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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (U.S. Patent No. 9,143,066) in view of Son et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,106,177).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a motor assembly (title; abstract) comprising:
a motor comprising a rotor (figure 1, reference #106; figures 2 and 4, reference #202);
a motor drive (figure 1, reference #102 and 104);
a sensorless feedback system configured to obtain feedback measurements of one or more electrical characteristics from the motor drive (column 3, lines 7-19; column 7, lines 15-30), the sensorless feedback system comprising an observer configured to process the one or more electrical characteristics and provide data indicative of an angle or a speed of the motor (figure 8, reference #820; column 1, lines 43-47; column 7, lines 15-30); and
a controller operably coupled to the motor drive, the controller configured to operate the motor drive based at least in part on the data indicative of the angle or the speed of the motor from the observer (figure 1, reference #108; columns 2-3, lines 65-6).
Regarding the limitation in the preamble “for a stand mixer”, the limitation is directed to an intended use of the motor assembly, and is not accorded patentable weight. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
While the observer of Yang is configured to estimate other characteristics, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the observer is configured to determine one or more rotor flux estimates based at least in part on the feedback measurement and provide data indicative of an angle or a speed of the motor based at least in part on the one or more rotor flux estimates.
Son et al. teaches another motor with sensorless control (title). The reference teaches that many types of observers are known to estimate many types of known motor characteristics (figure 4), including wherein the observer is configured to determine one or more rotor flux estimates based at least in part on the feedback measurement and provide data indicative of an angle or a speed of the motor based at least in part on the one or more rotor flux estimates (abstract; figures 4 and 7; column 7, lines 21-37; columns 16-17, lines 36-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the observer of Yang to include the flux estimated observer of Son et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach motors with sensorless control. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because selecting one of known designs for an observer would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art before the time of filing and because said observer to determine rotor flux estimates and provide data indicative of an angle or speed of the motor based on that rotor flux estimate would work equally well as the observer of Yang that uses estimates of other motor characteristics to provide data indicative of an angle or speed of the motor.
Regarding claim 2, Yang in view of Son et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the observer is a back-EMF observer (figure 8, reference #820; column 1, lines 43-47; column 7, lines 15-30).
Regarding claim 3, Yang in view of Son et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the motor drive is a reversible three-phase motor drive comprising a three-phase inverter electrically coupled to an alternating current (AC) power supply (column 2, lines 37-45).
Regarding claim 5, Yang in view of Son et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the motor is a permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM) (column 1, lines 36-64).
Regarding claim 6, Yang in view of Son et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the data indicative of the angle of the motor comprises data indicative of an electrical angle of the motor (figures 8-11; column 7, lines 15-30; column 9, lines 37-67). It is noted that “data” is not a positive structural limitation that can be further limited for an apparatus claim, but is rather an intended use of the observer. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 7, Yang in view of Son et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the controller is configured to implement a field-oriented control (FOC) control scheme (figure 1, reference #108; figures 8-10; column 6, lines 4-19). Regarding the performance steps within the controller, these are method of operation and functional internal use which are directed to the function of the controller, and the controller is fully capable in its structure to implement a FOC control scheme. It is noted that the controller configured to is read as requiring only the structural configured ability to initiate operations in response to an input. No positive requirement of a FOC control scheme have been claimed to interface with the controller.
Regarding claim 8, the FOC control scheme is not a positively recited structure of the claims, but rather a function of the controller, and therefore the limitations in claim 8 which attempt to further limit the FOC scheme are not positive structural limitations of the claim. However, in order to further compact prosecution, Yang discloses wherein the FOC control scheme is configured to convert a three-phase signal associated with the motor drive to a two-phase signal (figure 1, reference #108; figures 8-10; column 6, lines 4-19; column 7, lines 6-14).
Regarding claim 9, the FOC control scheme is not a positively recited structure of the claims, but rather a function of the controller, and therefore the limitations in claim 9 which attempt to further limit the FOC scheme are not positive structural limitations of the claim. However, in order to further compact prosecution, Yang discloses wherein the FOC control scheme is a dual-loop FOC scheme comprising a speed control loop and a current control loop (figure 1, reference #108; figure 8; columns 6-7, lines 4-14).
Regarding claim 10, Yang in view of Son et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to control the motor drive to provide a current to one or more stators of the motor to induce a stator magnetic field; and control an orientation of the stator magnetic field (figures 2-4, reference #204; columns 4-5, lines 65-18). Regarding the performance steps within the controller, these are method of operation and functional internal use which are directed to the function of the controller, and the controller is fully capable in its structure to control and provide current to the stator. It is noted that the controller configured to is read as requiring only the structural configured ability to initiate operations in response to an input. No positive requirement of a current, stator, orientation and stator magnetic field have been claimed to interface with the controller.
Regarding claim 11, Yang in view of Son et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a difference between a target speed of the motor and the data indicative of speed of the motor provided by the observer; adjust a target current signal based at least in part on the difference between the target speed of the motor and the data indicative of speed of the motor provided by the observer; determine a difference between the target current signal and one or more current feedback measurements; and adjust one or more voltage signals based at least in part on the difference between the target current signal and the one or more current feedback measurements (figure 8; figure 11; columns 9-10, lines 52-5). Regarding the performance steps within the controller, these are method of operation and functional internal use which are directed to the function of the controller, and the controller is fully capable in its structure to determine and adjust inputs and outputs of the data, signals, measurements and motor. It is noted that the controller configured to is read as requiring only the structural configured ability to initiate operations in response to an input. No positive requirement of a motor speed, current signal and voltage signal and feedback measurements have been claimed to interface with the controller. The controller is structurally capable to determine speeds and current signals and adjust current signals and voltage signals in response to inputs from the observer and feedback measurements (figure 8; figure 11; columns 9-10, lines 52-5).
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,276,877) in view of Son et al.
Regarding claim 1, Qiu et al. discloses a motor assembly (title; abstract) comprising:
a motor comprising a rotor (figures 2 and 6, reference #106; column 1, lines 31-50);
a motor drive (figures 2 and 6, reference #102 and 104);
a sensorless feedback system configured to obtain feedback measurements of one or more electrical characteristics from the motor drive (figure 2, reference #109; figure 3A, reference #300; column 3, lines 21-50; column 7, lines 15-30), the sensorless feedback system comprising an observer configured to process the one or more electrical characteristics and provide data indicative of an angle or a speed of the motor (figure 3, reference #330;column 5, lines 41-55; column 7, lines 21-48); and
a controller operably coupled to the motor drive, the controller configured to operate the motor drive based at least in part on the data indicative of the angle or the speed of the motor from the observer (figure 2, reference #116; figure 3, reference #302).
Regarding the limitation in the preamble “for a stand mixer”, the limitation is directed to an intended use of the motor assembly, and is not accorded patentable weight. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
While the observer of Qiu et al. is configured to estimate other characteristics, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the observer is configured to determine one or more rotor flux estimates based at least in part on the feedback measurement and provide data indicative of an angle or a speed of the motor based at least in part on the one or more rotor flux estimates.
Son et al. teaches another motor with sensorless control (title). The reference teaches that many types of observers are known to estimate many types of known motor characteristics (figure 4), including wherein the observer is configured to determine one or more rotor flux estimates based at least in part on the feedback measurement and provide data indicative of an angle or a speed of the motor based at least in part on the one or more rotor flux estimates (abstract; figures 4 and 7; column 7, lines 21-37; columns 16-17, lines 36-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the observer of Qiu et al. to include the flux estimated observer of Son et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach motors with sensorless control. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because selecting one of known designs for an observer would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art before the time of filing and because said observer to determine rotor flux estimates and provide data indicative of an angle or speed of the motor based on that rotor flux estimate would work equally well as the observer of Qiu et al. that uses estimates of other motor characteristics to provide data indicative of an angle or speed of the motor.
Regarding claim 2, Qiu et al. in view of Son et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the observer is a back-EMF observer (figure 3, reference #330; figure 18; columns 7-8, lines 1-54; column 11, lines 45-56)
Regarding claim 3, Qiu et al. in view of Son et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the motor drive is a reversible three-phase motor drive comprising a three-phase inverter electrically coupled to an alternating current (AC) power supply (column 1, lines 35-38; column 6, lines 1-22).
Regarding claim 4, Qiu et al. in view of Son et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the motor is a brushless direct current (BLDC) motor (column 1, lines 39-40; column 11, lines 57-67).
Regarding claim 5, Qiu et al. in view of Son et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the motor is a permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM) (figure 2, reference #106; column 1, lines 34-36; column 11, line 57).
Regarding claim 6, Qiu et al. in view of Son et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the data indicative of the angle of the motor comprises data indicative of an electrical angle of the motor (figure 3; columns 6-7, lines 57-65). It is noted that “data” is not a positive structural limitation that can be further limited for an apparatus claim, but is rather an intended use of the observer. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 7, Qiu et al. in view of Son et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the controller is configured to implement a field-oriented control (FOC) control scheme (figures 3, 13-15 and 17-19; columns 6-8, lines 57-55). Regarding the performance steps within the controller, these are method of operation and functional internal use which are directed to the function of the controller, and the controller is fully capable in its structure to implement a FOC control scheme. It is noted that the controller configured to is read as requiring only the structural configured ability to initiate operations in response to an input. No positive requirement of a FOC control scheme have been claimed to interface with the controller.
Regarding claim 8, the FOC control scheme is not a positively recited structure of the claims, but rather a function of the controller, and therefore the limitations in claim 8 which attempt to further limit the FOC scheme are not positive structural limitations of the claim. However, in order to further compact prosecution, Qiu et al. discloses wherein the FOC control scheme is configured to convert a three-phase signal associated with the motor drive to a two-phase signal (figures 3, 13-15 and 17-19; columns 6-8, lines 57-55).
Regarding claim 9, the FOC control scheme is not a positively recited structure of the claims, but rather a function of the controller, and therefore the limitations in claim 9 which attempt to further limit the FOC scheme are not positive structural limitations of the claim. However, in order to further compact prosecution, Qiu et al. discloses wherein the FOC control scheme is a dual-loop FOC scheme comprising a speed control loop and a current control loop (figures 1, 3, 13-15 and 17-19; columns 6-8, lines 57-55).
Regarding claim 10, Qiu et al. in view of Son et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to control the motor drive to provide a current to one or more stators of the motor to induce a stator magnetic field; and control an orientation of the stator magnetic field (figure 15; column 7, lines 22-65). Regarding the performance steps within the controller, these are method of operation and functional internal use which are directed to the function of the controller, and the controller is fully capable in its structure to control and provide current to the stator. It is noted that the controller configured to is read as requiring only the structural configured ability to initiate operations in response to an input. No positive requirement of a current, stator, orientation and stator magnetic field have been claimed to interface with the controller.
Regarding claim 11, Qiu et al. in view of Son et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a difference between a target speed of the motor and the data indicative of speed of the motor provided by the observer; adjust a target current signal based at least in part on the difference between the target speed of the motor and the data indicative of speed of the motor provided by the observer; determine a difference between the target current signal and one or more current feedback measurements; and adjust one or more voltage signals based at least in part on the difference between the target current signal and the one or more current feedback measurements (figure 15; figures 17-18; columns 6-11, lines 47-56; columns 12-13, lines 40-6). Regarding the performance steps within the controller, these are method of operation and functional internal use which are directed to the function of the controller, and the controller is fully capable in its structure to determine and adjust inputs and outputs of the data, signals, measurements and motor. It is noted that the controller configured to is read as requiring only the structural configured ability to initiate operations in response to an input. No positive requirement of a motor speed, current signal and voltage signal and feedback measurements have been claimed to interface with the controller. The controller is structurally capable to determine speeds and current signals and adjust current signals and voltage signals in response to inputs from the observer and feedback measurements (figure 15; figures 17-18; columns 6-11, lines 47-56; columns 12-13, lines 40-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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 ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774