DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/09/2026 has been entered.
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 14, 16-22, 24-25 and 27-34 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.
Regarding claims 14, 17 and 24, the limitations regarding “a setpoint value of a variable of a position, and an actual value” and “determines a manipulated value which is transmitted as the setpoint value for torque” renders the claims indefinite.
First, it is unclear how to “determines a manipulated value” based on “deviation between setpoint value…and an actual value”, and then transmitting the determined value as “the setpoint value”;
Second, as best understood by the examiner based on common knowledge in the art, speed control is based on deviation between position command and actual position, and torque control is based on deviation between torque command and current feedback.
Based on the amendment, (speed has been removed from all claims), it is unclear how position controlling is being a setpoint value for a torque controller. If applicant believe the claimed invention is using position controlling as setpoint value for torque control, applicant is suggested to provide support from the specification that clearly define the concept.
In addition, claims 16, 18-22, 25 and 27-34 are indefinite because they either directly or indirectly depend on claim 14.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 14, 16-22, 24-25, 27 and 31 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rouvelin et al. (US 2006/0136622 A1) in view of Wieloch (US 5,764,023), Rozman et al. (US 2007/0216343 A1) and Ito (JP 2008057747 A).
In Re claim 14, Rouvelin discloses a converter assembly (Fig. 1: 10), comprising:
a base module including power electronics (Fig. 1: 12 & [0022-0028]) and control electronics (Fig. 1: 36 & [0029-0030]), the base module having a housing or a housing part completely or at least partially forming a housing for the power electronics and control electronics (Fig. 1),
wherein the base module includes an electrical and mechanical interface (e.g. Fig .1: 40, 42), via which signal electronics (e.g. Fig. 1: 58) are joinable to the base module with form-locking and/or force-locking, in order to form the converter assembly (10),
wherein the signal electronics (Fig. 1: 36) includes a housing such that after being joined, the housing of the signal electronics and the housing of the base module together form a housing of the converter assembly,
wherein a setpoint value for torque is transmittable electrically via the interface (40, 42) from the signal electronics (58) to the control electronics (36), the signal electronics adapted to receive, determine, and/or input the setpoint value (Fig. 1 & [0032]: keypad 62 for local input such as controlling the application of a nutrunner 30 to a load).
Rouvelin discloses the user interface for parameter entry ([0032]), but fails to explicitly disclose the parameter is a setpoint value for torque (although obvious in motor control application).
Wieloch teaches a user interface for transmitting a setpoint value for performance parameters (e.g. col 4 lines 20-26: performance of a motor, e.g. torque, is controlled by package 10 as shown in Fig. 1; col 1 lines 47-60: goal of the invention is to permit user to select desirable motor performance parameters).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Rouvelin with the teachings of Wieloch, since it is known in the art to input command speed for controlling motor operation via user interface so as to control the motor at a desired speed.
Wieloch further teaches the signal electronics includes an instantaneous manipulated value as controlled variable that is transmitted as the setpoint value for torque via the interface to the control electronics (e.g. col 4 lines 20-26: performance of a motor, e.g. torque, is controlled by package 10 as shown in Fig. 1; col 1 lines 47-60: goal of the invention is to permit user to select desirable motor performance parameters).
Furthermore, Rozman further teaches
b) the signal electronics (e.g. Fig. 3: 96) includes an instantaneous manipulated value as controlled variable that is transmitted as the setpoint value for torque (e.g. Fig. 3: 102 trq_ref) via the interface to the control electronics (para [0035-0039]: start mode: torque reference selected based on mode selector); and
the control electronics is arranged as a torque controller (e.g. Fig. 3: 102, 104) and generates pulse-width-modulated driving signal (92) to supply to the power electronics (94), based on a deviation between the setpoint value transmitted by the signal electronics via the interface between the signal electronics and the control electronics (as explained above, Rouvelin discloses setpoint value transmitted by the signal electronics to the control electronics) and an actual value for torque (Fig. 3: 104 iq fdbk as torque feedback measured based on inverter currents); and
wherein the signal electronics (e.g. Fig. 3: 96) is arranged as a superordinate controller to the control electronics (e.g. Fig. 3: 102, 104).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Rouvelin and Wieloch with the teachings of Rozman, since it is known in the art to determine a desired torque for motor operation according to reference torque selected based on mode selection of a motor so as to maximize torque generated at the motor during startup (e.g. Rozman: [0035]).
In addition, Rouvelin discloses the power electronics (e.g. Fig. 1 & [0024]: servo module 12) includes a selective one of a first power module or a second power module, the first power module being suppliable from a voltage source and the second power module being suppliable from a different voltage source (e.g. Fig. 1 & [0024]: servo module 12 can be substitute with another servo module to better suit nutrunner of different power ranges in use).
Ito further cited to teach selective one of a first power module or a second power module, the first power module being suppliable from a voltage source having a first number of phases, the second power module being suppliable from a voltage source having a second number of phases (6th paragraph of p. 4: “For example…can be employed; Ito teaches it is known to use 3-phase motor or single-phase motor; 3-phase motor inherently requires 3-phase power supply and single-phase motor requires single-phase power supply and it is well-known in the art that 3-phase system is capable of providing larger power as compared to single-phase system).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have selectively choose power module suppliable from a voltage source having a first phase number or a voltage source having a second phase number since 3-phase motor and single-phase motor are known alternative as taught by Ito. The modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art since it is merely simple substitutions of one known element with another according to KSR.
In Re claim 16, Rouvelin and Wieloch in combination disclose the control electronics, but fail to disclose the control electronics includes an automatic control unit which, based on a deviation between the setpoint value supplied by the signal electronics and the actual value, determines a manipulated value for motor voltage and generates corresponding pulse-width-modulated driving signals for power semiconductors of the power electronics which are controllable accordingly to generate the motor voltage to be regulated.
Rozman teaches based on a deviation (Fig. 3: 104) between the setpoint value (e.g. Fig. 3: 102 trq_ref) and the actual value (Fig. 3: 104 iq fdbk as torque feedback measured based on inverter currents), determines a manipulated value for motor voltage and generates corresponding pulse-width-modulated driving signals for power semiconductors of the power electronics which are controllable accordingly to generate the motor voltage to be regulated (Fig. 3: 90, 92, 94 & [0040]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Rouvelin and Wieloch with the teachings of Rozman, since it is known in the art to determine a desired speed for motor operation according to the position of the motor so as to provide accurate control of the motor.
In Re claim 17, Rouvelin and Wieloch in combination disclose the base module and/or the control electronics, and signal electronics, whose output is the setpoint value for torque which is transmitted and predefined via the mechanical interface to the corresponding speed controller in the base module and/or the control electronics (see rejection in claim 14 above), and Rozman further teaches the control includes a torque controller (Fig. 3: 102, 104), and a position controller (Fig. 3: 122, 124).
In Re claim 18, as explained in claim 14 above, the claimed signal electronics was rejected based on limitation (b) in claim 14, and the automatic control unit was recited in limitation (a) in claim 14; thus, no patentable weight has been given to limitation in claim 18 based on rejection of claim 14 above.
In Re claim 19, Rouvelin discloses the signal electronics includes an input device adapted to input parameters and/or a display device adapted to display parameters (Fig. 1: display 60), a touch screen, and/or connection terminals for electric lines, signal lines or power cable lines (e.g. Fig. 1: terminals 40, 42 for signals and power transfer).
In Re claim 20, Rouvelin discloses the signal electronics includes a field-bus interface (Fig. 1: e.g. 40, 42).
In Re claim 21, Rouvelin discloses the electrical and mechanical interface is implemented as a plug-in connection, the base module including a connector part and the signal electronics including a corresponding mating-connector part (Fig. 1: 40, 42).
In Re claim 22, Rouvelin discloses the housing of the signal electronics is joinable imperviously to the housing of the base module, a seal being disposed between the housing of the signal electronics and the housing of the base module, such that the electrical and mechanical interface is disposed in a spatial area surrounded and sealed off by the housings, or is surrounded by the housings in housing-forming fashion (Fig. 1).
