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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment to the claims received 7/3/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “the first switch to the sixth switch of the operation lever have two switching bosses”. This should read “the first switch through the sixth switch.”
Claim 6 recites “a fixed slow speed in a rated frequency below 5 HZ”. This should be “5 Hz”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites “frequencies of the pulse signals of the pulse signal generator are configured to adjust a filter circuit so that signals acquired from the filter circuits are identical to the pulse signals and to generate a positive-feedback amplification thus obtaining sine wave which has the same frequency as the pulse signals”. The specification as originally filed, including the drawings, does not provide adequate description regarding what is being done and how it is being accomplished. For example “pulse signals of the signal generator are configured to adjust a filter circuit”, while it’s possible to adjust a filter circuit, such would require a much more complex circuit than support has been provided for, however running a signal through a circuit is well known. Further, there is no disclosure of where the filter circuit is provided in the electrical circuit which would impact how the filter is configured, especially as the claim recites the pulse signals “adjust a filter circuit” and “so that signal acquired from the filter circuit are identical to the pulse signals”, which it is inferred that this might be intended to receive the signal from the pulse signals, the disclosure and claims are written such that the input to the filter circuit does not necessarily have to be the pulse signal, therefore to make the output “identical to the pulse signal” is unclear what processing is required to achieve the disclosed and claimed result. Further, recitation of a “positive-feedback amplification” appears to indicate some sort of feedback loop, but the description and circuit diagram do not provide any discussion of a circuit feedback loop that would achieve this (note: there is a feedback loop between the control unit and the encoder for control of the servo motor but that does not appear to relate here). Lastly, in part related to the above, it is unclear how the end result of “obtaining sine wave which has the same frequency as the pulse signals” is being achieved as it is unclear what processing to the pulse width signal is being done.
Claim 7 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
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 6-7 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.
Claim 6 recites “the drive device is a permanent magnet servo motor, and… has an encoder.. on an end thereof opposite to the permanent magnet servo motor.” This is indefinite as the drive device is the permanent magnet servo motor, so how can the encoder be provided on an end opposite of itself? It appears that applicant my be intending to recite “the drive device includes a permanent magnet servo motor…” or perhaps applicant intends to recite the encoder being located on an opposite end of the drive shaft (as seen in Fig. 2).
Claim 6 recites “the control unit… operated in a frequency conversion manner.” This is indefinite as “frequency conversion” is known but the usage of “manner” makes it unclear what is required to be performed or what functions must it be capable of. Does this include only frequency conversion or does this include similar processes? This also makes it unclear if the control unit is a frequency converter or if the control unit is an electronic control unit such as a ECU that performs a variety of functions which includes frequency conversion.
Claim 6 recites “the frequencies of the pulse signals of the pulse signal generator are configured to adjust a filter circuit so that signals acquired from the filter circuits are identical to the pulse signals and to generate a positive-feedback amplification, thus obtaining sine wave which has a same frequency as the pulse signals” Then recites “the pulse signal generator is electrically connected with the electrical box to input transformed pulse signals”. It appears the “transformed pulse signals” is intended to reference the output from the filter/amplification process recited above but it’s unclear if a different signal is being recited. If they are the same, the earlier recitation should clearly define and link the result as a transformed pulse signal to clarify that that is what is being input to the control unit.
Claim 6 recites “frequencies of the pulse signals of the pulse signal generator are configured to adjust a filter circuit so that signals acquired from the filter circuits are identical to the pulse signals and to generate a positive-feedback amplification thus obtaining sine wave which has the same frequency as the pulse signals”. It’s unclear what is actually being done here, if the pulse signals are being sent through a filter circuit to acquire a signal identical to the pulse signal, what is actually being done with the filter circuit? Filter circuits are typically utilized to alter the signal in some way, not output a signal identical to an input. Is it actually a filter circuit if it’s not adjusting or altering the signal in some way? The recitation of a “positive-feedback amplification” is also unclear what’s being recited, “amplification” is known but there’s no feedback circuit shown in the circuit diagram so it’s unclear what “positive-feedback amplification” is reciting. Further, it’s unclear how the recited limitations result in a sine wave. It’s generally unclear how the signal is being processed. The circuit diagram provided only shows the output from the pulse width generator as being input into the control unit without any detail of further processing to provide clarity.
Claim 6 recites “a rotating speed of the rotary hand wheel is proportional to a baud rate of the encoder”. It is unclear what is being claimed here, “baud rate” is the speed of data transfer. Is applicant claiming that the hand wheel is adjusting the speed that the encoder (a sensor) is sending data to the control unit, it is unclear how this is being performed. Additionally, the claim construction reciting “the control unit generates the speed instructions to the permanent magnet servo motor, wherein a rotating speed of the rotary hand wheel is proportional to a baude rate of the encoder”, the use of the wherein clause implies a connection between the two phrases but there is nothing to link the two phrases. If applicant is intending to recite the control unit is generating the speed instructions based on the rotating speed of the rotary hand wheel, this has not been linked. See claim interpretation section below.
Claim 6 recites “the faster the rotary hand wheel … rotates, the faster the control unit generates the speed instruction to the permanent magnet servo motor of the drive device.” It is unclear how the speed of the rotary wheel moving is altering the speed at which the control unit generates instructions to the servo motor. It appears applicant may be intending to recite that the speed of the rotary hand wheel is read in, via pulse signals, by the control unit and a speed instruction is generated in response, meaning that the instruction is generated based on the speed of the rotary handwheel rather than the generation speed being dependent on the rotary hand wheel. See claim interpretation section below.
Claim 6 recites “the first switch to the sixth switch of the operation lever have two switching bosses”. The way the claim is constructed, it is unclear if there are only two bosses provided total or if there are two bosses for each of the switches. It appears applicant may intend to recite “each have two switching bosses”. If so, the following limitation of “the two switching bosses are electrically connected…” should read “each switching boss is electrically connected…”
Claim 6 recites “after setting the fixed quick speed and the fixed slow speed using the control unit”, however “after” renders this claim unclear as no “setting” of the fixed quick or slow speeds is discussed in the claim. It appears applicant is attempting to recite that the switches send a signal to the control unit which send a signal to operate the servo motor based on the received signal, however the connection between the limitations is not clearly or positively recited. See claim interpretation section below.
Claim 6 recites “so that the permanent magnet servo motor is controlled to operate between a fixed quick speed and a fixed slow speed in a rated frequency below 5HZ” and “wherein the permanent magnet servo motor operates within 0.1 Hz to 5Hz”. These limitations are not consistent with each other. The second limitation defines an operational range of the servo motor as between 0.1Hz to 5Hz however the first limitation recites “a quick speed” and a “fixed slow speed” which is below 5Hz. If the slow speed is below 5Hz and the total operational range is 0.1 Hz to 5Hz, what is left of the operational range for the “fixed quick speed”?
The term “very slow speed” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “very slow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6: “the first switch configured to control the hanging assembly to move upward”. The language “configured to control the hanging assembly to move upward” is a functional limitation, the scope of this limitation is a switch that generates a signal which can be interpreted to control a movement. The exact motions associated with each switch are not positively required, therefore the scope requires the prior art only be functionally capable of being used in such a manner. The same is true for the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth switches. It is noted that the structure recited in the remainder of claim 1 only includes assembly capable to raise or lower (upward/downward) through the lift assembly and roller, there is no recited structure that would be capable of providing the right/left/forward/backward movement of the third through sixth switches.
Claim 6: “the control unit is electrically connected with the encoder…. and to compare whether an operating instruction of the permanent magnet servo motor matches with a rotating speed of the permanent magnet servo motor”. As presented the comparison recited is only recited functionally, that the control unit be capable of performing such, thereby only requiring the encoder transmit data regarding the detected position of the rotator and the control unit having information based on the operating instruction of the permanent magnet. If applicant wishes the limitation to be positively recited, they should recite “the control unit is configured to compare whether….” It is also noted that the operating instruction of the permanent magnet servo motor does not have any limitations reciting the origin of those operating instructions, merely that they exist, therefore it’s not required by the current claim limitations that the control unit produce a signal to control the servo motor.
Claim 6: “the control unit generates the speed instructions to the permanent magnet servo motor, wherein a rotating speed of the rotary hand wheel is proportional to a baude rate of the encoder”. While it appears applicant may be intending to link the rotating speed of the handwheel to the permanent magnet servo motor through the use of the wherein clause, no link between the two phrases is present in the claim language. Therefore, the claim interpretation has been made as two distinct phrases: 1) “the control unit generates the speed instructions to the permanent magnet servo motor” and “a rotating speed of the rotary hand wheel is proportional to a baud rate of the encoder”.
Claim 6 recites “the faster the rotary hand wheel … rotates, the faster the control unit generates the speed instruction to the permanent magnet servo motor of the drive device.” This is being interpreted as the rotation of the hand wheel generates a pulse signal which is read in by the control unit which in turn generates an instruction of speed (which can be a set speed, such as a velocity, or a change in speed, such as an acceleration), to the servo motor where that instruction is based on the pulse signal received.
