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
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widanagamage et al. US publication no.: US 2023/0414030 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Widanagamage et al. teach, A method for actuating an electric motor (see figure12b, paragraphs 230-233), the method comprising: using a ramp function to modulate a drive power provided to the electric motor, for changing a rotational speed of the electric motor from a starting rotational speed to a target rotational speed, (see figures 20-21, where the voltage is ramped up for the motor to reach a target rotational speed, as seen in paragraph 263) causing the target rotational speed, starting from the starting rotational speed,
Widanagamage et al. is silent on specifically teaching: causing the target rotational speed to only be reached after at least 200 ms.
Nonetheless, it could’ve easily been configured by one with the ordinary skills in the art, with routine experiments and testing to achieve such results with the apparatus as taught by Widanagamage et al.
Therefore, in view of Widanagamage et al. teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to include ; causing the target rotational speed to only be reached after at least 200 ms, for the purpose of improving the control of the motor drive system.
Regarding claim 2, Widanagamage et al. teach, The method according to claim 1, which further comprises: establishing the drive power from a modulated voltage, and modulating the voltage by using the ramp function during a change, start up or braking of the rotational speed of the electric motor; within a plurality of predetermined periods, using voltage pulses having duty cycles based on the ramp function to drive the electric motor and modulating the duty cycles (see period T2, figure 20 - where the voltage is ramped up); for a DC voltage for driving the electric motor, performing a pulse width modulation, and using a duty cycle to indicate a ratio of a duration of the voltage pulses to a duration of a respective period, and for an AC voltage for driving the electric motor, performing a phase firing modulation or a phase cutting modulation, and characterizing a duty cycle by a phase angle at which the phase firing ends or the phase cutting begins (see figures 20-21, where the voltage waveform can be seen in which the motor’s action goes through).
Regarding claim 3, The method according to claim 2, which further comprises: configuring the ramp function to cause the drive power to change steadily, increase steadily or decrease steadily; for starting up, at a beginning of the ramp function, beginning the duty cycle at a value greater than zero and ending the duty cycle at a value greater than 80%, and upon phase firing modulation, beginning the ramp function at a phase angle greater than 20°, and for braking, at the beginning of the ramp function, beginning the duty cycle at a value of less than 100% and ending the duty cycle at a value of less than 20%, and upon phase firing modulation, beginning the ramp function at a phase angle of less than 160° for a half wave, or 340° for a full wave.
Widanagamage et al. teach in figures 20-25 that the voltage is ramped up and reaches a target rotational speed as further seen in paragraphs 249-268 and further seen the “braking” function of the invention in which the duty cycle is lowered drastically but is silent on specially teaching the specific percentages the claim is achieving such as beginning ramp function “at a phase angle of less than 160° for a half wave, or 340° for a full wave” or “ending the duty cycle at a value greater than 80%”
Nonetheless, it could’ve easily been configured by one with the ordinary skills in the art, with routine experiments and testing to achieve such results with the apparatus as taught by Widanagamage et al.
Therefore, in view of Widanagamage et al. teachings, it would’ve been obivious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to include ; configuring the ramp function to cause the drive power to change steadily, increase steadily or decrease steadily; for starting up, at a beginning of the ramp function, beginning the duty cycle at a value greater than zero and ending the duty cycle at a value greater than 80%, and upon phase firing modulation, beginning the ramp function at a phase angle greater than 20°, and for braking, at the beginning of the ramp function, beginning the duty cycle at a value of less than 100% and ending the duty cycle at a value of less than 20%, and upon phase firing modulation, beginning the ramp function at a phase angle of less than 160° for a half wave, or 340° for a full wave, for the purpose of improving the control of the motor drive system.
Regarding claim 4, Widanagamage et al. teach, The method according to claim 1, which further comprises: preventing the increase or decrease in the effective power provided to the electric motor from a start value to a predetermined target value Z from exceeding 5 Z per second, at least in a predetermined interval of the ramp function; and causing the predetermined interval of the ramp function to include at least a last quarter of the ramp function, or a second half, or an entirety of ramp function (see figures 20-25, in which the voltage is ramped up to only a certain value and isn’t increased after that and held there for a certain amount of time).
Regarding claim 5, Widanagamage et al. teach, The method according to claim 1, which further comprises predetermining the ramp function and causing a time-discrete change in a phase firing, or regulating the ramp function based on sensor values during the actuation of the electric motor (see hall effect sensor, paragraph 273), or carrying out a PID-controlled change in the phase firing.
Regarding claim 6, Widanagamage et al. teach, that a predetermined time cycle is utilized for ramp function as seen in paragraph 242, is silent on specifically teaching, The method according to claim 1, which further comprises adjusting a total time length of the ramp function to be at least one of longer than 400 ms or shorter than 2 s.
Nonetheless, it could’ve easily been configured by one with the ordinary skills in the art, with routine experiments and testing to achieve such results with the apparatus as taught by Widanagamage et al.
Therefore, in view of Widanagamage et al. teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to include ; which further comprises adjusting a total time length of the ramp function to be at least one of longer than 400 ms or shorter than 2s, for the purpose of improving the control of the motor drive system.
Regarding claim 7, Widanagamage et al. teach, the method according to claim 1, which further comprises at least one of selecting or configuring the ramp function by a user (see paragraph 227), and setting: at least one of a minimum or maximum phase firing, or a time for a total time length of the ramp function, or a form of the ramp function, or at least one of a minimum or maximum width of a duty cycle.
Regarding claim 8, Widanagamage et al. teach, The method according to claim 1, which further comprises configuring the ramp function to optimize at least one of an electromagnetic compatibility or a serviceable life of the electric motor (see figures 20-25, where the optimization is an intended use).
Regarding claim 9, Widanagamage et al. teach, The method according to claim 1, which further comprises using the ramp function to control a change in the drive power from a start value to a target value, and configuring the ramp function to ensure that an increase or decrease in the drive power provided to the electric motor, from a start value to a predetermined target value Z, does not exceed 5 Z per second, at least in a predetermined interval of the ramp function (see figures 20-25, where the voltage is ramped up and the speed doesn’t exceed the target speed value and further an error control function is utilized to ensure the target speed it reached).
Regarding claim 10, Widanagamage et al. teach, the method according to claim 1, which further comprises: using the ramp function to perform both starting up of the electric motor and braking of the electric motor, during start-up the target rotational speed being higher than the starting rotational speed and the starting rotational speed being zero (see figures 20-25, for the ramp function, in which voltage is brought up to the target rotational speed)and during braking the starting rotational speed corresponding to the target rotational speed during start-up, and during braking the target rotational speed corresponding to the starting rotational speed during start-up (see figures 20-25); after braking, performing a renewed start-up with a reverse direction of rotation being performed by using the ramp function, and only permitting the target rotational speed, starting from the starting rotational speed (see figures 20-25 where it can be seen that the voltage motor is braked and the speed is brought down) ,
Widanagamage et al. is silent on specifically teaching to be reached after at least 200 ms for the renewed start-up.
Nonetheless, it could’ve easily been configured by one with the ordinary skills in the art, with routine experiments and testing to achieve such results with the apparatus as taught by Widanagamage et al.
Therefore, in view of Widanagamage et al. teachings, it would’ve been obvious to one with the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to include ; to be reached after at least 200 ms for the renewed start-up, for the purpose of improving the control of the motor drive system.
Regarding claim 11, Widanagamage et al. teach An apparatus for actuating an electric motor, the apparatus configured to implement the method according to claim 1 (see figure 12b).
Regarding claim 12, Widanagamage et al. teach The apparatus according to claim 11, which further comprises a configuration interface configured to accept user input for configuring the ramp function by at least one of selecting or configuring the ramp function to set: at least one of a minimum or maximum phase firing, or a time for a total time length of the ramp function, or a form of the ramp function, or at least one of a minimum or maximum width of a duty cycle (see figure 12-13, for a user input to a grinder of a coffee machine).
Regarding claim 13, Widanagamage et al. teach A fully automatic coffee machine, comprising an apparatus according to claim 11, the apparatus configured to actuate an electric motor of a grinder (see figures 12a-12b).
Regarding claim 14, Widanagamage et al. teach A non-transitory computer program product, comprising commands that, when executing a program on a computer (see paragraph 230), cause the computer to generate control signals for the modulation, by using the ramp function, of a drive power provided to an electric motor according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Widanagamage et al. teach A computer-readable storage medium, comprising commands that, when executed by a computer (see paragraph 230), cause the computer to generate control signals for the modulation, by using the ramp function, of a drive power provided to an electric motor according to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicants argue that the target rotational speed is reached after 200ms which directly addresses the problem of noise, current peaks, negative impact on EMC.
However, it appears that this limitation merely can be achieved through a series of testing to ensure that there are no current peaks and one can come to an ideal timing after the target rotational speed is reached. Applicants are urged to further clarify on this concept if it is believed to be an allowable subject matter.
Applicants further ague that the application focusses on method for actuating an electric motor, particularly for a coffee grinder. There are no mentions of a coffee machine in the body of the claims or the preamble.
Furthermore, applicants argue that the Widanagamage is silent on specifically teaching the “ramp function”.
However, examiner points out that Widanagamage et al. teach the starting of the machine and a target rotational speed to be reached. Therefore, a ramp function is inherently disclosed when a motor is started and further a target rotational speed is reached.
The claim language is very broad and examiner has interpreted to the broadest claim interpretation.
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 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 ZOHEB S IMTIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4308. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-730pm.
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, Eduardo Colon Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/ZOHEB S IMTIAZ/Primary Examiner , Art Unit 2846