DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 8 May 2026. Claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 14-18 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter (US 6,150,776) in view of Yamashita (US 2015/0158207), Spurr (US 6,064,170), and Sato (JP H1098898)
Regarding claim 1, Potter discloses a control apparatus comprising a controller (Fig. 1, controller 16) that operates a motor, wherein the controller starts operating the motor in a stopped state at a first driving frequency and switches from the first driving frequency to a second driving frequency at a stable point of the motor after the motor starts to rotate, and the second driving frequency is higher than the first driving frequency (col. 1, lines 10-30; col. 3, lines 20-32; col. 4, line 35 to col. 5, line 10). If Potter is found to be unclear regarding switching the frequency at a stable point of the motor, Yamashita discloses the same (¶74). Potter also does not appear to explicitly disclose that the stable point is a timing at which one of a driving waveform in an A phase coil or a driving waveform in a B phase coil of the motor reaches a maximum value or a minimum value. Spurr discloses these limitations (Fig. 14b; col. 14, lines 55-52).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Potter, Yamashita, and Spurr, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of controlling motor frequency when the motor has achieved stable operation in order to smoothly start a motor and transition to operating frequencies while maintaining motor stability and rotational accuracy. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Potter teaches starting a motor at one frequency and switching to a different frequency after the motor is operating. Yamashita provides further explicit teaching of starting a motor at one frequency and switching frequency when the motor is at a stable operating point, and Spurr teaches that the stable operating point occurs at a particular point in the driving waveform. The teachings of Yamashita and Spurr are directly applicable to Potter in the same way, so that Potter would similarly switch from the starting frequency once the motor is at a stable operating point occurring at particular points in the driving waveform, in order to smoothly transition a motor to normal operating frequencies while maintaining motor stability and rotational accuracy.
Potter does not appear to explicitly disclose that the switching from the first drive frequency to the second drive frequency is performed in a stepwise manner. Sato discloses the same (Fig. 4, drive frequency 28). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Potter, Yamashita, Spurr, and Sato because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of controlling operating speed of the motor according to programmed frequencies while avoiding undesirable resonance. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Potter discloses a controller that drives a motor at a low frequency during startup and switches to the higher operating frequency once the motor is stable. Sato teaches that switching between operating frequencies should be done in a stepwise manner at specific programmed drive frequencies, while avoiding resonance. The teachings of Sato are thus directly applicable to Potter in the same way, so that Potter would similarly switch between programmed drive frequencies in a stepwise manner while avoiding resonance.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Potter does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first driving frequency is a frequency lower than a resonance frequency range of the motor, and the second driving frequency is a frequency higher than the resonance frequency range of the motor. Sato discloses these limitations (Fig. 4). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Potter discloses a control apparatus, comprising: a controller (Fig. 1, controller 16) that, given that a first point of time for starting a motor operation and a second point of time later than the first point of time are defined, operates the motor, wherein the controller starts operating the motor in a stopped state at a first driving frequency since the first point of time and switches from the first driving frequency to a second driving frequency at the second point of time, the second point of time being a stable point of the motor after the motor starts to rotate, and the second driving frequency is higher than the first driving frequency (col. 1, lines 10-30; col. 3, lines 20-32; col. 4, line 35 to col. 5, line 10).
If Potter is found to be unclear regarding switching the frequency at a stable point of the motor, Yamashita discloses the same (¶74). Potter also does not appear to explicitly disclose that the stable point is a timing at which one of a driving waveform in an A phase coil or a driving waveform in a B phase coil of the motor reaches a maximum value or a minimum value. Spurr discloses these limitations (Fig. 14b; col. 14, lines 55-52). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Potter does not appear to explicitly disclose that the switching from the first drive frequency to the second drive frequency is performed in a stepwise manner. Sato discloses the same (Fig. 4, drive frequency 28). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Claim(s) 5-8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter in view of Yamashita, Spurr, Sato, and Takada (US 2014/0203748).
Regarding claim 5, Potter does not appear to explicitly disclose that the controller acquires a temperature measured by a temperature sensor and adjusts the second point of time in accordance with the temperature acquired. Takada discloses these limitations (¶12). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Potter, Yamashita, Spurr, Sato, and Takada, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of ensuring start-up of a motor under different temperature conditions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Potter discloses starting-up a motor by lowering frequency to increase torque for a period of time. Takada teaches that the increase period should vary based on the temperature. The teachings of Takada are directly applicable to Potter in the same way, so that Potter would similarly increase the period of time of low drive frequency according to the temperature, so that the motor can be successfully started under different temperature conditions.