Claim 6 recites “the two switching bosses are electrically connected with the control unit of the electrical box so that the permanent magnet servo motor is controlled to operate between a fixed quick speed and a fixed slow speed…” The way this claim is constructed does not positively recite the control unit is controlling the servo motor in such a way but merely that it is capable of controlling it. Further the claim language doesn’t not positively tie the switches to the control, merely functionally reciting that control is being done and the switching bosses are electrically connected to the control unit, which requires the ability for signals to be received by the control unit from the switches.
Claim 6 recites “the permanent magnet servo motor adjustably drives the lift assembly at a very slow speed within a vertical moving distance of 1mm to 2mm after rotating the rotary hand wheel at a rotating speed”. This is recited as a functional limitation which only requires the servo motor being able to be driven at a variety of adjustable speeds. In this instance “after rotating the rotary hand wheel at a rotating speed” isn’t actually positively tied to any particular control, so if the device is capable of performing the described functions in a circumstance after a rotary hand wheel is rotated, the prior art would meet the limitation.
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veheyen et al. (US 11233476) in view of Schqaiger (WO 2015/051004 A1) and Sunwoo et al. (US 10850955 B2).
Re claim 6, Verheyen et al. discloses an electric crane (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a body (20) configured to be movably fixed at a desired position in a height, and including
a drive device (60) configured to supply a power, and
a roller (40) driven by the drive device to rotate,
a lift assembly (45, 50, 52) actuated by the roller to roll, and
a hanging assembly (55) actuated by the lift assembly to hang an object;
an electrical box (70A/B; Fig. 2-3) configured to accommodate an electrical wiring system (Fig. 2-3);
the electrical box being electrically connected with an operation lever (Col. 10, Ln. 46-48 describes a push-button pendant) configured to be manually controlled by a user, and
the operation lever having switches (push button pendant)
wherein the drive device is a motor (60), and the drive device has an encoder (74) electrically connected on an end thereof opposite to the permanent magnet servo motor (Col. 6, Ln. 57-62; the encoder 74 is mounted to the output shaft at an end of the motor 60);
wherein the electrical box includes a control unit (70A) accommodated therein and operated in a frequency conversion manner (Col. 6, Ln. 49-56; “magnitude and frequency of the voltage or current may be varied”),
the control unit is electrically connected with the encoder to feedback a detected position of a rotator of the permanent magnet servo motor and to compare whether an operating instruction of the permanent magnet servo motor matches with a rotating speed of the permanent magnet servo motor, wherein the operating instruction of the permanent magnet servo motor is a rotating speed (Col. 6, Ln. 49-62; control unit 70A controls the speed at which the motor 60 rotates; the encode 74 is mounted to the output shaft and provides a feedback signal; Col. 8, Ln. 42-Col. 9, Ln. 17; encoder 74 provides a position feedback signal 76 to the controller comparing a speed reference (desired speed) 202 and a speed feedback signal 204 from the encoder 74 to generate an error signal 207 which is used in a feedback loop to adjust the signal to the motor to achieve the desired speed);
wherein the operation lever is electrically connected with the electrical box to input control signals to the control unit, and the control unit generates the speed instruction to the motor (Col. 8, Ln. 42-51; command signal 78 is received from the operational lever and is used by the control unit 70A to generate a control signal to the motor 60),
wherein the switches of the operation lever each have two switching bosses (Col. 10, Ln. 51-57; the push buttons have multiple detent positions for different speeds corresponds to switching bosses),
wherein the operation lever is electrically connected with the control unit of the electrical box so that the motor is controlled to overate at a variety of frequencies (Col. 6, Ln. 49-56; Col. 8, Ln. 42-51);
Verheyen et al. does not explicitly state that the motor (60) is a permanent magnet servo motor, however based on the control performed (see Fig. 4), it appears a servo motor is being utilized. Further, permanent magnet servo motors are well known and selection of a type of motor to achieve the desired results is well known and within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, the selection of the motor as a permanent magnet servo motor would have been obvious in order to provide precise control while allowing for a compact design with performance at high toque.
