DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/06/2023, 08/17/2023 and 02/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagata (US 4,641,066).
Regarding claim 17, Nagata discloses a method of controlling a brushless permanent-magnet motor (e.g. Abstract & Fig. 1: two-pole permanent magnet brushless motor) having a phase winding (e.g. Fig. 1: 14) and a rotor (e.g. Fig. 1: 13), the method comprising:
monitoring a value indicative of back EMF induced in the phase winding during oscillation of the rotor about a parking position (col 15 lines 18-52: zero crossing corresponds to peak of bemf and a stable or resting position, i.e. parking position);
identifying a pattern in amplitude peaks of the value indicative of back EMF (e.g. Fig. 10);
using the pattern in amplitude peaks of the value indicative of back EMF to determine whether the parking position of the rotor is a first parking position or a second parking position (e.g. Figs. 9-10: using the polarity of the bemf and switchover signal to determine whether the zero crossing corresponds to forward/backward rotation starting point);
determining a polarity of drive voltage (e.g. Fig. 13: excitation pattern corresponds to polarity of a driving voltage is applied when starting point b1 is identified) to be applied to the phase winding dependent on the determined first or second parking position (e.g. Figs. 1, 9-11 & 13-16: starting timer circuit triggers excitation of phase winding is started when bemf peak, e.g. b1, corresponds to forward rotation is identified); and
applying a drive voltage having the determined polarity to the phase winding (e.g. Figs. 1 & 13: excitation pattern control energization of the inverter to supply voltage o phase windings).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-16 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata (US 4,641,066) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0263590 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nagata discloses a method of controlling a brushless permanent-magnet motor (e.g. Abstract & Fig. 18: two-pole permanent magnet brushless motor) having a phase winding (e.g. Fig. 18: 14) and a rotor (e.g. Fig. 18: 13), the method comprising:
monitoring a value indicative of back EMF induced in the phase winding during oscillation of the rotor about a parking position (col 15 lines 18-52: zero crossing corresponds to peak of bemf and a stable or resting position, i.e. parking position);
using amplitude peaks of the value indicative of back EMF to calculate a time window in which to apply a drive voltage to the phase winding (e.g. Fig. 18: 26, 27 & Fig. 20: plurality of bemf values, i.e. peaks, are used to determine a condition to start timer for applying driver voltage);
setting a timer (e.g. Fig. 18: 40, 44) corresponding to the time window at a subsequent determined amplitude peak (e.g. Fig. 8 & col 8 lines 26-44: timer is started at any one of the peak points correspond to zero crossing b1-bn); and
applying a drive voltage to the phase winding (e.g. Fig. 18: starting circuit initial excitation pattern).
Nagata fails to disclose, but Lee teaches using amplitude peaks of the value indicative of back EMF to calculate a time window, and apply a drive voltage to the phase winding during the time window (e.g. [0080-0089]: adjust/correct drive signal waveform, i.e. driving time interval, of next cycle based on detection time of the previous zero cross point; thus, the driving time interval is broadly interpreted as time window).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Nagata with the teachings of Lee to adjust driving time interval so as to provide optimum power efficiency for the machine by correcting the resonance frequency as needed.
Regarding claim 2, Nagata discloses using negative amplitude peaks of the value indicative of back EMF to calculate the time window in which to apply the drive voltage to the phase winding (e.g. Fig. 19: positive and negative peaks are shown).
Regarding claim 3, Nagata discloses using positive amplitude peaks of the value indicative of back EMF to calculate the time window in which to apply the drive voltage to the phase winding (e.g. Fig. 19: positive and negative peaks are shown).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the drive voltage is applied to the phase winding at a halfway point of the time window (e.g. [0080-0089]: drive voltage is applied to next cycle, i.e. the time window, including the halfway point of the next cycle).
Regarding claim 7, Nagata discloses the drive voltage is applied to the phase winding when the value indicative of back EMF induced in the phase winding is zero (e.g. Fig. 19A-B: points A & B).
Regarding claim 8, Nagata discloses identifying whether the parking position of the rotor is a first parking position or a second parking position, and determining a voltage polarity of the drive voltage to be applied to the phase winding based on the determined first or second parking position (e.g. Figs. 9D-9E: identified parking position as forward oscillating direction; Figs. 9F-9G: identified parking position as backward oscillating direction).
Regarding claim 9, Nagata discloses identifying a pattern in amplitude peaks of the value indicative of back EMF, and using the pattern in amplitude peaks of the value indicative of back EMF to determine whether the parking position of the rotor is the first parking position or the second parking position (e.g. Figs. 9D-9E: identified excitation pattern as forward oscillating direction; Figs. 9F-9G: identified excitation pattern as backward oscillating direction).
Regarding claim 10, Nagata discloses identifying a pattern in negative amplitude peaks of the value indicative of back EMF to determine whether the parking position of the rotor is the first parking position or the second parking position (e.g. Figs. 9D-9E: identified excitation pattern as forward oscillating direction; Figs. 9F-9G: identified excitation pattern as backward oscillating direction).
Regarding claim 11, Nagata discloses identifying a pattern in positive amplitude peaks of the value indicative of back EMF to determine whether the parking position of the rotor is the first parking position or the second parking position (e.g. Figs. 9D-9E: negative bemf represent forward direction, and Figs. 9F-9G: positive bemf represents backward direction).
Regarding claim 12, Nagata discloses the first parking position is determined where a high positive amplitude peak (e.g. Fig. 9E: switching signals 1-2 represent the peak is positive) is followed by a low negative amplitude peak (e.g. Fig. 9E: switching signals 4-5 represent the peak is negative) and/or where a low positive amplitude peak is followed by a high negative amplitude peak (the high and low are relative term and are not clearly define in the claim; thus, the high positive amplitude peak is broadly interpreted as positive amplitude peak, for example).
Regarding claim 13, Nagata discloses the second parking position is determined where a high positive amplitude peak (e.g. Fig. 9E: switching signals 1-2 represent the peak is positive) is followed by a high negative amplitude peak (e.g. Fig. 9E: switching signals 4-5 represent the peak is negative) and/or where a low negative amplitude peak is followed by a low negative amplitude peak (the high and low are relative term and are not clearly define in the claim; thus, the high positive amplitude peak is broadly interpreted as positive amplitude peak, for example).
Regarding claim 14, Nagata discloses identifying a pattern in amplitude peaks of the value indicative of back EMF over at least four amplitude peaks (e.g. Figs. 10-11: determine clockwise direction starting point requires the excitation switchover signal is rising and polarity of bemf is negative; it would require more than 4 amplitude peaks to determine a suitable starting point when the determination starts after time b1).
Regarding claim 15, Nagata discloses monitoring a value indicative of back EMF prior to oscillation of the rotor about the parking position, and identifying a polarity of the value indicative of back EMF prior to oscillation to determine whether the parking position of the rotor is the first parking position or the second parking position (e.g. Figs. 9-11: parking position, i.e. zero crossing represent forward/backward rotation resting position, is determined by identifying polarity of a plurality of bemf and excitation signals) .
Regarding claim 16, Nagata discloses the first parking position is determined where a positive polarity of the value indicative of back EMF is identified prior to entry of the rotor into oscillation, and the second parking position is determined where a negative polarity of the value indicative of back EMF is identified prior to entry of the rotor into oscillation (e.g. Figs. 9-11).
Regarding claim 18, Nagata discloses a brushless permanent-magnet motor comprising a stator, a phase winding wound about the stator, a rotor rotatable relative to the stator (e.g. Fig. 18: stator 14, rotor 13), and a control system (e.g. Fig. 18: 25, 26, 31-33, 35-36, 40) to perform the method as claimed in Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, Nagata discloses the control system comprises an inverter (e.g. Fig, 18: 20), a gate driver module (e.g. Fig. 18: 36), a controller (e.g. Fig. 18: 25, 26, 31-33, 35-36, 40) , the inverter coupled to the phase winding, the gate driver module to drive opening and closing of switches of the inverter in response to control signals output by the controller (e.g. Fig. 18).
Nagata and Lee in combination fails to disclose a current sensor to output a signal that provides a measure of the current in the phase winding. However, the examiner is taking Official notice that current sensor in a motor control system is well-known in the art since it would provide feedback parameter for the motor control system to control the motor. Adding a current sensor to a motor control system as disclosed by Nagata and Lee would have been obvious to one skilled in the art since it is merely providing a well-known parameter sensor to the motor control system to improve control accuracy and efficiency. The modification would have yielded only predictable to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claims 20-21, Nagata and Lee in combination fails to disclose a floorcare device comprising the brushless permanent-magnet motor as claimed in Claim 18. However, the examiner is taking Official notice that utilize a motor control system in any motor related application (including a floorcare device and/or haircare) would have been obvious to one skilled in the art since it is merely utilizing a well-known motor control system for controlling motor in a floorcare device and/or haircare appliance so as to effect smooth and quick control of the starting operation of the motor (e.g. Nagata: Abstract) and/or optimize power efficiency (e.g. Lee: [0003]). The modification would have yielded only predictable to one skilled in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 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 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.
/KAWING CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846