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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Below is the Final Action on the merits for claims 21, 23 – 31 and 33 – 40. Claims 1 – 20, 22 and 32 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21, 23, 27 – 30, 33, and 37 – 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2010/117133 A2) as cited by Applicant in view of Lee at al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0235422 A1) herein referred to as Lee 2 and Park et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0279847 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 21, Lee teaches a vacuum cleaner (vacuum cleaner, 1), comprising: a motor configured to generate a suction force (suction motor; Page 5, paragraph [34]); and a controller (controller, 15) configured to: apply a control signal to drive the motor, detect an event while the motor is driving, and generate the control signal to generate an operation noise of the motor corresponding to the detected event (via the sound generator, 50; paragraphs [7] – [10] and [31] – [34]).
Lee does not teach an inverter configured to convert a direct current (DC) power of a DC terminal capacitor into an alternating current (AC) power, and to output the AC power to the motor.
Lee 2, however, teaches an inverter (Paragraph [0039]) configured to convert a direct current (DC) power of a DC terminal capacitor into an alternating current (AC) power, and to output the AC power to the motor (by definition, an inverter convert a direct current (DC) power of a DC terminal capacitor into an alternating current (AC) power, and to output the AC power to the motor thus since the cleaner of Park teaches an inverter it is also configured to perform the limitation as claimed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Lee to further include an inverter configured to convert a direct current (DC) power of a DC terminal capacitor into an alternating current (AC) power, and to output the AC power to the motor, as taught by Lee 2, to allow for a single motor to be used, thus saving cost in manufacturing.
Lee further does not explicitly teach a battery, wherein the event includes a battery level corresponding to a first value or less, and wherein the controller is further configured to generate the control signal to generate a first pattern of operation noise when the battery level corresponds to the first value or less.
Park, however, teaches a battery (Paragraph [0029]), wherein the event includes a battery level corresponding to a first value or less (Paragraph [0029]), and wherein the controller (controller, 140 with sound output unit, 181; Paragraph [0116]) is further configured to generate the control signal to generate a first pattern of operation noise when the battery level corresponds to the first value or less (Paragraphs [0057] and [0131] – [0134]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Lee to further include a battery, wherein the event includes a battery level corresponding to a first value or less, and wherein the controller is further configured to generate the control signal to generate a first pattern of operation noise when the battery level corresponds to the first value or less, as taught by Park, to provide a user with an audible notice of the maximum time left for use, thus allowing a user to recharge if necessary.
Regarding Claim 23, Lee, as modified, teaches the vacuum cleaner of claim 22 as discussed above.
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the event further includes the battery level corresponding to a second value or less, the second value being smaller than the first value, wherein the controller is further configured to generate the control signal to generate a second pattern of operation noise when the battery level corresponds to the second value or less, and wherein the second pattern of operation noise has a longer duration than the first pattern of operation noise.
Park, however, teaches output levels and the state of the battery as disclosed in Paragraph [0069], therefore Lee 2 is configured to generate the control signal to generate a second pattern of operation noise when the battery level corresponds to the second value or less, and wherein the second pattern of operation noise has a longer duration than the first pattern of operation noise less (Paragraphs [0057] and [0131] – [0134]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Lee to further include the event further includes the battery level corresponding to a second value or less, the second value being smaller than the first value, wherein the controller is further configured to generate the control signal to generate a second pattern of operation noise when the battery level corresponds to the second value or less, and wherein the second pattern of operation noise has a longer duration than the first pattern of operation noise, as taught by Park, to provide a user with an audible notice of the maximum time left for use, thus allowing a user to recharge if necessary.
Regarding Claim 27, Lee, as modified, teaches the vacuum cleaner of claim 22 as discussed above.
Lee does not explicitly teach comprising a battery management system configured to manage the battery, wherein the controller is further configured to detect the event based on at least one of a first voltage obtained from the battery management system and a second voltage at the DC terminal capacitor.
Lee 2, however, teaches a battery management system (power supply unit, 130) configured to manage the battery (Paragraphs [0059] – [0060]), wherein the controller (controller, 180) is further configured to detect the event based on at least one of a first voltage obtained from the battery management system and a second voltage at the DC terminal capacitor (Paragraphs [0075] and [0093] – [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Lee to further include a battery management system configured to manage the battery, wherein the controller is further configured to detect the event based on at least one of a first voltage obtained from the battery management system and a second voltage at the DC terminal capacitor, as taught by Lee 2, to allow for a single motor to be used, thus saving cost in manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 28, Lee, as modified, teaches the vacuum cleaner of claim 22 as discussed above.
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to: generate the control signal to generate the first pattern of operation noise when the first voltage and the second voltage are within a specific voltage range, and output abnormal state information when at least one of the first voltage and the second voltage is not within the specific voltage range.
Park, however, teaches output levels and the state of the battery as disclosed in (Paragraphs [0057] and [0131] – [0134]) and further the controller (140) is further configured to: generate the control signal to generate the first pattern of operation noise (Paragraphs [0057] and [0131] – [0134]); therefore Park is configures to when the first voltage and the second voltage are within a specific voltage range, and output abnormal state information when at least one of the first voltage and the second voltage is not within the specific voltage range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Lee to further include the controller is further configured to: generate the control signal to generate the first pattern of operation noise when the first voltage and the second voltage are within a specific voltage range, and output abnormal state information when at least one of the first voltage and the second voltage is not within the specific voltage range, as taught by Park, to provide a user with an audible notice of a possible problem with the cleaner, thus preventing damage to the cleaner.
Regarding Claim 29, Lee, as modified, teaches the vacuum cleaner of claim 21 as discussed above.
Lee does not explicitly teach the event includes an inlet blockage event of the vacuum cleaner, and wherein the controller is further configured to detect the inlet blockage event based on a current value of the motor or a rotational speed of the motor.
Lee 2, however, teaches the event includes an inlet blockage event of the vacuum cleaner, and wherein the controller is further configured to detect the inlet blockage event based on a current value of the motor or a rotational speed of the motor (Paragraph [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Lee to further include the event includes an inlet blockage event of the vacuum cleaner, and wherein the controller is further configured to detect the inlet blockage event based on a current value of the motor or a rotational speed of the motor, as taught by Lee 2, to provide a user with an audible notice of a possible problem with the cleaner, thus preventing damage to the cleaner.
Regarding Claim 30, Lee, as modified, teaches the vacuum cleaner of claim 29 as discussed above.
Lee does not explicitly teach the controller is configured to detect the inlet blockage event when the current value of the motor is below a preset current value, or wherein the controller is configured to detect the inlet blockage event when the rotational speed of the motor is above a preset speed value.
Lee 2, however, teaches the controller is configured to detect the inlet blockage event when the current value of the motor is below a preset current value, or wherein the controller is configured to detect the inlet blockage event when the rotational speed of the motor is above a preset speed value (Paragraph [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Lee to further include the controller is configured to detect the inlet blockage event when the current value of the motor is below a preset current value, or wherein the controller is configured to detect the inlet blockage event when the rotational speed of the motor is above a preset speed value, as taught by Lee 2, to provide a user with an audible notice of a possible problem with the cleaner, thus preventing damage to the cleaner.
Regarding Claim 33, Lee, as modified, teaches the method of claim 32 as discussed above.
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the event further includes the battery level corresponding to a second value or less, the second value being smaller than the first value, wherein the controller is further configured to generate the control signal to generate a second pattern of operation noise when the battery level corresponds to the second value or less, and wherein the second pattern of operation noise has a longer duration than the first pattern of operation noise.
Park, however, teaches output levels and the state of the battery as disclosed in Paragraph [0069], therefore Lee 2 is configured to generate the control signal to generate a second pattern of operation noise when the battery level corresponds to the second value or less, and wherein the second pattern of operation noise has a longer duration than the first pattern of operation noise less (Paragraphs [0057] and [0131] – [0134]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Lee to further include the event further includes the battery level corresponding to a second value or less, the second value being smaller than the first value, wherein the controller is further configured to generate the control signal to generate a second pattern of operation noise when the battery level corresponds to the second value or less, and wherein the second pattern of operation noise has a longer duration than the first pattern of operation noise, as taught by Park, to provide a user with an audible notice of the maximum time left for use, thus allowing a user to recharge if necessary.
Regarding Claim 37, Lee, as modified, teaches the vacuum cleaner of claim 32 as discussed above.
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the event is detected based on at least one of a first voltage obtained from a battery management system of the vacuum cleaner and a second voltage at a direct current (DC) terminal capacitor of the vacuum cleaner.
Lee 2, however, teaches a battery management system (power supply unit, 130) configured to manage the battery (Paragraphs [0059] – [0060]) and a controller (controller, 180) wherein the event is detected based on at least one of a first voltage obtained from the battery management system and a second voltage at the DC terminal capacitor (Paragraphs [0075] and [0093] – [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Lee to further include a battery management system configured to manage the battery, wherein the controller is further configured to detect the event based on at least one of a first voltage obtained from the battery management system and a second voltage at the DC terminal capacitor, as taught by Lee 2, to allow for a single motor to be used, thus saving cost in manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 38, Lee, as modified, teaches the method of claim 32 as discussed above.
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to: generate the control signal to generate the first pattern of operation noise when the first voltage and the second voltage are within a specific voltage range, and output abnormal state information when at least one of the first voltage and the second voltage is not within the specific voltage range.
Park, however, teaches output levels and the state of the battery as disclosed in (Paragraphs [0057] and [0131] – [0134]) and further the controller (140) is further configured to: generate the control signal to generate the first pattern of operation noise (Paragraphs [0057] and [0131] – [0134]); therefore Park is configures to when the first voltage and the second voltage are within a specific voltage range, and output abnormal state information when at least one of the first voltage and the second voltage is not within the specific voltage range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Lee to further include the controller is further configured to: generate the control signal to generate the first pattern of operation noise when the first voltage and the second voltage are within a specific voltage range, and output abnormal state information when at least one of the first voltage and the second voltage is not within the specific voltage range, as taught by Park, to provide a user with an audible notice of a possible problem with the cleaner, thus preventing damage to the cleaner.
Regarding Claim 39, Lee, as modified, teaches the method of claim 31 as discussed above.
Lee does not explicitly teach the event includes an inlet blockage event of the vacuum cleaner, and wherein the controlling the motor includes detecting the inlet blockage event based on a current value of the motor or a rotational speed of the motor.
Lee 2, however, teaches the event includes an inlet blockage event of the vacuum cleaner, and wherein the controller is further configured to detect the inlet blockage event based on a current value of the motor or a rotational speed of the motor (Paragraph [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Lee to further include the event includes an inlet blockage event of the vacuum cleaner, and wherein the controller is further configured to detect the inlet blockage event based on a current value of the motor or a rotational speed of the motor, as taught by Lee 2, to provide a user with an audible notice of a possible problem with the cleaner, thus preventing damage to the cleaner.
Regarding Claim 40, Lee, as modified, teaches the method claim 39 as discussed above.
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the inlet blockage event is detected when the current value of the motor is below a preset current value, or wherein the inlet blockage event is detected when the rotational speed of the motor is above a preset speed value.
Lee 2, however, teaches wherein the inlet blockage event is detected when the current value of the motor is below a preset current value, or wherein the inlet blockage event is detected when the rotational speed of the motor is above a preset speed value (Paragraph [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Lee to further include the controller is configured to detect the inlet blockage event when the current value of the motor is below a preset current value, or wherein the controller is configured to detect the inlet blockage event when the rotational speed of the motor is above a preset speed value, as taught by Lee 2, to provide a user with an audible notice of a possible problem with the cleaner, thus preventing damage to the cleaner.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being 103 as being unpatentable over (WO 2010/117133 A2) as cited by Applicant in view of Park et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0279847 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 31, Lee teaches a control method of a vacuum cleaner (Paragraph [0007]), comprising: driving a motor to generate a suction force (Paragraph [10]); determining whether an event is detected (Paragraphs [13] – [15]); and controlling the motor to generate an operation noise of the motor corresponding to the detected event (Paragraphs [13] – [15]).
Lee does not explicitly teach a battery, wherein the event includes a battery level corresponding to a first value or less, and wherein the controller is further configured to generate the control signal to generate a first pattern of operation noise when the battery level corresponds to the first value or less.
Park, however, teaches a battery (Paragraph [0029]), wherein the event includes a battery level corresponding to a first value or less (Paragraph [0029]), and wherein the controller (controller, 140 with sound output unit, 181; Paragraph [0116]) is further configured to generate the control signal to generate a first pattern of operation noise when the battery level corresponds to the first value or less (Paragraphs [0057] and [0131] – [0134]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cleaner of Lee to further include a battery, wherein the event includes a battery level corresponding to a first value or less, and wherein the controller is further configured to generate the control signal to generate a first pattern of operation noise when the battery level corresponds to the first value or less, as taught by Park, to provide a user with an audible notice of the maximum time left for use, thus allowing a user to recharge if necessary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 – 26 and 34 – 36 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although Lee (WO 2010/117133 A2) in view of Lee at al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0235422 A1) teach a vacuum cleaner and a method for controlling the vacuum cleaner, the references fail to teach, suggest or make obvious an average rotational speed of the motor, in an interval where the first pattern of operation noise is generated, is at least 90% of an average rotational speed of the motor in a specific interval before the event is detected; as required by claims 24 and 34; an average rotational torque of the motor, in an interval where the first pattern of operation noise is generated, is at least 90% of an average rotational torque of the motor in a specific interval before the event is detected; as required by claims 25 and 35; and a time interval where the first pattern of operation noise is generated, the control signal has an interval where a low value is output between intervals where a high value is repeatedly output, and wherein two or more of the intervals where the low value is output are included in the time interval; as required by claims 26 and 36.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments/Remarks dated October 29, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 21 – 40 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Park et al.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723