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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 are still pending.
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 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUTARDJA US 2014/0042877 A1 in a view of Aranovsky US 2014/0267880 A1.
Regarding claim 1, SUTARDJA discloses
A method for controlling an actuator (Figs. 1 and 6, 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 (metal plate 120 in figs. 2A and 2B) attached to a rotor (Item 110) and a stator plate (Item 124) attached to a stator (Item 112) [0059-0063, 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 (SUTARDJA does not explicitly say “a predetermined sampling rate”) [0059, 0064, 0065, 0068, 0083], and storing the capacitance measurement [0109-0110. SUTARDJA clearly recites comparing capacitance. For difference of capacitances at two different occasions, measurements need to be stored which is inherently done via a memory. Emphasis added “memory stores….one or more modules. These modules are shown in fig. 6]; calculating, at a processing unit (item 150), capacitance change between 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 (via 150 to item 152), a control signal (Via a driver module 156) to control operation of the actuator [0022, 0078-0083].
SUTARDJA does not explicitly say but Aranovsky discloses capacitance sampled at a predetermined sampling rate (0.1 millisecond) [0040]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to sample the capacitance at a predetermined sampling rate as disclosed by Aranovsky in SUTARDJA’s teachings to make it robust to interference and noise (Aranovsky’s paragraph 0014)
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 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].
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUTARDJA in a view of Aranovsky and further in a view of Wuerstlein et al. US 8,421,482 B2.
Regarding claim 3, a combination of SUTARDJA and Aranovsky does not disclose but Wuerstlein discloses comparing the calculated capacitance change with a predetermined value to generate the control signal (column 1, lines 22-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare the calculated capacitance with a predetermined value as taught by Wuerstlein in SUTARDJA’s teachings to detect obstacle and stopping or reversing of the drive of the actuating element, before an actual pinching of the obstacle occurs.
Regarding claim 4, a combination of SUTARDJA, Aranovsky and Wuerstlein discloses wherein the control signal is a braking signal (stopping) (Wuerstlein’s column 1, lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 5, SUTARDJA discloses
determining the moving direction of the rotor based on the capacitance measurements [0082].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 6 that Sutardja does not disclose storing the capacitance as claimed.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because SUTARDJA clearly mentions sensing capacitance on multiple occasions. For determination of rotor positions (step 256 in fig. 8), measurements need to be stored which are inherently done via a memory. Emphasis added “memory stores….one or more modules. These modules are shown in fig. 6.
Applicant argues on page 7 that Sutardja does not disclose calculating capacitance change between two consecutive stored capacitance measurements.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because paragraph 0022 clearly recites that there are two separate sensing during two times to find the difference.
Applicant argues on page 8 that Sutardja does not disclose the actuator control signal based on the claimed capacitance changed.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because fig. 6 clearly discloses a driver module (156) coupled to a capacitance sensing module. The driver module is directly coupled to a rotor (110) to drive the rotor [0080-0081]
Applicant’s other arguments (claims 3 and 5) are moot over newly used prior arts.
Conclusion
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights