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 October 15, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 23, 2025 appears to be a duplicate of the October 15, 2024 filing and therefore has been X’d through with a copy attached to this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)91) as being anticipated by Larsen et al. (USP 10,637,372).
Regarding claim 1: Larsen discloses an apparatus for motor stoppage (column 1, lines 6-10) during a battery disconnect (column 3, line 60 to column 4, line 14), the apparatus comprising:
a safe torque off circuit (as seen in figure 2, at 240);
a backup power source (as seen in figure 2, at 370; also, column 5, lines 57-59) configured to supply power to the safe torque off circuit; and
a feedback input (column 7, lines 9-41) configured to provide a status signal to the safe torque off circuit;
wherein the safe torque off circuit is configured to provide a switch signal (as seen in figure 2, via 366; also, column 5, lines 33-46 and column 6, lines 1-17) to a motor circuit in response to the status signal.
Regarding claim 2: Larsen discloses the apparatus for motor stoppage of claim 1. Further, Larsen discloses the apparatus comprising a battery (as seen in figure 2, at 210) configured to provide power to the motor circuit, wherein the backup power source and the battery are independent (column 3, line 60 to column 4, line 14 and column 8, lines 30-34).
Regarding claim 3: Larsen discloses the apparatus for motor stoppage of claim 1. Further, Larsen discloses at least one motor (as seen in figures 1 and 2, at 230) coupled to a blade (column 2, lines 60-67) and driven by the motor circuit, wherein the switch signal causes the at least one motor and the blade to slow in response to the battery disconnect (column 3, line 60 to column 4, line 14).
Regarding claim 4: Larsen discloses the apparatus for motor stoppage of claim 3. Further, Larsen discloses wherein the status signal indicates whether the at least one motor is rotating (as seen in figure 2, via controller 320; column 8, lines 7-34).
Regarding claims 5 and 6: Larsen discloses the apparatus for motor stoppage of claim 1. Further, Larsen discloses wherein the motor circuit includes a plurality of phase sections (as seen in figure 2, at 330, 340 and 350) and the switch signal electrically connects the plurality of phase sections (column 5, lines 14-26).
Regarding claim 7: Larsen discloses the apparatus for motor stoppage of claim 6. Further, Larsen discloses wherein kinetic energy from before the battery disconnect is transferred to the backup power source after the battery disconnect (as seen in figure 2, at “capacitor” 370 which inherently “charges” via battery 210 until disconnected).
Regarding claim 8: Larsen discloses the apparatus for motor stoppage of claim 6. Further, Larsen discloses wherein kinetic energy from before the battery disconnect is transferred to heat after the battery disconnect because the plurality of phase sections are electrically connected (column 4, lines 29-44).
Regarding claim 9: Larsen discloses the apparatus for motor stoppage of claim 6. Further, Larsen discloses wherein electrical energy from before the battery disconnect (as seen in figure 2, via 370) is transferred from a first winding of the plurality of phase sections to a second winding of the plurality of phase sections (column 5, line 57 to column 6, line 60).
Regarding claim 10: Larsen discloses the apparatus for motor stoppage of claim 6. Further, Larsen discloses wherein the switch signal activates a semiconductor device to turn on the plurality of phase sections (column 5, lines 52-55).
Regarding claim 11: Larsen discloses the apparatus for motor stoppage of claim 1. Further, Larsen discloses wherein the status signal is capable of indicating whether the motor circuit is in normal operation (column 8, lines 7-56).
Regarding claim 12: Larsen discloses the apparatus for motor stoppage of claim 1. Further, Larsen discloses wherein the backup power source includes a capacitor (column 5, lines 57-59).
Regarding claim 13: Larsen discloses a motor controller (as seen in figures 1 and 2) capable of being employed with a lawnmower (column 1, lines 14-15), the motor controller including:
a safe torque off circuit (as seen in figure 2, at 240) for motor stoppage during a battery disconnect (column 3, line 60 to column 4, line 14);
a backup power source (as seen in figure 2, at 370; also, column 5, lines 57-59) configured to supply power to the safe torque off circuit; and
a feedback input (column 7, lines 9-41) configured to provide feedback to the safe torque off circuit, the feedback including an indication of whether at least one blade of the lawnmower is rotating and an indication of normal operation of the motor controller (as seen in figure 2, via controller 320); wherein the safe torque off circuit is configured to provide a switch signal (as seen in figure 2, via 366; also, column 5, lines 33-46 and column 6, lines 1-17) to a motor circuit in response to the feedback.
Regarding claims 14 and 15: Larsen discloses the motor controller of claim 13. Further, Larsen discloses wherein the indication of normal operation of the motor controller can be provided by a status signal from one or more components of the motor controller and wherein the indication of whether at least one blade of the lawnmower is rotating can include a pulse from a sensor (column 8, lines 7-56).
Regarding claims 18 and 20: Larsen discloses a method for controlling a motor (as seen in figures 1 and 2), the method comprising:
receiving, at a safety circuit, a first feedback signal indicative of operation of a motor controller (column 3, line 60 to column 4, line 14);
receiving, at the safety circuit, a second feedback indicative of a rotation of a motor and a lawnmower blade (column 8, lines 7-56); and
generating, at the safety circuit, a switch signal in response to the first feedback and the second feedback, wherein at least two phases of a driving circuit for the motor are connected in response to the switch signal (as seen in figure 2, via 366; also, column 5, lines 33-46 and column 6, lines 1-17).
Regarding claim 19: Larsen discloses the method for controlling a motor of claim 18. Further, Larsen discloses charging a backup power supply (as seen in figure 2, at 370); and discharging the backup power supply to operate the safety circuit (column 5, lines 57-59 and column 6, lines 61-67).
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.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsen et al. (USP 10,637,372) in view of Sykes et al. (USPGPub 2014/0253008).
Regarding claim 16: Larsen discloses the motor controller of claim 13. Further, Larsen discloses the use of a capacitor as the backup power source (column 5, lines 57-59) but fails to disclose the use of a diode. However, Sykes teaches that it is well known to use a capacitor and diode combination (as seen in figure 1, at 91 and 92; also, page 4, paragraph [0065]) as a backup power source for a safe torque off circuit and employ that backup power source and circuit in concert with a motor controller (as seen in figures 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Larsen with the teachings of Sykes since it would be a simple matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results of a backup power source having a one-wayed controlled charge/discharge path and allow for a more effective operation within the motor controller.
Regarding claim 17: Larsen as modified by Sykes discloses the motor controller of claim 16. Further, Larsen discloses wherein the capacitor is charged before the battery disconnect (as seen in figure 2, via the battery 210 to capacitor 370 flow chart).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takeda et al. (USPGPub 2025/0080015) discloses a motor controller employing an STO.
Wang et al. (USPGPub 2022/0385213) discloses a safe torque off circuit and method of use of the STO.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ERIC PEZZUTO whose telephone number is (703)756-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-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, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at 571-272-8971. 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.
/ROBERT E PEZZUTO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3671