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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/01/2023 and 04/28/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: receiving unit, evaluation unit in claim 1-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Although, the specification may not clearly recite the structure of the units mentioned above, a person skilled in the art would interpret those units as processor or equivalent.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 11 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 11 recites the method is at least partially computer-implemented. It is unclear as what condition to be considered as partially computer implemented. For the purpose of clarity, applicant is suggested to remove the word partially.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, claim 1 recites:
A monitoring device for monitoring an electric motor, comprising:
at least one receiving unit configured for receiving information on at least one amount of acceleration energy required for accelerating the electric motor from at least one first motion state to at least one second motion state, wherein the amount of acceleration energy comprises an acceleration energy required for decelerating the electric motor, wherein the acceleration energy comprises an acceleration energy which is at least one of dissipated, recuperated or released when decelerating the electric motor from a rotating motion state to a stationary state; and
at least one evaluation unit configured for evaluating the information on the amount of acceleration energy and for determining at least one item of information on a wearing status of the electric motor.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above.
Under the step 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is determined whether the claims are drawn to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter fall within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in the statutory category of (machine).
Under the step 2A, prong one, it is considered whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that cover mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental process – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, evaluating the information on the amount of acceleration energy and for determining at least one item of information on a wearing status of the electric motor. (is considered to be a mental step)
These mental and mathematical steps represent that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of the independent claims 10.
Next, under the step 2A, prong two, it is considered whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, it is evaluated whether the claim recites meaningful additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
In claim 1, the additional elements/steps are: receiving unit for receiving information and an evaluation unit. The above additional elements/steps (hardware or software – units) are generic computer elements. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94. The additional element in the preamble of “A monitoring device for monitoring…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In claim 10, the additional elements/steps recite the similar additional elements/steps as of claim 1, are recited in generality and represent extra- solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional element in the preamble of “A method of monitoring…” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements/steps “receiving information…” is also recited in generality which seem to merely be gathering data and not really performing any kind of inventive step to provide any meaningful additional element. Also, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. All uses of judicial exception require it.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the step 2B.
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way.
The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, the claims 2-9 comprise the analogous subject matter and also comprise additional features/steps which are the part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim 1 and 10 (additionally comprising mathematical relationship/mental process steps) and, therefore, the dependent claims are not eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reason as discussed with regards to claim 1 and 10.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Shishido et al. (US 20150375747 A1) herein after “Shishido” in view of Rodal (US 4767970 A) and further in view of Powell et al. (US 20170012563 A1) herein after “Powell”.
Regarding claim 1, Shishido teaches a monitoring device for monitoring an electric motor ([0045] The motor generator 3 (a rotary electric machine) is a three-phase motor generator driven by the power control unit 32.) comprising:
at least one receiving unit configured for receiving information on at least one amount of acceleration energy required for accelerating the electric motor from at least one first motion state to at least one second motion state (0057] If the operation input corresponding to the start of deceleration (the end of acceleration) is detected at S11 (Yes at S11), the control unit 11 functions as the predictive value calculating unit 11e to calculate the following predictive values: the predictive value of the kinetic energy regenerated by the motor generator 3 if the vehicle 1 is decelerated without shifting the gear (i.e., the gear position corresponding to the motor generator 3 is retained) (the predictive value of the regenerative energy without gearshift, a first value); and the predictive value of the sum of the kinetic energy lost if the gear is shifted (if the gear position corresponding to the motor generator 3 is shifted to a lower one) and the vehicle 1 is decelerated.),
Above examiner views the controller for receiving or predicting the difference/change in the kinetic energy (i.e., receiving information on at least one amount of acceleration energy) for the motor for the change in motion state (i.e., deceleration without gear shift of motor as the first state and deceleration with gear shift as the second state) of the motor.
wherein the amount of acceleration energy comprises an acceleration energy required for decelerating the electric motor (In above paragraph examiner views the determination of change in kinetic energy (i.e., the amount of acceleration energy) that is required for decelerating the electric motor or vehicle).
However, Shishido does not clearly teach wherein the acceleration energy comprises an acceleration energy which is at least one of dissipated, recuperated or released when decelerating the electric motor from a rotating motion state to a stationary state; and
at least one evaluation unit configured for evaluating the information on the amount of acceleration energy and for determining at least one item of information on a wearing status of the electric motor.
Rodal teaches wherein the acceleration energy comprises an acceleration energy which is at least one of dissipated, recuperated or released when decelerating the electric motor from a rotating motion state to a stationary state (col 3 line 4. The kinetic energy of the rotating motor, which decelerates upon loss of power, generates a back electromotive force (emf) and thus a dynamic braking current that is dissipated as heat via the FET to supply the energy necessary to brake the motor to a stop.).
In above paragraph examiner views the kinetic energy is dissipated or transformed to electrical energy (i.e. emf) during deceleration (i.e., rotating state) of the motor to a stop state.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Rodal into Shishido for the purpose of decelerating motor from a rotating motion state to a stop so that the accelerating energy (i.e., kinetic energy) is dissipated to other forms of energy.
However, the combination of Shishido and Rodal do not clearly teach at least one evaluation unit configured for evaluating the information on the amount of acceleration energy and for determining at least one item of information on a wearing status of the electric motor
Powell teaches at least one evaluation unit configured for evaluating the information on the amount of acceleration energy and for determining at least one item of information on a wearing status of the electric motor (para [0005], One or more of the additional first periods of time may be associated with a change in motor speed between zero revolutions per minute and a second speed and/or the second speed and zero revolutions per minute. A notification may be transmitted based at least partially on the determined condition of the motor. In some implementations, one or more operating properties of the motor may be determined, and determining a condition of the motor may be further based at least partially on the determined operating property(ies).
Para [0017] Thus, in some implementations, a user may have advance warning of a poor condition of a motor (e.g., excessive wear, potential failure of a component, and/or excessive friction in moving parts).).
Herein examiner views the speed of rotation of motor (i.e., acceleration energy or change in kinetic energy) is used to determine a condition (i.e., wear condition) of the motor by a controller (i.e., evaluation unit).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Powell into Shishido for the purpose of using accelerating energy (i.e., kinetic energy) of a motor so that the motor wearing condition can be accurately monitored.
Claim 10 is rejected as claim 1 having same claim limitation.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Shishido, Rodal and Powell teach the monitoring device according to claim 1, Rodal teaches wherein the receiving unit comprises at least one of a measurement resistor, a measurement capacitor and an energy buffer (col 3 line 51. The junction of diode 15 and resistor R1 is coupled to a capacitor 17 and thence to ground, while the junction between resistors R1, R2 is coupled to a non-inverting input 19 of the op amp 14. The op amp 14 is supplied with operating voltage V.sub.cc via connections to the capacitor 17, and to ground. A resistor R3 also is coupled to the power supply 10 and thence to a resistor R4 as well as to an inverting input 21 of the op amp 14.)
Here examiner views the resistors, capacitor and amplifier (i.e., energy buffer) as current or voltage measurement receiving parts or units.
wherein the receiving unit further comprises at least one measurement device configured for monitoring at least one of a voltage, a current or a power at the measurement resistor, the measurement capacitor or the energy buffer, respectively (col 5. Line 41. The current sampling resistor R5, connected between the source electrode of FET 16 and ground potential, produces a voltage proportional to the desired dynamic braking current which flows from the drain to source electrodes of FET 16. This current sample voltage is determined by the relative values of the resistors R1 through R6 (or R7) and capacitor 17 value, and is fed to input 21 of the op amp 14 through resistor R4)
R5 is viewed to monitor or sample a voltage through op amp or buffer 14 and FET 16.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Rodal into Shishido for the purpose of having a receiving unit comprising resistor, capacitor, or amplifier so that the motor system can be accurately monitored.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shishido, Rodal and Powell teach the monitoring device according to claim 2, Rodal teaches wherein the measurement device is configured for generating at least one measurement signal indicative of the voltage, the current or the power, respectively, as a function of time (col 6. Line 18. The discharge period is determined by the storage capacity of the capacitor 17 and the load on the capacitor. These parameters are selected so that deceleration and dynamic braking of the tape drive system are controlled for a sufficient time based upon the known rotational speed and inertia of the drive motor and reel system.)
Herein examiner views the capacitor discharge period as measurement signal indicative of current change over time or as a function of time., wherein the monitoring device further comprises at least one filtering device (col 4 line 25. The junction 27a also is coupled to ground via a capacitor 38 whereby the coil 34 and capacitor 38 provide a low pass filter.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Rodal into Shishido for the purpose of having a receiving unit comprising resistor, capacitor, or amplifier and low pass filter so that the motor system can be accurately monitored.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Shishido, Rodal and Powell teach the monitoring device according to claim 1, Powell teaches wherein the evaluation unit further comprises at least one processor for determining the at least one item of information on the wearing status (Fig. 1 The controller 110 may include a processor to execute various instructions and/or applications
[0017] The motor may include several components that may wear and malfunction and/or fail. In various implementations, a condition of the motor may be monitored and a notification may be transmitted based at least partially on the monitoring of the motor.).
Processor is viewed processor as an evaluation unit for monitoring the wearing status of the motor.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Powell into Shishido for the purpose of monitoring of a motor using a processor so that the motor wearing condition can be accurately monitored.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Shishido, Rodal and Powell teach the monitoring device according to claim 1, Powell teaches wherein the evaluation unit further is configured for determining at least one recommended action on the basis of the item of information on the wearing status ((Fig. 1 The controller 110 may include a processor to execute various instructions and/or applications ,[0025] During system operations, the motor 115 may operate according to instructions from the controller 110. However, if the motor 115 or parts thereof fail, then operation of the system 100 may be restricted…. Thus, in some implementations, if a condition of a motor is monitored, a motor and/or components thereof may be replaced and/or repaired prior to failing.).
Processor is viewed processor as an evaluation unit for monitoring the wearing status of the motor and transmit recommended action, repair the parts before system failure.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Powell into Shishido for the purpose of monitoring of a motor using a processor so that the motor wearing condition can be accurately monitored and a recommendation for repair can be provided.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Shishido, Rodal and Powell teach the monitoring device according to claim 1, Powell teaches wherein the evaluation unit further is configured, on the basis of the item of information on the wearing status, for determining if at least one warning state is given, wherein the evaluation unit is configured, if the warning state is given, for outputting a warning ((Fig. 1 The controller 110 may include a processor to execute various instructions and/or applications. para [0017] The motor may include several components that may wear and malfunction and/or fail. In various implementations, a condition of the motor may be monitored and a notification may be transmitted based at least partially on the monitoring of the motor. Thus, in some implementations, a user may have advance warning of a poor condition of a motor (e.g., excessive wear, potential failure of a component, and/or excessive friction in moving parts).).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Powell into Shishido for the purpose of effectively monitoring of a motor using a processor so that a wearing status and its warning can be transmitted to the user.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Shishido, Rodal and Powell teach the method according to claim 10, Shishido teaches wherein the method is at least partially computer-implemented (para [0054] As illustrated in FIG. 2, the control unit 11 can function (operate) as the following components: a speed acquiring unit 11a; an operation input acquiring unit 11b, a rotational speed acquiring unit 11c, an acceleration/deceleration operation detecting unit 11d, a predictive value calculating unit 11e, a regenerative energy comparing unit 11f, a rotational speed comparing unit 11g, a vehicle speed comparing unit 11h, a control signal output unit 11i, and a brake ratio calculating unit 11j, for example, through hardware in cooperation with software (computer programs)).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Shishido, Rodal and Powell teach the method according to method claim 10, Shishido teaches wherein step ii) comprises comparing the amount of acceleration energy with at least one reference value (para [0073] the predictive value of the sum of the kinetic energy lost if the gear is shifted and the vehicle is decelerated, and the kinetic energy regenerated by the motor generator (the predictive value of the regenerative energy with gearshift, the second value)).
Under Broadest reason of interpretation BRI, Kinetic energy (or acceleration energy) loss is considered to be a comparison to a threshold or a reference value.
Claims 7 and 9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Shishido, Rodal and Powell in view of Kaelin (EP 2375560 A2).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Shishido, Rodal and Powell teach at least one electric motor and further comprising at least one monitoring device according to claim 1.
However, the combination does not clearly teach, A laboratory system for performing at least one laboratory task.
Kaelin teaches a laboratory system for performing at least one laboratory task (Description, page 2 line 1: The invention relates to a drive device for use in a laboratory device. In particular, it concerns drive devices for liquid-handling laboratory devices, such as e.g. Diluters and other liquid handling devices.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Kaelin into Shishido for the purpose of handling laboratory task in a laboratory system by using electric motor and monitor the electric motor in the laboratory setting.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Shishido, Rodal, Powell and Kaelin teach the laboratory system according to claim 7, Powell teaches further comprising at least one controller for controlling the functionality of the electric motor, wherein the controller comprises one or more processors. ([0023] The controller 110 may include a processor to execute various instructions and/or applications. For example, the processor of controller 110 may execute the condition module to perform the operations of the module.
[0025] During system operations, the motor 115 may operate according to instructions from the controller 110.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Kaelin and Powell into Shishido for the purpose of handling laboratory task in a laboratory system by using electric motor and controlling the electric motor function in the laboratory setting.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Shishido, Rodal, Powell teach monitoring the electric motor by using the method according to method claim 10.
However, the combination does not clearly teach a method of operating a laboratory system for performing at least one laboratory task, comprising: manipulating at least one object by using an electric motor.
Kaelin teaches a method of operating a laboratory system for performing at least one laboratory task, comprising: manipulating at least one object by using an electric motor (page 14 line 4. A corresponding diluter 200 is in Fig. 6 shown. The diluter 200 comprises a motor-driven syringe pump in which a motor 10 (in Fig. 6 not seen) a piston 202 of a syringe 201 precisely in a cylinder 216 moves up and down.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Kaelin into Shishido for the purpose of handling laboratory task in a laboratory system by using electric motor and controlling the electric motor function in the laboratory setting
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Shishido, Rodal, Powell and Kaelin in view of Zbriger (US 4377918 A).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Shishido, Rodal, Powell and Kaelin teach the laboratory system according to claim 7,
Kaelin teaches wherein the laboratory system (see claim 7)
However, the combination does not teach further comprises at least one electronic switching element, wherein the electronic switching element is configured for at least one of reversing a polarity of a voltage applied to the electric motor and negatively accelerating the electric motor.
Zbriger teaches further comprises at least one electronic switching element, wherein the electronic switching element is configured for at least one of reversing a polarity of a voltage applied to the electric motor (col 7 line 5 Referring now to FIG. 9, switch 30 is a double pole double throw switch adapted to reverse the polarity of the voltage applied to rails 24 from power supply 18. When switch 30 is in the position depicted in FIG. 9, a positive terminal of power supply 18 will be coupled to rail 24. When the switch 30 is switched to the position depicted in phantom as 30' in FIG. 9, the positive terminal power supply 18 will be coupled to rail 24 and the negative terminal will be coupled to rail 24' thereby reversing the polarity of voltage applied across motor 37.) and negatively accelerating the electric motor Col 7 line 15. Referring to FIGS. 3 and 9, where the reverse polarity voltage is applied to motor 37 so that rear axle 47 is not driven and the braking mechanism is operational,).
Above examiner views braking causes negative acceleration of the motor.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated Zbriger into Shishido for the purpose of switching the polarity of applied voltage across the motor so that the motor is effectively controlled for negative acceleration.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Shishido, Rodal and Powell in view of Carson et al (US 7458925 B2) herein after Carson.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Shishido, Rodal and Powell teach the method according to claim 12, the combination does not clearly teach wherein step ii) comprises comparing at least one of a quotient of the amount of acceleration energy and the reference value or a difference between the amount of acceleration energy and the reference value with at least one threshold value.
Carson teaches a difference between the amount of acceleration energy and the reference value with at least one threshold value (col 5 line 7, The energy management system of the present invention preferably will not allow any rotor to be driven past the proven predetermined containment limit of the instrument. For example, the system measures the kinetic energy of the installed rotor at, for example, 4300 rpm and calculates what the kinetic energy would be when the rotor reaches the user set speed. If the calculated kinetic energy is greater than the proven predetermined containment limit of the system, the run is terminated, or the speed is automatically reduced.).
Herein examiner views the comparison of Kinetic energy (or acceleration energy) with limit or reference. Examiner views the limit has at least one lower or upper threshold value.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have incorporated the idea of Carson into Shishido for the purpose determining a comparison result between the amount of acceleration (kinetic energy) and the reference value (with range) with at least one threshold value.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hellstroem (US 20040095087 A1) discusses monitoring motors.
Ushiyama (US 20060022624 A1) discuss controlling electric motors.
Kulatunga (US 20120168242 A1) discuss regenerative braking method or system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARAD TIMILSINA whose telephone number is (571)272-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/SHARAD TIMILSINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863