Regarding claim 6, Potter does not appear to explicitly disclose that the controller configures a period from the first point of time to the second point of time such that the lower the temperature acquired, the longer the period. Takada discloses these limitations (¶78). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Potter does not appear to explicitly disclose that the controller configures a period from the first point of time to the second point of time such that the higher the temperature acquired, the shorter the period. Takada discloses these limitations (¶78). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, Potter discloses a control apparatus, comprising: a controller (Fig. 1, controller 16) that, given that a first point of time for starting a motor operation and a second point of time later than the first point of time are defined, operates the motor, wherein the controller starts operating the motor in a stopped state at a first driving frequency from the first point of time and switches from the first driving frequency to a second driving frequency at the second point of time, the second point of time being a stable point of the motor after the motor starts to rotate, and the second driving frequency is higher than the first driving frequency (col. 1, lines 10-30; col. 3, lines 20-32; col. 4, line 35 to col. 5, line 10).
If Potter is found to be unclear regarding switching the frequency at a stable point of the motor, Yamashita discloses the same (¶74). Potter also does not appear to explicitly disclose that the stable point is a timing at which one of a driving waveform in an A phase coil or a driving waveform in a B phase coil of the motor reaches a maximum value or a minimum value. Spurr discloses these limitations (Fig. 14b; col. 14, lines 55-52). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Potter, Yamashita, and Spurr, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of controlling motor frequency when the motor has achieved stable operation in order to smoothly start a motor and transition to operating frequencies while maintaining motor stability and rotational accuracy. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Potter teaches starting a motor at one frequency and switching to a different frequency after the motor is operating. Yamashita provides further explicit teaching of starting a motor at one frequency and switching frequency when the motor is at a stable operating point, and Spurr teaches that the stable operating point occurs at a particular point in the driving waveform. The teachings of Yamashita and Spurr are directly applicable to Potter in the same way, so that Potter would similarly switch from the starting frequency once the motor is at a stable operating point occurring at particular points in the driving waveform, in order to smoothly transition a motor to normal operating frequencies while maintaining motor stability and rotational accuracy.
Potter does not appear to explicitly disclose that the switching from the first drive frequency to the second drive frequency is performed in a stepwise manner. Sato discloses the same (Fig. 4, drive frequency 28). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Potter does not appear to explicitly disclose that the controller acquires a temperature measured by a temperature sensor, that the step of operating the motor in a stopped state at a first driving frequency from the first point of time occurs when the temperature is lower than or equal to a threshold value, and when the temperature is higher than the threshold value, the controller starts operating the motor in the stopped state at the second driving frequency from the first point of time. Takada discloses these limitations (Fig. 4, blocks S102-105).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Potter, Yamashita, Spurr, Sato, and Takada, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of efficiently starting-up a motor under different temperature conditions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Potter discloses starting-up a motor by lowering frequency to increase torque for a period of time. Takada teaches the low frequency start is used to start the motor in low temperatures. The teachings of Takada are directly applicable to Potter in the same way, so that Potter would similarly use low frequency starts in low temperatures, so that the motor can be successfully started under different temperature conditions.
Regarding claim 14, Potter does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first driving frequency is a frequency lower than a resonance frequency range of the motor, and the second driving frequency is a frequency higher than the resonance frequency range of the motor. Sato discloses these limitations (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter in view of Yamashita, Spurr, Sato, and Toya (US 2010/0270970).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Potter discloses the control apparatus according to claims 1 and 3 that controls driving of a motor, but does not appear to explicitly disclose a charging apparatus comprising the motor in which a position of a charging coil is moved. Toya discloses a charging apparatus comprising a motor in which a position of a charging coil is moved (¶83). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Potter, Yamashita, Spurr, Sato, and Toya, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of correctly operating motors to position coils for battery charging. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Potter discloses a controller for successfully starting-up a motor. Toya teaches that the motor is used to position a charging coil for battery charging. The teachings of Toya are directly applicable to Potter, or alternatively, the teachings of Potter are directly applicable to Toya, so that a motor for positioning a charging coil can be successfully start-up to allow proper battery charging.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter in view of Yamashita, Spurr, Sato, Takada, and Toya.
Regarding claim 15, Potter discloses the control apparatus according to claim 8 that controls driving of a motor, but does not appear to explicitly disclose a charging apparatus comprising the motor in which a position of a charging coil is moved. Toya discloses a charging apparatus comprising a motor in which a position of a charging coil is moved (¶83). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Potter, Yamashita, Spurr, Sato, Takada, and Toya, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of correctly operating motors to position coils for battery charging. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Potter discloses a controller for successfully starting-up a motor. Toya teaches that the motor is used to position a charging coil for battery charging. The teachings of Toya are directly applicable to Potter, or alternatively, the teachings of Potter are directly applicable to Toya, so that a motor for positioning a charging coil can be successfully start-up to allow proper battery charging.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter in view of Yamashita, Spurr, Sato, and Manea (“Stepper Motor Control with dsPIC DSCs”).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Potter does not appear to explicitly disclose that the controller includes a processor coupled to a storge device, the storge device stores a table derived from dividing one period of a pseudo sine wave into a plurality of steps, the processor, in operation, reads a value in the table and uses the value in the table to produce the driving waveform, and the driving waveform has a stairstep shape. Manea discloses these limitations (p. 1, col. 1, ¶1; p. 3; p. 4, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Potter, Yamashita, Spurr, Sato, and Manea, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of improving positional accuracy and reducing noise of motor operation. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Potter discloses a controller for operating a motor. Manea teaches that the controller should reference a look-up table with discrete sine wave values for operating the motor to improve positional accuracy and noise. The teachings of Manea are directly applicable to Potter in the same way, so that Potter’s controller would similarly use a look-up table with discrete sine wave values to operate the motor with improved accuracy and noise.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter in view of Yamashita, Spurr, Sato, Takada, and Manea.
Regarding claim 18, Potter does not appear to explicitly disclose that the controller includes a processor coupled to a storge device, the storge device stores a table derived from dividing one period of a pseudo sine wave into a plurality of steps, the processor, in operation, reads a value in the table and uses the value in the table to produce the driving waveform, and the driving waveform has a stairstep shape. Manea discloses these limitations (p. 1, col. 1, ¶1; p. 3; p. 4, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Potter, Yamashita, Spurr, Sato, Takada, and Manea, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of improving positional accuracy and reducing noise of motor operation. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Potter discloses a controller for operating a motor. Manea teaches that the controller should reference a look-up table with discrete sine wave values for operating the motor to improve positional accuracy and noise. The teachings of Manea are directly applicable to Potter in the same way, so that Potter’s controller would similarly use a look-up table with discrete sine wave values to operate the motor with improved accuracy and noise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
New claims are addressed above in the rejections using additional prior art.
Applicant asserts that Potter fails to teach switching the driving frequency at a stable point of the motor, and more specifically that the controller starts operating the motor in a stopped state at a first driving frequency and switches from the first driving frequency to the second driving frequency at a stable point of the motor in a stepwise manner after the motor starts to rotate. Remarks 8. The examiner disagrees. Potter is directed to an analogous problem as Applicant’s invention, and solves it in an analogous way. Applicant states that:
The present application teaches a control apparatus that operates a motor in a stopped state at a first driving frequency to produce a large torque that allows it to escape a zone of static friction, where friction with a drive load is greatest in a stationary state. Then, the controller switches from the first driving frequency to a second driving frequency, which is higher than the first driving frequency, at a stable point of the motor after the motor starts to rotate, in order to suppress malfunctions during switching of the driving frequency. More specifically, the stable point is a state in which the motor can maintain its torque and resist the external load. Therefore, switching at the stable point suppresses malfunctions.
(emphasis added). Potter discloses exactly this at col. 1, lines 10-30:
When power is initially applied to an electric motor, and the motor begins to accelerate from rest, the electric motor must overcome several boundaries, one of which includes an initial inertia. Furthermore during the starting cycle or the time during which the motor accelerates up to its operating speed, also known as run up, the torque developed by the motor at any given instant needs to exceed the torque required by the load at that speed. If the torque developed by the motor fails to exceed the torque required by the load, the load will begin to decelerate and the motor may eventually stall.
At any given speed during run up, the difference between the motor torque and the load torque is known as the accelerating torque. A positive accelerating torque will result in the speed of the motor increasing to its operating speed. Taken over the complete curve of torque versus speed as the speed of the motor increases from rest to its operating speed, the accelerating torque in combination with the load moment of inertia determines the run up time.
(emphasis added). And at col. 3, lines 20-33:
Correspondingly, when power is initially applied to an AC motor or a large surge or starting current is detected indicative of an AC motor being initially started, the frequency of the AC line supplying power to the motor can be set at or ramped to a frequency below the typical AC line frequency. As the frequency is adjusted to a frequency below the typical AC line frequency, the surge current is decreased and the starting torque is increased. Once the motor approaches the synchronous speed at the frequency below the typical AC line frequency, the frequency of the AC line is increased or ramped up, so as to bring the motor up to its ideal operating frequency. In many instances the ideal operating frequency is the typical operating frequency.
(emphasis added). In short, Potter uses a lower frequency when the motor is started from a stopped state in order to produce more torque to overcome static friction. The motor is operated at that lower frequency until the motor reaches a synchronous speed where the motor torque exceeds the torque required by the load to prevent stalling, at which point the frequency is increased to its ideal operating frequency. This is exactly what Applicant’s invention does.
Applicant asserts that Yamashita switches from a higher frequency to a lower frequency. Remarks 9. Applicant’s argument relies on improper piecemeal analysis of the references. Potter already teaches the second frequency being higher than the first frequency, so Yamashita has no need to teach the same. Yamashita was cited solely as further explicit clarification of “stable” switching (which, as discussed above and in the rejection, is already taught by Potter) in the interest of advancing prosecution. The combination of Potter and Yamashita applies the known basic principle that the stable point is when the operating mode should be switched to Potter’s switching, which persons having ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize as obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIC LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 07:30-17:00 ET.
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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
15 August 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights