Patent Application 18289579 - SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING SAFETY PROTECTIONS FOR - Rejection

Patent Application 18289579 - SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING SAFETY PROTECTIONS FOR

Title: SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING SAFETY PROTECTIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL MACHINES OR PLANTS

Application Information

• Invention Title: SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING SAFETY PROTECTIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL MACHINES OR PLANTS
• Application Number: 18289579
• Submission Date: 2025-05-22T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-11-06T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-11-06T00:00:00.000Z
• Examiner Employee Number: 65742
• Art Unit: 3658
• Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 2

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 9951548🔗
• US 9782897🔗

Office Action Text

                  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 .
                                                          Status of Claims
This is in response to applicant’s filing date of November 06, 2023, file with preliminary amendment.  In the preliminary amendment claims 3-11 were amended.  Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
                                                         Priority to Foreign Application
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority to Application IT102021000012845, filed on May 18, 2021.  The certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55 has been received.        
                                                         Priority to International Application
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application, PCT/IB2022/054430 filed on 5/12/2022,  under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
                                                          Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA  as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). 
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are  rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,180,747 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite the same limitations except for obvious modifications and  negligible wording/phrasing differences. For example, in the present application multiple access points are recited which is a well-known arrangement especially for machines that require  delivery and removal of material; and while the patent only recites the placement of the mechanism in the outside of the safety area it would be an obvious modification to place the same mechanism in the inside to notify the controller that a worker is no longer within the restrictive area. These differences can be met with obvious modification as explained below in  the 35 USC § 103 rejection. 
               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 1-11 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.
In claim 1, Line 4,  the limitation “the safety parameter” lacks an insufficient antecedent basis since it was not earlier recited in the claim.
In claim 1, Line 8,  the limitation “the access (A1,A2)” lacks an insufficient antecedent basis since it was not earlier recited in the claim. Adding “one or more” after “the” should correct the antecedent basis.
In claim 1, Line 12,  the limitation “univocal recognition system” is not define and the description fails to provide a definition for this limitation. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “ungrounded” in claim 5 is used by the claim to mean “unconstrained,” while the accepted meaning is “not connected electrically with the ground.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
In claim 1, Line 21,  the limitation “the security perimeter” lacks an insufficient antecedent basis since it was not earlier recited in the claim.
In claim 1, the region “P” appears to be a “perimeter”, a “safety perimeter”, and a “security perimeter” which can introduce confusion as to its proper designation.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
                                    Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.

The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary.  Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PIZZATO et al (WO-2021009602-A1)(“Pizzato”) and Iida et al (US- 20090072631-A1)(“Iida”).
As per claim 1, Pizzato discloses a system for controlling safety protections for industrial machines or plants (See access gate A in Figure 1), wherein a protection comprises one or more accesses (Al, A2) to a perimeter (P) or safety area of a machine or industrial plant (M) (See “State of the art” at Page 1.), which system comprises:
first enabling means for enabling the access to the safety perimeter (P) for one or more operators, said first enabling means comprising at least one first control device (2) placed in correspondence with at least one of said one or more accesses (Al, A2), outside the safety perimeter (P), to send stop and/or start and/or enabling commands of the machine or plant (M) following the opening/closing of one of the accesses (Al, A2)  (Pizzato at Figures 1-2, casing 6 and safety switch 1, with  Page 6, Lines 31-32, and Page 7, Lines 1-4, which discloses that mechanism enables access to the enclosed area where a machine is operated:” [i]nside the casing 6 there are also electric and/or electronic control means suitable for being connected with one or more control and/or signalling circuits of the machine or plant in order to send stop controls, access control, enabling and/or reporting controls. Suitably, the retaining mechanism will be controlled by the control means that will allow it to be disengaged from the retaining and centering element 4 only when all the conditions for the safe opening of access A are fulfilled.”)  ;
verification means for verifying the entry/exit of one or more operators through one or more of said accesses (Al, A2) (Pizzato at Pages 9-10, Lines 31 to line 2. , disclosing a reader and verifier to grant access:” [t]he identification device 22 may be designed on multiple recognition levels, so as to enable certain functions in a differentiated manner for the different programmed levels. The RFID reader 22 will be connected to the control means to receive as input the identification code to be sent to the control means for its comparison with a stored verification code.”) ;
one or more actuators (9) each having a univocal recognition system of a respective operator by means of an identification code and adapted to interact with said first enabling means and/or said verification means for sending respective actuation commands (Pizzato at Page 9, line 27 to Page 10, Line 2, which discloses actuation of the door mechanism based on the verification and the identification:”[i]n particular, on the casing 6, for example on its front face 11 as in the figures or in any other part, an RFID reader for operator recognition will be positioned to dialogue with a token provided with an identification code and in possession of the operator . The identification device 22 may be designed on multiple recognition levels, so as to enable certain functions in a differentiated manner for the different programmed levels. The RFID reader 22 will be connected to the control means to receive as input the identification code to be sent to the control means for its comparison with a stored verification code.”);
at least one control unit (15) operatively connected to said first enabling means and said verification means to receive said actuation commands and enable the operation of the machine or industrial plant (M) inside the safety perimeter (P), or at least part of the machine or plant (M), between a first full operative condition and a second operating condition as a function of the type of activation commands received (Pizzato at Page 12, Lines 23-32, discloses activation/deactivation of the machines based on the activation command:” There are also detection means, not visible from the figures and similar to those described for the previous configuration, for detecting the opening of the access A and adapted to verify that the movable anchoring body 103 is no longer close to the fixed casing 106, sending to the above control means a stop command of the machine or plant following the detection of the opening of access A. At the same time, also on the basis of the safety degree to be assigned to the switch 100, the control means may be connected to the locking/unlocking means to carry out the shutdown of the machine or plant, in an instantaneous or timed manner, already upon the unlocking of the bolt 104 or to send access request signals and subsequent stopping of the machine or system. The operating device 103 also comprises further driving means 109 connected to the control means and adapted to send to the latter one or more activation/deactivation and/or signalling commands for the consequent response by the circuits of the machine or plant.”);
While Pizzato discloses enabling access and sending commands to the machine upon entry into the restricted perimeter, Pizzato does not explicitly disclose a similar mechanism for exiting the perimeter and sending commands to the machine. As understood the claims recite a switching mechanism to turn the machine “off” upon entry and to turn the machine “on” upon exiting the designated perimeter.  As shown in Figures 8 and 9 of the instant application that the entry and exit mechanism are identical in hardware and functions.  
Iida in the same field of endeavor discloses the importance of  determining when an operator is outside a protective zone so that an idle machine could be restarted and continue its assigned task.  See Paras. [0043]-[0048] where Iida discloses “inside the gate 13 is placed an exit tag reader 5 for reading safety management information from a RFID tag carried by a worker who is about to exit the work area 100 and necessarily passes through this area for leaving the work area 100.” Iida monitors the entry and exits of a person so that a safety regiment can be maintained. See Figures 11-13.
Further,  Iida stresses the  importance in knowing  the location of the operator when inside or outside the protective area and how this information is integral for operating a safe environment. Additionally, Iida teaches that both the entry and exit mechanism can be used to perform this task like shown in Figure 10 where card readers (4,5) are used during entering and exiting. From the teaching of Iida,  it would have been obvious to add a second enabling mechanism  to both indicate exiting by the operator and to generate a  second command (restart), while the additional enabling mechanism  and command  undoubtedly made it versatile, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the number of the parts. Duplication of parts for a multiplied effect is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See  St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
While Pizzato  only illustrates a entry activation mechanism, those in the art would recognize that the same mechanism could be used as an exit activation, like shown in Iida,  and is merely a duplication of parts that has no patentable significance because a new and unexpected result is not being produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Therefore, Pizzato can use the first enabling means as  a second enabling means for enabling the exit from the security perimeter (P) for one or more operators associated with at least one of said one or more accesses (Al, A2) characterized in that said second enabling means comprise at least one second control device (4) different and separated from said first control device (2) and placed in correspondence with at least one of said one or more accesses (Al, A2), inside the safety perimeter (P), for sending commands to the machine or plant (M) and wherein said verification means are adapted to evaluate the opened/closed condition and possible locking of the accesses (Pizzato at Figures 1-2, casing 6 and safety switch 1, with  Page 6, Lines 31-32, and Page 7, Lines 1-4, which discloses that mechanism enables access to the enclosed area where a machine is operated:” [i]nside the casing 6 there are also electric and/or electronic control means suitable for being connected with one or more control and/or signalling circuits of the machine or plant in order to send stop controls, access control, enabling and/or reporting controls. Suitably, the retaining mechanism will be controlled by the control means that will allow it to be disengaged from the retaining and centering element 4 only when all the conditions for the safe opening of access A are fulfilled.”). 
 It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the placement of the safety switch  as taught by Pizzato  to include both an entry and an exit indication as taught by Iida with a reasonable expectation of success in order to know when operator enters and exits a protective area. The teaching suggestion/motivation to combine is that by including entry and exits into an area housing a machine, the safety of a person is ensured and  idleness of a machine can be reduced as taught by Iida at Para. [0043]-[0048].
As per Claim 2, Pizzato and Iida disclose a system, wherein said at least one first control device (2) and/or said at least one second control device (4) are provided with a respective electronic drive (5) having respective reading means (6) adapted to interact with said one or more actuators (9) by receiving at least one identification code or data of one or more operators transmitted by said actuators (9) and defining said actuation commands and to transmit said at least one identification code or data to said control unit (15) for enabling and/or locking/unlocking at least one of the accesses (Al, A2)   (Pizzato at Page 9, Line 25 to Page 10, Line 2, which discloses:” on the casing 6, for example on its front face 11 as in the figures or in any other part, an RFID reader for operator recognition will be positioned to dialogue with a token provided with an identification code and in possession of the operator . The identification device 22 may be designed on multiple recognition levels, so as to enable certain functions in a differentiated manner for the different programmed levels. The RFID reader 22 will be connected to the control means to receive as input the identification code to be sent to the control means for its comparison with a stored verification code.”) .  
As per Claim 4, Pizzato and Iida disclose a system, wherein said control unit (15) is suitable to enable the machine or plant (M) to switch from said second operating condition to said first operating condition only following the reception of codes or data certifying the exit of all operators from the safety perimeter (P) (Iida at Figure 5, Step 502 based on the contents such entry or exit of worker, and Para. [0070] disclosed that operating condition is based entry and exit and since a loop is shown in Figure 3 a reasonable interpretation is that is based on all operators:” If it is a case of an entry/exit mode operation (entry/exit in step 303), the tag information is read and stored (step 304), and it is determined if the worker is entering or exiting the work area depending on if the signal is from the entry tag reader 4 or from the exit tag reader 5. If it is a case of entry (entry in step 305), an entry process (step 306) which is one of essential parts of the present invention is executed, and the system flow then advances to the worker presence information update process (entry) (step 307). Upon completion of this process, the system flow returns to the initial state of awaiting an arrival of an ID tag (steps 301 and 302). On the other hand, when it is determined that it is a case of an exit (exit in step 305), the worker presence information update process (exit) is executed (step 308) and, upon completion of this process, the system flow again returns to the initial state of awaiting an arrival of an ID tag (steps 301 and 302).”).  
As per Claim 5, Pizzato and Iida disclose a system, wherein said verification means comprise for each of said accesses (Al, A2) at least one first safety switch (3) located externally and/or internally to the safety perimeter (P) and having a movable component (8) associated with the movable part of the access (Al, A2) and a fixed component (7) associated with the fixed frame of the access (Al, A2) and provided with a locking/unlocking mechanism of the movable component (8) (Pizzato at Figures 7-8, bolt 104 and identification device 122,  and Page 12, Lines 10-15, disclosing identification input that in combination with controller causes a bolt 104 to engage/disengage and signal operation of the machine as disclosed  previously:” the free end of the bolt 104 may be provided with a groove or slot suitable for being engaged by the retaining element of the locking/unlocking mechanism. Electrical and/or electronic control means are suitably arranged in the casing 106 to be connected with one or more control and/or signalling circuits of the machine or plant in order to send stop, enabling and/or signal commands, also via safe or unsafe communication buses.”).  
As per Claim 6, Pizzato and Iida disclose a system, wherein said first and/or said second control devices (2, 4) are integrated in one of said movable component (8) or fixed component (7) of the corresponding safety switch (3) (Pizzato at Figure 2 and at least Page 7, Lines 19-24,  disclosing that the controllers are integrated in the fixed  component:”. a plurality of virtual controls, which will then be graphically reproduced on the monitor 10, whose functions will be appropriately managed by a microprocessor connected to the monitor 10 to associate each of the virtual controls with a specific control and/or signalling function so as to associate each of these virtual controls to one of the circuits of the machine or plant by means of the control means.”)  
As per Claim 7, Pizzato and Iida disclose a system, wherein each of said actuators (9) comprises a respective RFID transponder with identification code (Pizzato at Figure 2, identification reader 22 for receiving code such as from an RFID tag, and Page 9, Line 30 to Page 10, Line 5 which discloses receiving a transmitted code before allowing access to a restricted area:” The identification device 22 may be designed on multiple recognition levels, so as to enable certain functions in a differentiated manner for the different programmed levels. The RFID reader 22 will be connected to the control means to receive as input the identification code to be sent to the control means for its comparison with a stored verification code. As an alternative to the reader-token coupling, it will also be possible to use other types of recognition systems, both mechanical, for example by means of keys, and through electronic systems, for example through the recognition of biometric parameters.”. 
As per Claim 8, Pizzato and Iida disclose a system, wherein each of said reading means (6) comprise an RFID reader provided with an antenna suitable for receiving the identification code associated with a corresponding actuator (9) for sending it to said control unit (15) (Pizzato at Figure 2, identification reader 22 for receiving code such as from an RFID tag transmitter, and Page 9, Line 32 to Page 10, Line 2 which discloses forwarding the received code to at least one controller:” RFID reader 22 will be connected to the control means to receive as input the identification code to be sent to the control means for its comparison with a stored verification code.”) .  
As per Claim 9, Pizzato and Iida disclose a system, wherein said actuators (9) and said reading means (6) are of the electronic type, such as sensors of the magnetic or electromagnetic, optical type or operating by means of biometric parameters (Pizzato at Figures 7-8, reader 122, and Page 10, Lines 3-5, disclosing that in addition to an RFID reader other forms of entry are anticipated:” As an alternative to the reader-token coupling, it will also be possible to use other types of recognition systems, both mechanical, for example by means of keys, and through electronic systems, for example through the recognition of biometric parameters.”).  
As per Claim 10, Pizzato and Iida disclose a system, wherein light and/or audible signalling means are provided which are controlled by said control unit (15) and are suitable for providing indications relating to the operating condition of the machine or plant (M) and/or to the condition of opening, closing or locking of said accesses (Al, A2) (Pizzato at Page 10, Lines 6-9, discloses providing indicator lights or audible signal generator  like a buzzer and  other indicators which are all controlled by a controller:” further variants, additional devices may be applied to the casing 6, such as indicator lights, selectors, potentiometers, emergency buttons, buzzers, badge readers for access control, fingerprint readers, iris readers, biometric readers or cameras for facial recognition and similar and/or a different number of buttons.”) .  
As per Claim 11, Pizzato and Iida disclose a system, wherein said control unit (15) is adapted to enable the passage of the machine or plant (M) from said second operating condition to said first operating condition only in the presence of the following conditions (Iida at Figure 3.):
reception by said control unit (15) of one or more first codes certifying the opening or closing from the outside of one of the accesses (Al, A2) and each transmitted by a respective of said second control devices (2) (Iida at Figure 3, search ID tag 301, and Para. [0070] reading a first code to indicate opening or closing to enter the safety area where the machine is kept:” If it is a case of an entry/exit mode operation (entry/exit in step 303), the tag information is read and stored (step 304), and it is determined if the worker is entering or exiting the work area depending on if the signal is from the entry tag reader 4 or from the exit tag reader 5. If it is a case of entry (entry in step 305), an entry process (step 306) which is one of essential parts of the present invention is executed, and the system flow then advances to the worker presence information update process (entry) (step 307). Upon completion of this process, the system flow returns to the initial state of awaiting an arrival of an ID tag (steps 301 and 302).”);
reception by said control unit (15) of one or more second codes certifying the opening or closing from inside one of the accesses (Al, A2) and transmitted by a respective of said second control devices (4) Iida at Figure 3, search ID tag 301, and Para. [0070] reading a second code to indicate opening or closing to exiting the safety area where the machine is kept:” If it is a case of an entry/exit mode operation (entry/exit in step 303), the tag information is read and stored (step 304), and it is determined if the worker is entering or exiting the work area depending on if the signal is from the entry tag reader 4 or from the exit tag reader 5. If it is a case of entry (entry in step 305), an entry process (step 306) which is one of essential parts of the present invention is executed, and the system flow then advances to the worker presence information update process (entry) (step 307). Upon completion of this process, the system flow returns to the initial state of awaiting an arrival of an ID tag (steps 301 and 302).”);
 wherein the number of said first codes or data that said control unit (15) has received is equal to the number of said second codes or data that said control unit (15) has received or such as to ensure that each operator entered the safety perimeter (P) from one of said accesses (Al, A2) has exit from said access (Al, A2) or from a different access (Al, A2) (Iida at Figure 4, flowchart that accounts for entry and exit to the protective area, and Para. [0074] that inventories the workers in the area to determine machine operation:” If it is determined that no worker is present (no in step 402), the degrees of danger of the sources of danger (the robot 15a, press 15b and conveyer 15c in the embodiment illustrated in FIGS. 10 to 13) in the work area is looked up. This look up process is executed by using a degree of danger reference table shown in FIG. 8a.”). 
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over  Pizzato and Iida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uwe Bonin (US-20120262727-A1)(“Bonin”).
As per Claim 3, Pizzato and Iida disclose a system, (Pizzato at Page 12, Lines 23-32, discloses activation/deactivation of the machines based on the activation command:” There are also detection means, not visible from the figures and similar to those described for the previous configuration, for detecting the opening of the access A and adapted to verify that the movable anchoring body 103 is no longer close to the fixed casing 106, sending to the above control means a stop command of the machine or plant following the detection of the opening of access A. At the same time, also on the basis of the safety degree to be assigned to the switch 100, the control means may be connected to the locking/unlocking means to carry out the shutdown of the machine or plant, in an instantaneous or timed manner, already upon the unlocking of the bolt 104 or to send access request signals and subsequent stopping of the machine or system. The operating device 103 also comprises further driving means 109 connected to the control means and adapted to send to the latter one or more activation/deactivation and/or signalling commands for the consequent response by the circuits of the machine or plant.”).  
Pizzato and Iida do not disclose a safety perimeter that has multiple entry points. In particular, Pizzato and Iida do not disclose wherein the safety perimeter (P) comprises at least one first access (Al) and at least one second access (A2) for the entry and/or exit of one or more operators.
Benin in the same field of endeavor discloses a multiple access space for an industrial machine such as a robot.
In particular, Benin discloses wherein the safety perimeter (P) (Figure 1, area “A”.) comprises at least one first access (Al) and at least one second access (A2) for (Access points3A & 3B at Fig. 1 for controlling respective doors 4.1.) the entry and/or exit of one or more operators (Benin at Para. [0028] discloses a machine area (A) having two access points:” FIG. 1 shows a top view of a six-axis articulated arm robot 2 in a working space A of an automation cell bounded by a protective fence 4. Provided in the fence 4 are, in addition to a normally closed access door 4.2, two access points located opposite each other”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art  before the effective filing date of the claimed invention  to implement a dual access system for a safety area taught in Benin in the in Pizzato as modified Iida  with a reasonable expectation of success because this results in a room that has an ingress for accepting material and an egress for discharging or taking material and when entries 4.1 are closed the entry devices can be used to monitor the motion of the robot in the safety zone. (see Benin at Para. [0031]-[0033].).
                                          Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wilson et al (US-20200193364-A1) discloses an  equipment management system is provided for use in a facility having an inventory of items. The system includes an inventory database, a user database, a person identification system and an inventory management system.  See Abstract and Figure 3.
Masaru Oda (US-9951548-B2) discloses  a system which can reliably prevent a worker from being caught in a door which is provided on a work machine. The system comprises a work machine which has an operable door, a door drive part which makes the door operate, a door controller which controls the door drive part, a robot which is provided so that at least part can enter and retract from the inside of the work machine when opening the door, and an entry detection part which detects a possibility of a person entering a predetermined zone which includes a range of operation of the robot.  See Abstract and Figures 1 & 3.
Watanabe (US-9782897-B2) discloses a robot system, a signal output unit outputs, depending on a processing result of an image processing unit, an entry preparation signal indicating an entry preparation state, and an entry permission signal for permitting a person to enter a predetermined section in a case where the person has been requested to enter the predetermined section. See Abstract and Figures 1-2 & 4-5.
Dow et al (US-20160371908-A1)   discloses a system for the integration of trapped key interlock devices into an industrial control system through the use of an electronic trapped key system that integrates the management of state and permissions of trapped keys with their associated mechanical operators in addition to functional safety controllers.  See Abstract and Figures 4-5.
Pullmann et al (US-20130020817-A1) discloses locking apparatus with tumbler for safety doors has a door part for fastening on a movable safety door and has a frame part for fastening on a door counterpart. The frame part has a receptacle and the door part has an actuator configured to be inserted into the receptacle. The frame part further has a blocking member which is displaceable between a release position, in which the actuator can be released in, and a blocking position in which the actuator is secured in the receptacle. See Abstract and Figured 12-14.
Akashi et al (US-20090069943-A1) discloses insuring  safety of an operator which may be endangered by an erroneous instruction by the operator or a robot control system is ensured by making more stringent a condition regarding the separation of the operator from the vicinity of a robot when an operation program of the robot is activated. An interlock to which a condition regarding activation of the operation program of the robot is added is provided in a feeding unit which is connected to a robot controlling unit by wireless connection for charging a teaching unit, so as to provide a robot system which improves the safety of the operator. See Abstract and Figures 1-3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLIS B. RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8920. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am to 5:00pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 571-270-5744. 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.





/ELLIS B. RAMIREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3658