Verheyen et al. discloses the operation lever (pendant) may include a plurality of buttons, such as a first that corresponds to a run command with one or more corresponding to desired speed of operation or a first push button for a raise command, with a second for a lower with multiple pushbutton detent position corresponding to different speeds (Col. 10, Ln. 46-59). Verheyen et al. discloses that “the user interface may take any suitable configuration according to application requirements” (Col. 10, Ln. 57-59) and while does not explicitly disclose six switches, acknowledges that it’s known to provide any number based on the operational requirements. Further, providing additional buttons with associated switches would have been obvious since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Note claim interpretation section above noting claim language does not positively require the specific control associated with each switch.
Verheyen et al. does not explicitly state the operating frequency of the motor being within 0.1 Hz to 5 Hz, however Verheyen et al. does state with regards to the state of the art that “the motor drive generates an alternating current (AC) output voltage having a variable amplitude and variable frequency, where the amplitude and frequency are selected to achieve desired operation of the motor”. Verheyen et al. acknowledges that it is well known to select a motor to optimize the operational parameters based on the intended use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select a motor with the appropriate operation parameters for the given application, including the operating frequency being between 0.1Hz to 5 Hz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further it would have been obvious to modify the operational frequency in order to improve efficiency and ensure the motor is capable of performing for the intended function, such a being capable of providing the required torques.
Verheyen et al. does not disclose the body and the electric box being separate housings, the operation lever including a rotary hand wheel and a pulse signal generator to generate signals from the rotary hand wheel, and the rotation of the rotary hand wheel being used to set a control signal from the control unit to the motor to adjust the rotational speed of the motor.
Schwaiger discloses an electronic hoist system (30) having:
a body (36) including a drive device in the form of a motor (72), a roller (76), a lift assembly (38) and a hanging assembly (36)
an electric box (46; Fig. 3) electrically connected to an operation lever (52; Fig. 5, connected via cable 56 to connector 42), the operational lever having buttons (60, 62, 64) for controlling operation as well as a rotary hand wheel (66, 68) rotatably disposed on the operation lever and spaced from the buttons, rotation of the rotary hand wheel generates a signal for providing variable speed control of the hoist over a continuous or near continuous range of operating speeds and generates a command voltage signal (page 4, Ln. 17-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a separate electrical box from the body, as taught by Schwaiger in order to isolate and protect the electrical components. Further, it has been held that constructing an integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a rotary hand wheel on the operational lever to generate a signal indicative of a control related to the desired speed of the motor, as taught by Schwaiger in order to provide increased control by allowing for speed to be controlled in a continuous or near continuous manner rather than predefined levels of a button/switch.
Schwaiger discloses the use of a potentiometer with the rotary hand wheel rather than a pulse signal generator. However, Sunwoo et al. discloses an electric hoist control system having an operational lever (10, Fig. 3, Fig. 7) for providing user control input and discloses user buttons (10, 11) creating variable resistance through a digital potentiometer, and in place of using a digital potentiometer, using a pulse with modulator (Col. 13, Ln. 31-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the operation lever of Modified Verheyen et al. to utilize a pulse width generator for generating the output signal from the rotary handwheel, in view of the teachings of Sunwoo et al., in order to provide a greater range and more precise signal generation for the command signal from the user input and motor speed control.
Verheyen et al. does not explicitly disclose the use of filtering of the user input signals, however the examiner takes official notice that the usage of filtering for signal processing is a well-established technique in the art and utilized to remove unwanted components of the signal or to translate the signal in a variety of ways based on the form of the generated signal and the requirements for the system to which the signal will be received. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include filtering of the inputs from the user command signals, including those from the rotary hand wheel, in order to process the signal to be suitable for the controller input and reduce noise or other unwanted components of the signal prior to controller processing. Note: see 112(b) rejection above, it is unclear what filtering/processing is actually being claimed.
Re claim 7, Verheyen et al. discloses the roller includes a rolling cylinder (40) axially connected with the drive device, and the lift assembly includes a cable (45, Fig. 1) rolled on an outer wall of the rolling cylinder (40; Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
While rejections under 112(a) have been reworked by the current examiner, applicant is reminded that they should respond to each rejection presented and it does not appear that the amendments nor the remarks by applicant addressed the issues raised under 112(a).
The prior art rejections have also been reworked by the current examiner and present a new combination of references which address the claims differently, however applicant is reminded that in responding to the prior art rejection, the prior art may teach the component individually or in a combination. A statement that the combination does not disclose features should be accompanied by arguments of how the combined teachings wouldn’t result in the claimed features or wouldn’t be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA M MOMPER whose telephone number is (571)270-5788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30 pm (EST).
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at (571)272-7124. 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.
ANNA M. MOMPER
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619