In Re claim 24, with reference to Figs 1 & 3, Rozman discloses a method for operating a converter assembly (20, 22), comprising:
Determining, with signal electronics of the converter assembly, a first manipulated variable, wherein the first manipulated variable is based on: (i) a deviation between a setpoint value of a position variable and an actual value of the position and/or (ii) an output value of a position controller included in the signal electronics (i.e. output of 96);
Transmitting, from the signal electronics, the first manipulated value as a setpoint value for torque to control electronics (e.g. Fig. 3: 102, 104) of the converter assembly via an interface (i.e. cable or wire), wherein, the control electronics:
Receives an acquired value for motor current and/or angular value of a rotor shaft from power electronics of the converter assembly (80, 82),
Determines, based on the acquired value, an actual value for torque (iq_fdbk,),
Determines, based on a deviation (104) between (a) the setpoint value for torque and (b) the actual value, a second manipulated variable (i.e. output of 104),
Generates, based on the second manipulated variable, pulse-width-modulated driving signals (output of 92), wherein the pulse-width-modulated driving signals adjusts the actual value to the setpoint value for torque and/or speed, and
Supplies the pulse-width-modulated driving signals to power semiconductor switches of the power electronics (94).
In Re claim 25, Rouvelin fails to disclose, but Rozman teaches the control electronic includes at least one automatic control unit (Fig.3: 120, 106), and wherein the automatic control unit includes a PI controller with or without pre-control (Fig. 3: 124, 120, 106).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Rouvelin with the teachings of Rozman to include PI controller to generate speed/torque command, since PI controller is well known in the art to generate output signal with quick response time.
Regarding claims 27 and 31, Rouvelin discloses an electrical connection/interface between the signal electronics and the control electronics is adapted for contactless transmission between the signal electronics and the control electronics ([0060]: signal/data transmission between modules can be many different methods including transformer coupling, i.e. contactless).
Claims 28-30 and 32-34 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rouvelin et al. (US 2006/0136622 A1) in view of Wieloch (US 5,764,023), Rozman et al. (US 2007/0216343 A1) and Ito (JP 2008057747 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Fell (US 2012/0221016 A1).
Regarding claims 28 and 32, Rouvelin fails to disclose, but Fell teaches the contactless transmission includes radio transmission (e.g. [0024]: communication between components of motor control system can be wired or wireless including RF and infrared).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified the teachings of Rouvelin to use radio transmission for signal/data transmission between components of motor control system as suggested by Fell, since Fell teaches wired or wireless communication are known alternative in the art. In addition, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use wired or wireless transmission since applicant has not disclosed that using contactless transmission solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with wired or wireless transmission (see p. 9 of specification of instant application: applicant suggests the use of wire and/or wireless alternatively with no specified reason and/or advantage).
Regarding claims 29-30 and 33-34, Fell teaches the contactless transmission includes optical transmission, wherein the optical transmission includes infrared optical transmission (e.g. [0024]: communication between components of motor control system can be wired or wireless including RF and infrared).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding to claim 14, Wieloch teaches an interface for inputting performance parameters for controlling a motor (e.g. col 4 lines 20-26: performance of a motor, e.g. torque, is controlled by package 10 as shown in Fig. 1; col 1 lines 47-60: goal of the invention is to permit user to select desirable motor performance parameters), and Rozman teaches a torque controller generates pulse-width-modulated driving signal for driving a motor, based on a deviation between the setpoint value transmitted by the signal electronics via the interface between the signal electronics and the control electronics (e.g. Fig. 3: 102, 104, torque deviation between torque reference trq_ref and torque feedback iq_fdbk, and the torque reference is selected based on mode selected by mode selector 96).
Rouvelin discloses general aspect and all the electronic components of the claimed invention except torque control command; however, both Wieloch and Rozman teaches torque control based on torque control command received from user is known in the art (Wieloch: torque performance parameter inputted in a user interface; Rozman: torque reference inputted by mode selection). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Rouvelin with the teachings of Wieloch and Rozman so as to maximize torque output during startup. The modification would have yielded only predictable results to one skilled in the art with reasonable expectations of success since it is merely utilizing a well-known technique in a well-known device.
In addition, claims 16-22, 24-25 and 27-34 are unpatentable at least in view of the foregoing reason(s) and rejections set forth in current Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272-2060. 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.
/KAWING CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights