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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 26th, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on January 26th, 2026 in response to the Final Office Action mailed on October 24th, 2025. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1, 8, 10, 12, & 15 have been amended. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1-23 still remain pending in the instant application. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent Claims 1 and 10 have been amended to now recite: “determine whether the electric drive machine is in low-noise environment; and if the electric drive machine is in a low-noise environment, control power to the fan motor to provide a target cooling load by a combination of the active cooling capacity of the fan and the passive cooling capacity of the fan” (Claim 1) and “determining whether the electric drive machine is in low-noise environment and if the electric drive machine is in a low-noise environment, controlling power to the fan to provide the target cooling load to the air-cooled resistor grid by a combination of the active cooling capacity of the fan and the passive cooling capacity of the fan” (Claim 10). The underlined portions of these limitations constitute new matter that is not supported by the originally filed specification. In this instance, the examiner has thoroughly reviewed Applicant’s originally filed specification and finds that there is no written description or supplied figures which support Applicant’s new recitations of determining whether the electric drive machine is in low-noise environment and controlling fan power according to that determination. Applicant alleges that paragraphs [0054] and [0063] support such language, but respectfully, this is simply incorrect. Paragraph [0054] merely states “the resistor grid fan 310 may be utilized some fraction of time less than if the power duty of the resistor grid is provided solely by active cooling by the fan. This can serve to reduce the duty of the fan as a compared to the operation of the vehicle, thereby increasing the operating lifetime of the fan and reducing the amount of noise produced by the fan during operation of the vehicle”, while paragraph [0063] simply states “an operator may determine available passive cooling capacity by the resistor grid fan, so as avoid actively using the fan to provide cooling to the resistor grid in certain operating environments. This may reduce the amount of noise produced by the fan in these operating environments”. However, neither of these disclosures supports determining whether the electric drive machine is in low-noise environment and controlling fan power according to that determination. Paragraph [0054] makes no mention of any environmental determination whatsoever, and paragraph [0063] describes an “operator” making a determination of a passive cooling capacity of the fan in “certain operating environments”, which may reduce fan noise. Neither of these disclosures supports the recited invention of one or more processors determining whether the electric drive machine is in low-noise environment and controlling fan power according to the determination. As such, Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1 & 10 constitute new matter, and must be removed from the claim(s).
Appropriate corrections are required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 & 10 have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Please refer to the updated rejections below.
Applicant's arguments filed January 26th, 2025 regarding Claim 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that “Wolff teaches providing cooling to the resistive elements after power is no longer provided to the grid. Wolff at paragraphs [0005], [0021]. Wolff teaches only through active operation of the blower or fan; Wolff does not teach relying on the passive cooling provided by the fan after power is no longer provided to the blower. Thus, Wolff cannot teach or even suggest determining an amount of active cooling time to operate the fan in the active cooling mode, wherein the amount of active cooling time is reduced compared to when the target cooling load is provided by the active cooling capacity alone. Kirchenmayer cannot fill these voids”, the Examiner must respectfully disagree. Applicant alleges that Wolff fails to disclose the new features recited in Claim 15, but respectfully, this is incorrect. Please refer to the updated rejection for Claim 15 below for further details.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 & 4-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0223459 to Wolff et al. in view of GB 1,411,987 to Kirchenmayer and US 2009/0293760 to Kumar et al.
In regards to independent Claims 1 & 10, and with particular reference to Figure 1, Wolff et al. (Wolff) discloses:
1. A system (“cooling system for a vehicle”; para. 2; Fig. 1) comprising: a resistor grid (116) electrically coupled to a motor (110) of an electric drive machine (100); a fan (118, 120) including a plurality of fan blades (118) rotatably coupled to a fan motor (120); a speed sensor (para. 33; “sensors”) configured to measure a rotational speed of the fan (“blower speed”; para. 33); and a control circuit (108, 128) comprising one or more processors (para. 32) and a memory (para. 32) structured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control circuit to: provide power to the fan motor to operate the fan in an active cooling mode (“powered on”; para. 75); switch the fan to an off mode (“powered off”; para. 75); determine an active cooling capacity of the fan according to the measured rotational speed of the fan while the fan motor is in an active cooling mode (paras. 22-23, 33, 57, 75-76 disclose determining the cooling output/capacity of the fan based on sensed variables during active cooling and controlling fan speed accordingly); control power to the fan motor to provide a target cooling load by a combination of the active cooling capacity of the fan and the OFF mode (paras. 22-23, 33, 57, 75-76, & 80-81 disclose determining the cooling output/capacity of the fan (i.e. ON and OFF modes) based on sensed variables during active cooling and “adjusting the state of electrical power modulation devices that provide electrical power to blower motors” accordingly; paras. 75 & 80-81 further discloses powering the fan ON and OFF to optimize fan life and energy efficiency)
10. A method (Fig. 8) of operating an electric drive machine (100; Fig. 1), the method comprising: determining, by one or more processors (128; para. 32), an active cooling capacity of a fan (118, 120) coupled to an air-cooled resistor grid (116), wherein the active cooling capacity of the fan is determined when the fan is receiving power and is in an active cooling mode (paras. 22-23, 33, 57, 75-76 disclose determining the cooling output/capacity of the fan based on sensed variables during powered/active cooling and controlling fan speed/power accordingly); determining, by the one or more processors, a target cooling load for the air-cooled resistor grid (paras. 22-23, 33, 57, 75-76 disclose determining the grid temperature (i.e. required cooling load) of the resistor grid 116 based on sensed variables and controlling fan speed/power accordingly); and controlling power to the fan to provide the target cooling load to the air-cooled resistor grid by a combination of the active cooling capacity of the fan and the OFF mode (paras. 22-23, 33, 57, 75-76, & 80-81 disclose determining the cooling output/capacity of the fan (i.e. ON and OFF modes) based on sensed variables during active cooling and “adjusting the state of electrical power modulation devices that provide electrical power to blower motors” accordingly; paras. 75 & 80-81 further discloses powering the fan ON and OFF to optimize fan life and energy efficiency)
Although Wolff discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not further disclose:
1) determining a passive cooling capacity of the fan according to the measured rotational speed of the fan after the fan motor is switched from the active cooling mode to an off mode,
2) controlling the fan speed based also on the passive cooling capacity of the fan (Wolff controls the fan based on an active cooling mode/capacity and an OFF mode, and thus, does not disclose determining a passive cooling of the fan and corresponding fan speed control), and
3) determine whether the electric drive machine is in low-noise environment; and if the electric drive machine is in a low-noise environment, control power to the fan motor to provide a target cooling load by a combination of the active cooling capacity of the fan and the passive cooling capacity of the fan.
However, Kirchenmayer and Kumar remedy these deficiencies.
Kirchenmayer discloses another fan control system (Figs. 1-3) in which a fan (Figs. 1-2) includes blades (2) driven by an electric motor (1) (col. 1, lines 9-11), wherein 1) an active cooling capacity of the fan is determined (increasing slope of line “a” and/or “b” in Fig. 3) according to the measured rotational speed (n) of the fan while the fan motor is in an active cooling mode (Fig. 3; col. 3, lines 3-24) and 2) a passive cooling capacity of the fan is determined (decreasing slope of line “a” and/or “b” in Fig. 3) according to the measured rotational speed (n) of the fan after the fan motor is switched from the active cooling mode to an off mode (Fig. 3; col. 3, lines 3-24). Kirchenmayer makes clear that it is known in the art of cooling fans that both an active cooling capacity and a passive cooling capacity are determinable through fan speed monitoring over time, and that the fan’s operation (i.e. powered ON and powered OFF modes, and thus, fan speeds) may be controlled accordingly to account for these two fan cooling capacities (as clearly represented by Fig. 3; see switch-ON mode tS and switch-OFF mode ED*tS).
Kumar discloses yet another grid blower system (Abstract) very similar to Wolff, and which likewise includes a resistor grid (112) coupled to a motor (110) of an electric machine (100) (paras. 22-23) and a fan (118, 120) that includes blades (118) driven by an electric motor (120) (Fig. 1; paras. 26-27), wherein a control circuit (108, 128) comprising one or more processors (para. 30) and a memory storing instructions (para. 30) provides control over the power supplied to the blower motor (para. 30). Kumar goes on to specifically disclose determining whether the electric drive machine is in low-noise environment (“a residential area or a mountain pass”; para. 43); and if the electric drive machine is in a low-noise environment, control power to the fan motor to provide a target cooling load according to the low-noise environment noise threshold (paras. 43-50). Kumar makes clear that that it is known in the art of grid cooling fans that low-noise environments must be considered to meet audible noise level thresholds, and thus, the cooling fans may be controlled to account for such environments (as clearly detailed in paras. 43-50).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a grid cooling fan with more efficient energy usage and that provides low audible noise in low-noise environments, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Kirchenmayer and Kumar in combination with those seen in Wolff in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wolff’s fan power/speed control methodology with the additional consideration of the fan’s passive cooling capacity and surrounding environment (as taught in Kirchenmayer and Kumar) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a grid cooling system that more efficiently utilizes the fan’s residual momentum (i.e. passive cooling capacity) to provide optimum grid cooling with minimal power consumption, all while reducing noise in low-noise environments.
In regards to Claims 4 & 11, Wolff as modified by Kirchenmayer discloses that the control circuit is further configured to determine the active cooling capacity of the fan and the passive cooling capacity of the fan according to at least one of a temperature and a density of an ambient air (para. 22 of Wolff discloses “a predetermined model or algorithm may be utilized to determine the amount of time and fan speed needed to achieve desired cooling”; para. 33 of Wolff discloses determining active cooling capacity (i.e. providing feedback-based fan speed control based on “ambient temperature”, “blower speed”, and others); when combined with the additional “passive cooling capacity” teachings of Kirchenmayer, both the active cooling capacity of the fan (of Wolff) and the passive cooling capacity of the fan (from Kirchenmayer) would be determined based on “ambient temperature”, as claimed).
In regards to Claim 5, Wolff discloses providing a signal corresponding to a target fan speed to the fan motor (para. 33; “vary grid blower speed”).
In regards to Claim 6, Wolff discloses providing a signal corresponding to a target fan power to the fan motor (para. 33; “adjusting the state of electrical power modulation devices that provide electrical power to blower motors. For example, an electrical power modulation device may be controlled to raise/lower voltage, increase/decrease frequency, adjust phase, etc”).
In regards to Claims 7 & 13, Wolff as modified by Kirchenmayer discloses that the control circuit is further configured to determine a resistive capacity of the resistor grid (i.e. resistor grid temperature load; “an average temperature of all of the resistive elements”; para. 76; “change of resistance over time for resistance elements”; “temperature change as a result of resistance change“; para. 78) according to the active cooling capacity of the fan and the passive cooling capacity of the fan (paras. 76-78 of Wolff describe determining the temperature load and change in resistance (i.e. resistive capacity) of the resistor grid during active cooling; when combined with the additional “passive cooling capacity” teachings of Kirchenmayer, the resistive capacity of the resistor grid in Wolff would now be determined based on both the active cooling capacity of the fan and the passive cooling capacity of the fan, as claimed).
In regards to Claims 8 & 12, Wolff discloses that an amount of time that the fan is operated in the active cooling mode is reduced compared to when the target cooling load is provided by the active cooling capacity alone (paras. 22-23, 32, 75, & 80-81 make clear that energy efficiency, increased grid life, and increased fan life are all achieved by regulating the active cooling and OFF modes/cycles of the fan to certain amounts of time, thereby reducing the amount of active cooling time compared to simply using the active cooling capacity alone (i.e. constantly running the fan)). Additionally, Wolff as modified by Kirchenmayer further reduces active cooling time due to the consideration and use of the passive cooling capacity of the fan, as detailed above.
In regards to Claims 9 & 14, Wolff as modified by Kirchenmayer discloses that the control circuit is configured to determine the passive cooling capacity of the fan according to the measured rotational speed (n; Fig. 3; Kirchenmayer) of the fan as a function of time (t; Fig. 3; Kirchenmayer) after the fan motor is switched from the active cooling mode to the off mode (clearly represented by Fig. 3 of Kirchenmayer; see switch-ON mode tS and switch-OFF mode ED*tS,) based on residual rotation of the fan from a first time instance (switch-OFF mode ED*tS,) in which the fan motor is switched to the off mode to a second time instance (i.e. the flat portion of line “a” in Fig. 3) in which the fan is at rest (Kirchenmayer’s Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 3-24 discloses as much, as detailed above for Claims 1 & 10).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolff- Kirchenmayer-Kumar as applied to claims 1 & 10 above, and further in view of CN 111102220 to Wang (attached to previous office action with machine translation).
In regards to Claim 2, Wolff as modified by Kirchenmayer and Kumar discloses the system claimed in claim 1, but Wolff does not specifically disclose that the his fan speed sensor comprises a gear tooth sensor, an optical sensor, a magneto-resistive sensor, a Hall-effect sensor, or a combination thereof (Wolff does not detail any particular fan speed sensor type).
However, Wang discloses yet another fan speed control system (Fig. 1; Abstract) having a fan controller, wherein the controller regulates fan speed based on feedback from a Hall effect speed sensor and a temperature sensor in order to improve the accuracy of the fan speed regulation (paras. 10-12, 53, 61-62). Wang makes clear that Hall-effect sensors are well known in the art of fan speed control, and provide accurate rotation speed detection. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a fan speed control system with accurate speed detection, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Wang in combination with those seen in Wolff in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wolff’s generic speed sensor with the Hall-effect type speed sensor taught in Wang in order to obtain predictable results; those results being an improved fan speed control system that provide accurate fan rotation speed detection.
In regards to Claim 3, Wolff as modified by Kirchenmayer and Kumar discloses the system claimed in claim 1, but Wolff does not further disclose that the speed sensor is at least partially provided on one or more of a fan rotor, the fan motor, or one or more of the fan blades (Wolff does not detail any particular fan speed sensor type).
However, as noted immediately above, Wang discloses yet another fan speed control system (Fig. 1; Abstract) having a fan controller, wherein the controller regulates fan speed based on feedback from a Hall effect speed sensor and a temperature sensor in order to improve the accuracy of the fan speed regulation (paras. 10-12, 53, 61-62). Wang clearly depicts (within Fig. 1) the speed sensor 113 being mounted at least partially on the fan 11, which includes fan motor 112 and fan blades (para. 37). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a fan speed control system with accurate speed detection, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Wang in combination with those seen in Wolff in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wolff’s generic speed sensor with a fan-mounted Hall-effect type speed sensor taught in Wang in order to obtain predictable results; those results being an improved fan speed control system that provide accurate fan rotation speed detection.
Claim(s) 15-16 & 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0223459 to Wolff et al. in view of GB 1,411,987 to Kirchenmayer.
In regards to independent Claim 15 and with particular reference to Figure 1, Wolff et al. (Wolff) discloses:
15. An electric drive machine (100; Fig. 1) comprising: a resistor grid (116) electrically coupled to a motor (110) of the electric drive machine; a fan (118, 120) including a plurality of fan blades (118) rotatably coupled to a fan motor (120); a speed sensor (para. 33; “sensors”) configured to measure a rotational speed of the fan (“blower speed”; para. 33); and a control circuit (108, 128) comprising one or more processors (para. 32) and a memory (para. 32) structured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control circuit to: provide power to the fan motor to operate the fan in an active cooling mode (“powered on”; para. 75); switch the fan to an off mode (“powered off”; para. 75); determine an active cooling capacity of the fan according to the measured rotational speed of the fan while the fan motor is in the active cooling mode (paras. 22-23, 33, 57, 75-76 disclose determining the cooling output/capacity of the fan based on sensed variables during active cooling and controlling fan speed accordingly); determine a target cooling load for the resistor gride (“desired cooling”; paras. 22 & 75; “calculations may then be utilized to calculate…..whether cooling is still required”; “when to end cooling”; para. 23; “needed cooling of the grid”; para. 32); determine an amount of active cooling time to operate the fan in the active cooling mode (“fan speed along with blower timing may be adjusted not only for energy efficiency purposes, but also to reduce temperature fluctuations associated with the resistive elements”; “an algorithm may be utilized to determine the most energy efficient manner to cool the resistive elements by varying both after cooling times and blower speed to achieve a desired cooling”; para. 75), wherein the amount of active cooling time is reduced compared to when the target cooling load is provided by the active cooling capacity alone (paras. 22-23, 32, 75, & 80-81 make clear that energy efficiency, increased grid life, and increased fan life are all achieved by regulating the active cooling and OFF modes/cycles of the fan to certain amounts of time, thereby reducing the amount of active cooling time compared to simply using the active cooling capacity alone (i.e. constantly running the fan)); and control power to the fan motor to provide a target cooling load by a combination of the active cooling capacity of the fan and the OFF mode of the fan according to the amount of active cooling time (paras. 22-23, 33, 57, 75-76, & 80-81 disclose determining the cooling output/capacity of the fan (i.e. ON and OFF modes) based on sensed variables during active cooling and “adjusting the state of electrical power modulation devices that provide electrical power to blower motors” accordingly; paras. 75 & 80-81 further discloses powering the fan ON and OFF to optimize fan life and energy efficiency)
Although Wolff discloses the vast majority of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not further disclose 1) determining a passive cooling capacity of the fan according to the measured rotational speed of the fan after the fan motor is switched from the active cooling mode to an off mode, and 2) controlling the fan speed based also on the passive cooling capacity of the fan (Wolff controls the fan based on an active cooling mode/capacity and an OFF mode, and thus, does not disclose determining a passive cooling of the fan and corresponding fan speed control).
However, Kirchenmayer discloses another fan control system (Figs. 1-3) in which a fan (Figs. 1-2) includes blades (2) driven by an electric motor (1) (col. 1, lines 9-11), wherein 1) an active cooling capacity of the fan is determined (line “a” in Fig. 3) according to the measured rotational speed (n) of the fan while the fan motor is in an active cooling mode (Fig. 3; col. 3, lines 3-24) and 2) a passive cooling capacity of the fan is determined (line “b” in Fig. 3) according to the measured rotational speed (n) of the fan after the fan motor is switched from the active cooling mode to an off mode (Fig. 3; col. 3, lines 3-24). Kirchenmayer makes clear that it is known in the art of cooling fans that both an active cooling capacity and a passive cooling capacity are determinable through fan speed monitoring over time, and that the fan’s operation (i.e. powered ON and powered OFF modes, and thus, fan speeds) may be controlled accordingly to account for these two capacities (as clearly represented by Fig. 3; see switch-ON mode tS and switch-OFF mode ED*tS). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a grid cooling fan with more efficient cooling through a passive cooling mode, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Kirchenmayer in combination with those seen in Wolff in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wolff’s fan power/speed control methodology with the additional consideration of the fan’s passive cooling capacity (as taught in Kirchenmayer) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a grid cooling system that more efficiently utilizes the fan’s residual momentum (i.e. passive cooling capacity) to provide optimum cooling with minimal power consumption.
In regards to Claim 16, Wolff discloses that the control system is a closed loop control system (i.e. feedback based system; paras. 22-23, 33).
In regards to Claim 19, Wolff as modified by Kirchenmayer discloses that the control circuit is further configured to determine the active cooling capacity of the fan and the passive cooling capacity of the fan according to at least one of a temperature and a density of an ambient air (para. 22 of Wolff discloses “a predetermined model or algorithm may be utilized to determine the amount of time and fan speed needed to achieve desired cooling”; para. 33 of Wolff discloses determining active cooling capacity (i.e. providing feedback-based fan speed control based on “ambient temperature”, “blower speed”, and others); when combined with the additional “passive cooling capacity” teachings of Kirchenmayer, both the active cooling capacity of the fan (of Wolff) and the passive cooling capacity of the fan (from Kirchenmayer) would be determined based on “ambient temperature”, as claimed).
In regards to Claim 20, Wolff discloses providing a signal corresponding to a target fan speed to the fan motor (para. 33; “vary grid blower speed”).
In regards to Claim 21, Wolff discloses providing a signal corresponding to a target fan power to the fan motor (para. 33; “adjusting the state of electrical power modulation devices that provide electrical power to blower motors. For example, an electrical power modulation device may be controlled to raise/lower voltage, increase/decrease frequency, adjust phase, etc”).
In regards to Claim 22, Wolff as modified by Kirchenmayer discloses that the control circuit is further configured to determine a resistive capacity of the resistor grid (i.e. resistor grid temperature load; “an average temperature of all of the resistive elements”; para. 76; “change of resistance over time for resistance elements”; “temperature change as a result of resistance change“; para. 78) according to the active cooling capacity of the fan and the passive cooling capacity of the fan (paras. 76-78 of Wolff describe determining the temperature load and change in resistance (i.e. resistive capacity) of the resistor grid during active cooling; when combined with the additional “passive cooling capacity” teachings of Kirchenmayer, the resistive capacity of the resistor grid in Wolff would now be determined based on both the active cooling capacity of the fan and the passive cooling capacity of the fan, as claimed).
In regards to Claim 23, Wolff as modified by Kirchenmayer discloses that the control circuit is configured to determine the passive cooling capacity of the fan according to the measured rotational speed (n; Fig. 3; Kirchenmayer) of the fan as a function of time (t; Fig. 3; Kirchenmayer) after the fan motor is switched from the active cooling mode to the off mode (clearly represented by Fig. 3 of Kirchenmayer; see switch-ON mode tS and switch-OFF mode ED*tS,) based on residual rotation of the fan from a first time instance (switch-OFF mode ED*tS,) in which the fan motor is switched to the off mode to a second time instance (i.e. the flat portion of line “a” in Fig. 3) in which the fan is at rest (Kirchenmayer’s Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 3-24 discloses as much, as detailed above for Claims 1, 10, & 15).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolff- Kirchenmayer as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of CN 111102220 to Wang (attached to previous office action with machine translation).
In regards to Claim 17, Wolff as modified by Kirchenmayer discloses the system claimed in claim 15, but Wolff does not specifically disclose that the his fan speed sensor comprises a gear tooth sensor, an optical sensor, a magneto-resistive sensor, a Hall-effect sensor, or a combination thereof (Wolff does not detail any particular fan speed sensor type).
However, Wang discloses yet another fan speed control system (Fig. 1; Abstract) having a fan controller, wherein the controller regulates fan speed based on feedback from a Hall effect speed sensor and a temperature sensor in order to improve the accuracy of the fan speed regulation (paras. 10-12, 53, 61-62). Wang makes clear that Hall-effect sensors are well known in the art of fan speed control, and provide accurate rotation speed detection. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a fan speed control system with accurate speed detection, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Wang in combination with those seen in Wolff in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wolff’s generic speed sensor with the Hall-effect type speed sensor taught in Wang in order to obtain predictable results; those results being an improved fan speed control system that provide accurate fan rotation speed detection.
In regards to Claim 18, Wolff as modified by Kirchenmayer discloses the system claimed in claim 15, but Wolff does not further disclose that the speed sensor is at least partially provided on one or more of a fan rotor, the fan motor, or one or more of the fan blades (Wolff does not detail any particular fan speed sensor type).
However, as noted immediately above, Wang discloses yet another fan speed control system (Fig. 1; Abstract) having a fan controller, wherein the controller regulates fan speed based on feedback from a Hall effect speed sensor and a temperature sensor in order to improve the accuracy of the fan speed regulation (paras. 10-12, 53, 61-62). Wang clearly depicts (within Fig. 1) the speed sensor 113 being mounted at least partially on the fan 11, which includes fan motor 112 and fan blades (para. 37). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a fan speed control system with accurate speed detection, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Wang in combination with those seen in Wolff in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wolff’s generic speed sensor with a fan-mounted Hall-effect type speed sensor taught in Wang in order to obtain predictable results; those results being an improved fan speed control system that provide accurate fan rotation speed detection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC