door switch… providing 12 volts when the door is open” (PHILLIPS-[0028])
PHILLIPS does not expressly describe a “limit switch” mounted as a position sensor for stop arm travel endpoints, but it does teach switch-based detection/control elements for actuator state transitions.
FURMAN further teaches electrical sensing of actuator state using discrete switching and sensor-based position detection mechanisms in motor control systems, including sensor-triggered state transitions and obstruction-aware control logic.
Specifically, FURMAN discloses:
Motor control with sensor-triggered state transitions:
“motor sensor configured to detect operating conditions of the motor” (FURMAN-P0045-P0046, P0055, P0059)
“sensor output may indicate at least one of voltage and current supplied to the electric motor” (FURMAN- P0045-P0046, P0055, P0059)
Sensor-based state determination:
“control system determines an obstruction condition based on motor current or voltage characteristics” (FURMAN- P0045-P0046, P0055, P0059)
While FURMAN is primarily current/voltage-based, it reinforces the general teaching that motor-driven safety systems routinely employ discrete sensing elements and switch-based detection for state determination and boundary conditions.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify the stop arm system of VIDRI in view of PHILLIPS and FURMAN to include a limit switch as a position sensor because:
VIDRI already teaches sensor-based stop arm position detection
PHILLIPS teaches that switch-based elements (including discrete mechanical switches) are routinely used in vehicle safety actuator control circuits
FURMAN reinforces that sensor-based state detection using discrete triggering elements is a known and predictable control architecture in motor-driven safety systems
It would be an implementation of simple substitution of one known element (Hall-effect or magnetic sensor) for another known equivalent element (limit switch) to obtain predictable results.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to recognize that replacing or supplementing VIDRI’s Hall-effect sensing with a limit switch as taught by PHILLIPS would provide:
lower cost sensing
direct mechanical position confirmation
improved robustness in harsh vehicle environments
Therefore, Claim 4 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 over the combination of:
VIDRI: primary stop arm actuator system
PHILLIPS: switch-based control architecture
FURMAN: sensor-based motor control logic
because the combination merely represents a predictable substitution of known sensor types (limit switch for electronic position sensor) in a known stop arm control system, yielding no unexpected result.
Claim 5:
“The stop arm of claim 4, wherein the at least one limit switch comprises two limit switches to provide a confirmation signal indicative of the presence of the stop sign in one of a retracted position, a deployed position, transition between the retracted and deployed positions, and an over-travelled position.”
Claim 5 : VIDRI discloses a motor-driven school bus stop arm system including position sensing for detecting retracted and deployed states of the stop arm.
Specifically, VIDRI teaches:
“Hall effect sensors 79 and 80 that sense the positions of a motor driven input member 94…” (VIDRI-P0045)
The system uses sensor feedback to determine stop arm position in stored and deployed states, thereby providing confirmation of stop arm location during operation.
However, VIDRI does not explicitly disclose limit switches, nor does it disclose two discrete limit switches providing multi-state confirmation including transition and over-travel conditions.
PHILLIPS discloses a vehicle safety actuator system employing discrete switching elements and end-of-travel mechanical stopping conditions for motor-driven devices.
For example:
“K1, K2, K3, and K4 are relays…” (PHILLIPS-[0028])
“Motors 13 and 24 rotate to the full extension position, and stall at the forward stops.” (PHILLIPS-[0033])
“Motors 13 and 24 rotate in reverse until they encounter their reverse stops…” (PHILLIPS-[0036])
PHILLIPS therefore teaches:
discrete switch-based control logic
mechanical end-stop detection
system behavior at full travel and over-travel/stall conditions
However, PHILLIPS does not explicitly disclose two limit switches providing structured multi-state positional confirmation signals.
FURMAN further discloses sensor-based motor control systems configured to evaluate motor operating conditions and infer state transitions based on electrical behavior.
Specifically, FURMAN teaches:
“motor sensor configured to detect operating conditions of the motor” (FURMAN- P0045-P0046, P0055, P0059)
“control system determines an obstruction condition based on motor current or voltage characteristics” (FURMAN- P0045-P0046, P0055, P0059)
FURMAN therefore teaches:
multi-state interpretation of motor behavior
detection of abnormal conditions (including obstruction and load changes)
inference of transition or fault conditions from motor characteristics
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify the stop arm system of VIDRI in view of PHILLIPS and FURMAN to include two limit switches configured to provide multi-state positional confirmation signals, because:
VIDRI already teaches sensor-based position detection for stop arm deployment and retraction
PHILLIPS teaches that discrete switching elements and end-stop conditions are routinely used in motor-driven actuator systems to define travel limits and prevent over-travel
FURMAN teaches that actuator systems commonly interpret multiple operational states, including transition and abnormal conditions, based on sensed system behavior
Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to provide redundant or multiple limit switches to improve reliability of position detection and to distinguish between:
retracted position
deployed position
transitional movement
over-travel or end-stop condition
as part of a predictable enhancement to known safety actuator systems.
It would be an implementation of using known techniques to improve a similar device in the same way.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to to replace or supplement VIDRI’s position sensing system with multiple limit switches as taught by PHILLIPS-type actuator control systems to:
increase robustness of position detection
provide direct mechanical confirmation of endpoint positions
improve safety by detecting over-travel conditions
The resulting system would merely yield predictable improvements in reliability and safety.
Therefore, Claim 5 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 over the combination of:
VIDRI: primary stop arm position sensing system
PHILLIPS: switch-based actuator and end-stop system
FURMAN: motor state and obstruction detection system
because the claimed addition of two limit switches providing multi-state positional confirmation represents only a predictable use of known switch-based actuator control techniques to enhance position detection in a known stop arm system, yielding no unexpected result.
Claim 6:
“The stop arm of claim 1, wherein the one or more operating characteristics of the motor is at least one of an operating current of the motor and a counter-electromotive force of the motor.”
VIDRI discloses a motor-driven stop arm assembly controlled by an electronic control module and position-based feedback sensing.
Specifically, VIDRI teaches:
“Actuator assembly 14 includes a bidirectional electric motor… controlled by means of an electronic control module 57…” (VIDRI-P0045)
VIDRI further relies on position-based sensing using Hall effect sensors:
“Hall effect sensors 79 and 80 that sense the positions of a motor driven input member 94…” (VIDRI-P0045)
However, VIDRI does not disclose monitoring motor operating current or counter-electromotive force (CEMF) as control parameters for determining motor operating conditions.
PHILLIPS discloses motor-driven actuator systems that inherently operate under load and stall conditions at end-of-travel positions.
For example:
“Motors 13 and 24 rotate to the full extension position, and stall at the forward stops.” (PHILLIPS-[0033])
“Motors 13 and 24 rotate in reverse until they encounter their reverse stops…” (PHILLIPS-[0036])
PHILLIPS therefore teaches that motor-driven safety actuators experience varying load conditions, including stall conditions that inherently correspond to increased motor current and changes in motor electrical behavior during operation.
However, PHILLIPS does not explicitly disclose direct measurement of motor current or counter-electromotive force.
FURMAN explicitly discloses monitoring motor electrical operating characteristics for control and obstruction detection purposes.
Specifically, FURMAN teaches:
“sensor output may indicate at least one of voltage and current supplied to the electric motor” (FURMAN- P0045-P0046, P0055, P0059)
“control system determines an obstruction condition based on motor current or voltage characteristics” (FURMAN- P0045-P0046, P0055, P0059)
FURMAN therefore teaches:
direct sensing of motor current
evaluation of motor voltage characteristics
use of electrical motor parameters to determine operating conditions such as load or obstruction
These electrical parameters inherently include motor back electromotive force (CEMF) behavior as part of voltage-current relationship during motor operation.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify the stop arm system of VIDRI in view of PHILLIPS and FURMAN to monitor motor operating characteristics including operating current and counter-electromotive force, because:
VIDRI provides a motor-driven stop arm system requiring reliable operation and control
PHILLIPS teaches that motor-driven actuator systems inherently experience load variation and stall conditions at end-of-travel positions, which correlate to changes in motor current and electrical behavior
FURMAN explicitly teaches that motor current and voltage characteristics can be monitored and used to determine operating conditions, including obstruction conditions
Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate motor current monitoring, and corresponding electrical behavior analysis (including CEMF inference), into VIDRI’s system to improve safety and reliability of motor operation.
It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify VIDRI’s position-based control system to include motor current or voltage monitoring as taught by FURMAN, in view of the known motor load/stall behavior of PHILLIPS, in order to:
detect obstruction conditions more reliably
provide redundant safety monitoring beyond position sensing
improve fault detection in motor-driven actuator systems
Therefore, Claim 6 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 over the combination of:
VIDRI: primary stop arm motor and position sensing system
PHILLIPS: motor stall and load condition behavior in actuator systems
FURMAN: motor current/voltage sensing for obstruction detection
because the claimed use of motor operating current and counter-electromotive force as operating characteristics represents only the predictable use of known motor electrical monitoring techniques to improve an existing motor-driven safety actuator system, yielding no unexpected results.
Claim 7:
“The stop arm of claim 1, wherein the drive unit comprises a housing defining an interior space of said housing and an enclosed sub-compartment divided from a remainder of the interior space, the motor being positioned within the sub-compartment, wherein at least one of:
(a) the position sensor is contained within said sub-compartment;
(b) a PCB, on which the controller and/or the position sensor are mounted, is contained within said sub-compartment; and
(c) a motor-driven output shaft extends from the sub-compartment in a downward direction through a lower wall of said sub-compartment.”
VIDRI discloses a motor-driven stop arm actuator assembly mounted on a vehicle and housed within an enclosed actuator housing containing a motor and electronic control components.
Specifically, VIDRI teaches:
Motor-driven actuator within a housing:
“Actuator assembly 14 includes a bidirectional electric motor…” (VIDRI-P0045)
Integrated electronic control and sensing components:
“electronic control module 57 includes Hall effect sensors 79 and 80…” (VIDRI-P0045)
Physical integration of control electronics with actuator housing:
“electronic control module 320 is attached to the side of the electronic control module 57…” (VIDRI-P0046)
Mechanical output linkage extending from actuator assembly to drive stop arm movement (inherent in actuator assembly structure across VIDRI disclosure)
However, VIDRI does not explicitly disclose a subdivided internal sub-compartment separating the motor from other internal components.
PHILLIPS discloses a vehicle-mounted safety actuator system including a sealed housing containing motor-driven components and distributed control circuitry.
For example:
Motor housed in sealed external housing:
“gate drive motor 24 is… typically housed in a sealed housing that… is mounted to the exterior of the bus” (PHILLIPS-[0023])
Electrical control and switching components distributed within system architecture:
“drive circuit 50 operates as follows…” (PHILLIPS-[0032])
System architecture includes separation of functional components for environmental protection and control integration
PHILLIPS therefore teaches the general concept of:
sealed actuator housings
separation of motor and control circuitry within vehicle safety systems
external mechanical output linkage extending from actuator housing
However, PHILLIPS does not expressly disclose a formal “sub-compartment” partition within the housing.
FURMAN discloses compact motor actuator systems with integrated PCB-based controllers and sensor modules housed within actuator enclosures.
Specifically, FURMAN teaches:
Motor control electronics implemented on PCB:
“sensor system includes a motor sensor coupled to power supplied to the electric motor” (FURMAN- P0045-P0046, P0055, P0059)
Integrated control and sensing components within actuator assemblies
Modular electronic packaging within motor-driven systems
FURMAN therefore teaches that:
controllers and sensors are commonly integrated within compact actuator housings
PCB-based motor control systems are embedded within the same housing as the motor for compact and protected design
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify the stop arm system of VIDRI in view of PHILLIPS and FURMAN to include a housing having an internal sub-compartment for the motor and associated components because:
VIDRI already discloses a motor-driven stop arm actuator housed within an enclosure containing both mechanical and electronic components
PHILLIPS teaches sealed actuator housings with separated functional components and external mechanical output linkage for vehicle-mounted safety devices
FURMAN teaches compact actuator designs in which PCB-based controllers and sensors are integrated within motor housings for protection and packaging efficiency
Accordingly, partitioning the actuator housing into an internal sub-compartment for the motor and associated components, including optional placement of sensors or PCB/controller elements, would have been a predictable design choice to improve component protection, thermal isolation, and packaging efficiency.
It would be an implementation of using known techniques to improve a similar device in the same way.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify VIDRI’s actuator housing based on teachings of PHILLIPS and FURMAN to:
improve environmental protection of motor and electronics
provide modular separation of internal actuator components
facilitate compact integration of motor, PCB, and sensors
allow mechanical output linkage to extend through housing wall in a conventional manner
The resulting structure would merely represent a predictable arrangement of known actuator packaging techniques.
Therefore, Claim 7 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 over the combination of:
VIDRI: primary stop arm actuator housing with integrated motor and control electronics
PHILLIPS: sealed vehicle-mounted actuator systems with separated functional components and external drive linkage
FURMAN: PCB-based motor control and sensor integration within compact actuator housings
because the claimed sub-compartment housing configuration with internal motor placement, optional PCB/sensor integration, and output shaft extension represents only a predictable and routine mechanical packaging modification of known motor-driven vehicle safety actuator systems, yielding no unexpected results.
Claim 8: VIDRI discloses a stop arm system including a motor (VIDRI-P0045) and a controller that utilizes Hall effect sensors to determine when the stop arm reaches deployed and stored positions, wherein upon reaching such positions the DC motor is configured to act as a dynamic brake holding the stop arm in place (VIDRI-P0048; VIDRI-P0049). However, VIDRI does not explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to apply a low impedance condition across motor leads in response to detection of the deployed or retracted position. PHILLIPS discloses a motor-driven safety device in which the motor is de-energized upon reaching end-of-travel positions, such that voltage is removed and motor current ceases, resulting in motor stall at mechanical endpoints (PHILLIPS-[0036]; PHILLIPS-[0037]). FURMAN further discloses a controller configured to monitor motor operating conditions and adjust electrical characteristics of the motor, including modifying motor current and voltage behavior in response to detected operating states to control motor behavior and ensure safe operation. In view of VIDRI’s teaching of dynamic braking at endpoint positions, PHILLIPS’s teaching of motor shutdown at mechanical limits, and FURMAN’s teaching of electrical control of motor impedance and operating characteristics based on system state, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify the controller of VIDRI to apply a low impedance condition across the motor leads when the stop arm reaches either the deployed or retracted position in order to rapidly stop motor motion and maintain positional stability.
This modification would have been an implementation of applying known motor control techniques to a known actuator system to yield predictable results.
It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 9: VIDRI discloses a stop arm system including a motor (VIDRI-P0045) controlled by a controller configured to determine when the stop arm reaches deployed and stored positions using position sensing (VIDRI-P0048; VIDRI-P0049), wherein the motor is placed into a dynamic braking condition upon reaching such positions. However, VIDRI does not expressly disclose limiting counter-electromotive force of the motor when the stop sign reaches the deployed or retracted position. PHILLIPS discloses a motor-driven safety device in which motor operation is terminated at end-of-travel positions by removal of electrical power, resulting in motor stall and cessation of current flow, thereby inherently reducing motor-generated electrical feedback including back-electromotive effects (PHILLIPS-[0036]; PHILLIPS-[0037]). FURMAN further discloses monitoring motor operating characteristics including voltage and current and adjusting motor control behavior based on such electrical feedback signals, thereby teaching active regulation of motor electrical response during operation. In view of VIDRI’s teaching of dynamic braking at endpoint positions, PHILLIPS’s teaching of motor shutdown and current cessation at mechanical limits, and FURMAN’s teaching of monitoring and controlling motor electrical characteristics, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify VIDRI’s controller to limit counter-electromotive force of the motor when the stop sign reaches the deployed or retracted position in order to improve motor stability and prevent undesirable electrical feedback during braking.
This modification would have been an implementation of applying known techniques to a known device to yield predictable results.
It would be an implementation of applying known techniques to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 10: VIDRI discloses a stop arm system including a motor (VIDRI-P0045) controlled by a controller configured to hold the stop arm in position using dynamic braking, wherein the motor acts as a brake when not actively driven (VIDRI-P0048; VIDRI-P0049). However, VIDRI does not explicitly disclose applying low impedance between motor leads when the controller is in an unpowered state. PHILLIPS discloses a motor-driven safety system in which motor power is removed upon completion of movement, resulting in cessation of current flow and an unpowered motor condition (PHILLIPS-[0036]; PHILLIPS-[0037]). FURMAN further discloses controlling motor operation based on sensed electrical characteristics including voltage and current, thereby teaching adjustment of motor electrical conditions in response to operational state. In view of VIDRI’s teaching of dynamic braking of the motor, PHILLIPS’s teaching of motor shutdown into an unpowered state, and FURMAN’s teaching of monitoring and controlling motor electrical behavior, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify VIDRI’s controller to apply a low impedance across the motor leads during an unpowered state in order to maintain controlled braking and improve positional stability of the stop arm.
This modification would have been an implementation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
It would be an implementation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 11: VIDRI discloses a stop arm system including a motor (VIDRI-P0045) controlled by a controller configured to apply dynamic braking to the motor such that the motor acts as a brake when not actively driven (VIDRI-P0048; VIDRI-P0049). VIDRI therefore inherently reduces electrical energy generated by the motor during coasting conditions through resistive loading, which mitigates counter-electromotive force effects. However, VIDRI does not explicitly disclose limiting counter-electromotive force when the controller is in an unpowered state. PHILLIPS discloses that the motor is de-energized upon completion of movement such that current flow ceases and the motor enters an unpowered condition (PHILLIPS-[0036]; PHILLIPS-[0037]). FURMAN further discloses monitoring motor voltage and current to control operation of the motor based on sensed electrical characteristics, thereby teaching feedback-based regulation of motor electrical conditions.
In view of VIDRI’s teaching of dynamic braking, PHILLIPS’s teaching of an unpowered motor state, and FURMAN’s teaching of monitoring motor electrical parameters, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify VIDRI’s controller to limit counter-electromotive force during the unpowered state by extending braking or resistive control logic to the motor terminals to prevent voltage spikes and improve system stability.
This modification would have been an implementation of applying known techniques to a known device to yield predictable results.
It would be an implementation of applying known techniques to a known device to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights