DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 16-35 are pending.
Claims 25-35 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-15 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
First, Applicant argues that of Essenmacher (US 20160129864 A1, 2016-05-12) fails to teach a control circuit to couple either the regulator or the converter circuit based on a pre-determined voltage or current load applied to the motor.” See Remarks at 8-10.
Specifically, Applicant writes:
The Office action appears to interpret i) the LDO regulator in Essenmacher as allegedly
equivalent to the regulator recited in claim 16 and ii) the boost and buck converters in Essenmacher as allegedly equivalent to the converter circuit recited in claim 16. Applicant respectfully submits, however, that inasmuch as Essenmacher describes operation of the LDO regulator and the boost and buck converters, Essenmacher fails to disclose or render obvious a configuration in which a control circuit couples either the LDO regulator or the boost/buck converter to a motor. Rather, as discussed above, Essenmacher clearly describes a configuration in which the LDO regulator is provided via the LDO regulator to the motor.
Id. at 7-8.
Applicant’s first argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
Essenmacher teaches the following:
[0091] The circuit in FIG. 9 comprises backup or failsafe power circuitry for powering the motor and the MCU or microcontroller (through the LDO) in the event of loss of the vehicle's 12 VDC power supply. In normal operation, with the vehicle's 12 VDC present, the motor and the microcontroller's power will be sourced through the diode, D, at the top of the circuit of FIG. 9. The left hand side of the circuit of FIG. 10 is a boost converter or circuit that takes the vehicle's 12 VDC power and boost it to approximately 40 VDC and stores that energy in the storage capacitor. After “key on” and the vehicle's 12 VDC power has stabilized, the microcontroller (i.e. MCU) turns on the boost or converter (at a gate control device) and runs the boost converter until the storage capacitor is charged to 40 VDC. Then the boost converter will turn off, only turning back on when the storage capacitor's voltage has dropped below a preprogrammed threshold as monitored and determined by the MCU.
See [0091] (emphases added).
So, according to Essenmacher, either power is sourced to the motor via the LDO in the event of loss of the vehicle’s 12 VDC power or power is sourced to the motor via the boost converter when the vehicle’s 12 VDC power is operative. So, contrary to Applicant’s argument, Essenmacher teaches a control circuit that couples either the LDO regulator or the boost converter to a motor. Note that Examiner considers Essenmacher for its general teaching that LDO and relevant converter(s) may be coupled disjunctively (i.e., either-or). And Examiner considers Gibson for its teaching that relevant converters may be boost, buck, or both. See, e.g., Fig. 5 and associated text (disclosing boost, buck, and boost-buck modes).
Second, Applicant argues that “Essenmacher fails to disclose or render obvious anything about coupling the regulator or the converter circuit based on a pre-determined voltage or current load applied to the motor, in the manner recited in claim 16. Rather, as discussed above, Essenmacher uses the boost/buck converters to supply power to the motor via the LDO in the event of a power loss in the vehicle.” See Remarks at 8.
Applicant’s second argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
As discussed above, Essenmacher teaches either sourcing power to the motor (via the LDO) in the event of a 12VDC power loss or sourcing power to the motor (via the boost converter) when the 12VDC is stable. As such, contrary to Applicant, Essenmacher teaches coupling either the regulator or the converter circuit based on a pre-determined voltage or current load applied to the motor (i.e., 12VDC).
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 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates et al. (US 20150196348 A1, 2015-07-16) (hereinafter “Yates”) in view of Essenmacher (US 20160129864 A1, 2016-05-12) and Gibson et al. (US 20180166990 A1, 2018-06-14) (hereinafter “Gibson”).
Regarding claim 16, Yates teaches surgical instrument comprising: a motor; a regulator; a converter circuit; and a control circuit coupled to the regulator and the converter circuit. See, e.g., [0087]-[0090] ]; Fig. 17 and associated text.
Yates does not expressly teach wherein the control circuit is to: couple either the regulator or the converter circuit based on a pre-determined voltage or current load applied to the motor.
[E] Essenmacher teaches use of LDO and boost/buck converters to drive a motor. See, e.g., [0091]-[0092]; Fig. 9. [G] Gibson teaches switching between buck, boost, or buck-boost converters depending on voltage and current characteristics. See, e.g., Fig. 5 and associated text.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Essenmacher and Gibson with the invention taught by Darraba such that the invention further comprises wherein the control circuit is to: couple either the regulator or the converter circuit based on a pre-determined voltage or current load applied to the motor ([E], [G]) (as recited in claim 16); wherein the converter circuit is a boost converter circuit ([E], [G]) (as recited in claim 17); wherein the boost converter circuit is coupled based on a voltage load at the motor exceeding the pre-determined voltage load ([E], [G]) (as recited in claim 18); wherein the control circuit is to: determine a voltage sag at the motor; and couple the boost converter circuit to the motor ([E], [G]) (as recited in claim 19); wherein the converter circuit is a buck converter circuit ([E], [G]) (as recited in claim 20); wherein the buck converter circuit is coupled based on a current exceeding the pre-determined current load ([E], [G]) (as recited in claim 21); wherein the control circuit is to disconnect control electronics from a power source ([E], [G]) (as recited in claim 22); wherein the regulator is a low dropout (LDO) regulator, and wherein the control circuit is to couple the motor to the LDO regulator based on the voltage load of the motor being below the pre-determined voltage load([E], [G]) (as recited in claim 23); further comprising at least one more converter circuit, wherein the converter circuit and the at least one more converter circuit are configured to power the motor for different load conditions ([E], [G]) (as recited in claim 24) in order to more efficiently power the motor.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered to be pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hsu (US 20050017701 A1, 2005-01-27) teaches switching between LOD regulator and buck converter. See, e.g., [0017].
Darraba (US 20150088384 A1, 2015-03-26) teaches switching between boost and buck converters. See, e.g., [0007], [0043].
Wei (US 20100156175 A1, 2010-06-24) teaches enabling and disabling boost converters. See, e.g., [0003].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 SCOTT T LUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1860. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, M-F (generally).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Jackson, can be reached on 571-272-4697. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Scott Luan
/SCOTT LUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights