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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 are still pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 2 that no closed-loop feedback.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because fig. 6 clearly discloses a control module 150 receiving a feedback signal from a motor (104)
Applicant argues on page 2 no predetermined sampling rate, no storage and no control signal based on calculated change.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because fig. 8 clearly shows sensing capacitance at first time and second time. Additionally, paragraph 0110 clearly discloses a single processor with a single memory. Furthermore, paragraph 0081 clearly mentions that the driver module 154 gets a signal from item 152. Fig. 6 shows item 152 gets capacitance data from the capacitance sensing module 150. The control signal would be a signal to change the direction and/or speed of the rotor 110.
Applicant argues on page 3 that Sutardja fails to disclose periodic sampling of capacitance; storage of consecutive measurements; calculation of numeric capacitance change; and generation of a control signal derived from that calculated change within a closed-loop feedback system.
Moreover, Sutardja pertains to fan-motor direction sensing using static capacitive coupling between plates for rotor-position detection. The reference addresses sensor replacement for low-cost fans, not feedback-regulated actuator control. Because the purpose, structure, and problem addressed are entirely different, Sutardja constitutes non-analogous art to the field of the present invention, which concerns active control of actuator dynamics using real-time capacitive feedback. A person of ordinary skill seeking to design a feedback-controlled actuator would not look to Sutardja's discrete direction-sensing mechanism for guidance.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because figs. 7 and 8 clearly show two capacitances measurement during first and second times. Furthermore, item 156 drives the rotor to maintain or change the direction as disclosed in paragraph 0081. The examiner wants to remind the applicant that if the prior art discloses every claimed limitation, the field of endeavor is irrelevant.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant further argues on page 4 that Moreover, nothing in Sutardja would motivate one of ordinary skill to implement braking based on capacitance feedback. Sutardja's objective is low-cost direction detection using capacitive plates as a substitute for Hall sensors; its control circuit simply drives the fan after direction detection. Modifying that disclosure to include an active braking control would contradict
its intended operation and purpose. Accordingly, the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is unsupported. Sutardja fails to disclose or suggest any braking signal, braking control, or motivation to derive such a function from the cited reference. Claim 4 is therefore patentable over Sutardja.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because SUTARDJA discloses that the drive module is used to change the direction of rotation and/or speed of the rotor 110. As such, PHOSITA would have readily recognized that the rotational speed disclosed in the prior art can be reduced to brake the rotor, particularly since the prior art explicitly indicates that the speed is adjustable. Accordingly, implementing a reduction in speed to achieve rotor braking would have been well within the routine skill in the art. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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.
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 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SUTARDJA US 2014/0042877 A1.
Regarding claim 1, SUTARDJA discloses
A method for controlling an actuator (Fig. 1, item 104) based on closed-loop feedback of capacitance measured (Via item 150. The feedback is from motor 104 to control module 102) between a rotor plate attached to a rotor (Item 110) and a stator plate (Item 124) attached to a stator (Item 112) [0059-0061, 0080], and the method comprising: measuring, at a capacitance sensing unit of the actuator, capacitance between the rotor plate and the stator plate of the actuator at a predetermined sampling rate [0059, 0064, 0068], and storing the measured capacitance [0109. Memory inherently stores the measured capacitance because there are multiple capacitances measured]; calculating, at a processing unit, capacitance change of two consecutive capacitance measurements (It should be noted that there are multiple capacitance measurements in steps 202, 204, 252 and 254); and generating, based on the calculated capacitance change, a control signal (Via a driver module 156) to control operation of the actuator [0078-0083].
Regarding claim 2, SUTARDJA discloses
, wherein the actuator is one of a group consisting of an electromagnetic actuator, a linear resonant actuator, an eccentric rotating mass actuator, a rotary actuator (Item 104 is a part of a fan) [0060], a piezoelectric actuator, a voice coil actuator, a Stepper Motor, a shape memory alloy actuator, an electroactive polymer actuator, and solenoids.
Regarding claim 3, SUTARDJA discloses
comparing the calculated capacitance change with a predetermined value to generate the control signal [0081-0083].
Regarding claim 5, SUTARDJA discloses
determining the moving direction of the rotor based on the capacitance measurements [0082].
Regarding claim 6, SUTARDJA discloses
measuring the capacitance between the rotor plate and an electrically conductive layer of the printed circuit board serving as the stator plate [0062].
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUTARDJA US 2014/0042877 A1.
Regarding claim 4, SUTARDJA does not explicitly disclose
wherein the control signal is a braking signal. However, SUTARDJA discloses the speed can be can be changed [0081]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the speed of rotor in order to brake the rotor. PHOSITA would have readily recognized that the rotational speed disclosed in SUTARDJA’s can be reduced to brake the rotor, particularly since the prior art explicitly indicates that the speed is adjustable. Accordingly, implementing a reduction in speed to achieve rotor braking would have been well within the routine skill in the art
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 BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 5712722078. 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896