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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group 1 (Claims 1-7) without traverse in the reply filed on 04 November 2025 is acknowledged. In the amendment filed 04 November 2025, the applicant canceled claims 8-15 and amended claims 16-20 to be dependent from claim 1. Claims 21-26 are new claims.
Claims 1-7 are 16-26 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IN202311061910, filed on 14 September 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 11/15/2023, 04/24/2024, 05/08/2024, 05/09/2024, 08/05/2025 and 10/10/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS’s were considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
an interface in claim 21;
The structure of the interface is “pin, connector, terminal, port” (Specification, para 0022).
analog motor drive hardware in claims 21 and 25;
The structure of the analog motor drive hardware is not disclosed in the specification.
excitation logic in claims 21, 22
The structure of the excitation logic is not disclosed in the specification.
position sensing arrangement in claim 22
The structure of the position sensing arrangement is “a set of Hall effect sensors” (Specification, para 0031).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 21-26 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.
Claims 21 and 25 recites “analog motor drive hardware…convert the analog input command signal to a rotational speed command…” and “the analog motor drive hardware is configured to determine the commanded rotational direction…”, respectively. The “analog motor drive hardware” invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for the analog motor drive hardware to perform the recited functions. The specification lacks detailed description of the analog motor drive hardware. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the analog motor drive hardware is, what the advantages of using an analog motor drive hardware are and how the recited functions are performed by the analog motor drive hardware, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitation of an analog motor drive hardware.
Claims 21 and 22 recites “excitation logic… convert the rotational speed command into a power conversion command…” and “the excitation logic is configured to convert the output of the analog motor drive hardware into the power conversion command…”, respectively. The “excitation logic” invokes 112(f), where structure, material or act must be given in the specification for the excitation logic to perform the recited functions. The specification lacks detailed description of the excitation logic. It is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art what the excitation logic is, what the advantages of using a excitation logic are and how the recited functions are performed by the excitation logic, therefore the specification lacks written description to support the limitation of a excitation logic.
Claims 22-26 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 21.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “analog motor drive hardware” in claims 21 and 25 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The “analog motor drive hardware” is recited in the claim as having the function of converting the analog input command signal to a rotational speed command… and determining the commanded rotational direction… However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “excitation logic” in claims 21 and 22 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts or performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material or acts to the function. The “excitation logic” is recited in the claim as having the function of converting the rotational speed command into a power conversion command…and converting the output of the analog motor drive hardware into the power conversion command… However, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 22-26 are rejected in virtue of their dependency on claim 21.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 21 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nao (US5065078).
As to claims 1 and 21, Nao teaches a method of operating a remote actuation system and a remote actuation system, comprising:
receiving, at the remote actuation system, an analog input command signal having a signal characteristic indicative of a commanded rotation and a commanded rotational direction for a motor associated with the remote actuation system (Nao abstract: the control circuit receives a signal whose pulse width contains information relating to the desired speed and direction in which the motor is to turn…, claim 5: motor control signal…containing speed and direction information of the motor…; also see col 3, lines 4-37, col 4 lines 16-57; Fig. 4);
converting, at the remote actuation system, the analog input command signal to a rotational speed command in the commanded rotational direction based on a relationship between a current state of the signal characteristic of the analog input command signal and a reference state for the signal characteristic of the analog input command signal (Nao claim 7: …generating reference signal…, comparing…first motor control signal with …of the reference signal…generating a motor direction control signal based on …the compared edges…generating a motor speed control signal, claim 8: the generated motor speed control signal is based on the pulse width of the first motor control signal; also see col 3, lines 38-68, col 4 lines 16-57, Fig. 2);
converting, at the remote actuation system, the rotational speed command into a power conversion command based at least in part on the rotational speed command and the current state of the motor (Nao col 4 line 64-col 5 line 8: …a time/voltage converter or pulse width/voltage converter which converts the width of the first control pulse into a voltage level…which is supplied to a plus input of the PWM signal generator…to produce a second motor control pulse…to control the switch of the moto drive circuit…to control the power supply to the DC motor…; claim 8: the generated motor speed control signal is based on the pulse width of the first motor control signal…, also see claims 9 and 10, Fig. 2); and
operating power conversion circuitry at the remote actuation system to provide power to the motor in accordance with the power conversion command to achieve the commanded rotation in the commanded rotational direction (Nao col 4 line 64-col 5 line 8: …a time/voltage converter or pulse width/voltage converter which converts the width of the first control pulse into a voltage level…which is supplied to a plus input of the PWM signal generator…to produce a second motor control pulse…to control the switch of the moto drive circuit…to control the power supply to the DC motor…; claim 8: the generated motor speed control signal is based on the pulse width of the first motor control signal…, also see claims 9 and 10, Figs. 1-2).
As to claim 2, Nao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the analog input command signal comprises receiving the analog input command signal via an individual electrical cable coupled to an interface associated with the remote actuation system (Nao col 2 line 0059-col 3 line 3: …The receiving circuit 1 includes a detector and a decoder, for detecting a control signal which is a carrier modulated with a motor control signal and a steering signal… and was transmitted by a transmitter 20 and demodulating it to obtain the control signals contained therein. The motor control signal thus demodulated is supplied to a first motor control pulse generator 2 and to a one-shot circuit 2a which has an output connected to a motor operation judging circuit…, Fig. 1).
As to claim 3, Nao teaches the method of claim 2, wherein converting the analog input command signal comprises analog motor drive hardware coupled to the interface converting the analog input command signal based on the relationship and providing an output indicative of the rotational speed command and the commanded rotational direction (Nao, col 2 line 0059-col 3 line 3, col 3, lines 38-68, col 4 lines 16-57).
As to claim 4, Nao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein converting the analog input command signal comprises analog motor drive hardware at the remote actuation system determining the commanded rotational direction based on the relationship between the current state of the signal characteristic of the analog input command signal and the reference state for the signal characteristic (Nao claim 7: …generating reference signal…, comparing…first motor control signal with …of the reference signal…generating a motor direction control signal based on …the compared edges…generating a motor speed control signal, claim 8: the generated motor speed control signal is based on the pulse width of the first motor control signal; also see col 3, lines 38-68, col 4 lines 16-57, Fig. 2), determining the rotational speed command based at least in part on a difference between the current state of the signal characteristic of the analog input command signal and the reference state for the signal characteristic, and generating an output indicative of the rotational speed command in the commanded rotational direction (Nao col 4 line 64-col 5 line 8: …a time/voltage converter or pulse width/voltage converter which converts the width of the first control pulse into a voltage level…which is supplied to a plus input of the PWM signal generator…to produce a second motor control pulse…to control the switch of the moto drive circuit…to control the power supply to the DC motor…; claim 7: …generating a motor direction control signal based on …the compared edges…generating a motor speed control signal; claim 8: the generated motor speed control signal is based on the pulse width of the first motor control signal…, also see claims 9 and 10, Fig. 2).
As to claims 5 and 26, Nao teaches the method of claim 4 and the remote actuation system of claim 21, wherein converting the rotational speed command into the power conversion command comprises excitation logic generating one or more pulse-width modulated (PWM) duty cycle commands based at least in part on the commanded rotational direction and the current state of the motor, wherein a respective duty cycle of the one or more PWM duty cycle commands is influenced by the rotational speed command (Nao abstract: …pulse width contains information relating to the desired speed and direction…; claim 9: ...converting the pulse width of the first motor control signal to a voltage level…; also see col 4 lines 16-35, col 5 lines 1-9).
As to claim 25, Nao teaches the remote actuation system of claim 21, wherein the analog motor drive hardware is configured to determine the commanded rotational direction based on the relationship between the current state of the signal characteristic of the analog input command signal and the reference state for the signal characteristic (Nao claim 7: …generating reference signal…, comparing…first motor control signal with …of the reference signal…generating a motor direction control signal based on …the compared edges…generating a motor speed control signal, claim 8: the generated motor speed control signal is based on the pulse width of the first motor control signal; also see col 3, lines 38-68, col 4 lines 16-57, Fig. 2), determine the rotational speed command based at least in part on a difference between the current state of the signal characteristic of the analog input command signal and the reference state for the signal characteristic (Nao claim 7: …generating reference signal…, comparing…first motor control signal with …of the reference signal…generating a motor direction control signal based on …the compared edges…generating a motor speed control signal, claim 8: the generated motor speed control signal is based on the pulse width of the first motor control signal; also see col 3, lines 38-68, col 4 lines 16-57, Fig. 2), and generate the output indicative of the rotational speed command in the commanded rotational direction (Nao col 4 line 64-col 5 line 8: …a time/voltage converter or pulse width/voltage converter which converts the width of the first control pulse into a voltage level…which is supplied to a plus input of the PWM signal generator…to produce a second motor control pulse…to control the switch of the moto drive circuit…to control the power supply to the DC motor…; claim 8: the generated motor speed control signal is based on the pulse width of the first motor control signal…, also see claims 9 and 10, Figs. 1-2).
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nao in view of Hatano (US20190372503).
As to claim 6, Nao teaches the method of claim 5.
Nao does not teach wherein operating the power conversion circuitry comprises operating an inverter coupled to the motor at the remote actuation system in accordance with the one or more PWM duty cycle commands.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hatano teaches motor control apparatus includes an inverter comprising switching elements, current detection means for detecting a phase current value output from the inverter to each phase of a three-phase AC motor, conversion means for converting the phase current value into a digital AD conversion value, and modulation means for comparing a phase voltage command value based on the AD conversion value from the conversion means with a PWM counter value generated using a timer operating at predetermined cycles to generate a PWM signal and outputting the generated PWM signal to the inverter to thereby switch the switching elements of the inverter and control the three-phase AC motor. The conversion means outputs the AD conversion value acquired by converting the phase current value at a timing when a rectangular width of a rectangular wave of a phase voltage value corresponding to the PWM counter value is long (see at least Hatano, abstract, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nao so as to include wherein operating the power conversion circuitry comprises operating an inverter coupled to the motor at the remote actuation system in accordance with the one or more PWM duty cycle commands in view of Hatano et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Nao and Hatano because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 7, Nao in view of Hatano teaches the method of claim 6.
Hatano further teaches obtaining, at the excitation logic, measurement data indicative of a current position of a rotor of the motor from a positioning sensing arrangement associated with the remote actuation system, wherein the excitation logic generates the one or more PWM duty cycle commands for respective phases of the inverter based at least in part on the commanded rotational direction and the current position of the rotor (Hatano para 0046-0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nao so as to include obtaining, at the excitation logic, measurement data indicative of a current position of a rotor of the motor from a positioning sensing arrangement associated with the remote actuation system, wherein the excitation logic generates the one or more PWM duty cycle commands for respective phases of the inverter based at least in part on the commanded rotational direction and the current position of the rotor in view of Hatano et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Nao and Hatano because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nao in view of Lin (US20170081019).
As to claim 16, Nao teaches the method of claim 1.
Nao further teaches transmits the analog input command signal having the signal characteristic indicative of the commanded rotation and the commanded rotational direction corresponding to the actuation command (Nao abstract).
Nao does not teach wherein: the motor is coupled to a flight control component actuatable to influence at least one of a position and an attitude of an aircraft; and a flight control module determines an actuation command for adjusting the at least one of the position and the attitude of the aircraft and transmits the analog input command signal having the signal characteristic indicative of the commanded rotation and the commanded rotational direction corresponding to the actuation command.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches a matrix of parallel flight control surface controllers including stabilizer motor control units (SMCU) and actuator electronics control modules (AECM) define multiple control paths within the single channel, each implemented with dissimilar hardware and which each control the movement of a distributed set of flight control surfaces on the aircraft in response to flight control surface commands of the primary flight control computer… (Lin para 0089-0090, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nao so as to include the motor is coupled to a flight control component actuatable to influence at least one of a position and an attitude of an aircraft; and a flight control module determines an actuation command for adjusting the at least one of the position and the attitude of the aircraft and transmits the analog input command signal having the signal characteristic indicative of the commanded rotation and the commanded rotational direction corresponding to the actuation command in view of Lin et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Nao and Lin because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 17, Nao in view of Lin teaches the method of claim 16.
Nao further teaches wherein one or more hardware modules are configured to convert a magnitude of a direct current (DC) input current associated with the analog input command signal to the power conversion command based at least in part on a relationship between the magnitude of the DC input current and a reference value for the DC input current (Nao col 3 line 51-col 4 line 2).
As to claim 18, Nao in view of Lin teaches the method of claim 17.
Nao further teaches wherein the power conversion command comprises one or more pulse-width modulated (PWM) duty cycle commands corresponding to the magnitude of the DC input current (Nao abstract: …pulse width contains information relating to the desired speed and direction…; claim 9: ...converting the pulse width of the first motor control signal to a voltage level…; also see col 4 lines 16-35, col 5 lines 1-9).
As to claim 19, Nao in view of Lin teaches the method of claim 16.
Nao further teaches wherein one or more hardware modules are configured to convert at least one of a duty cycle or a frequency associated with the analog input command signal to the power conversion command based at least in part on a relationship between the current state of the least one of the duty cycle or the frequency and a reference value for the least one of the duty cycle or the frequency (Nao claim 7: …generating reference signal…, comparing…first motor control signal with …of the reference signal…generating a motor direction control signal based on …the compared edges…generating a motor speed control signal, claim 8: the generated motor speed control signal is based on the pulse width of the first motor control signal; also see col 4 lines 16-57, col 5 1-8; Fig. 2).
As to claim 20, Nao in view of Lin teaches the method of claim 19.
Nao further teaches wherein the power conversion command comprises a plurality of pulse-width modulated (PWM) duty cycle commands to operate the power conversion circuitry to actuate the motor in the commanded rotational direction corresponding to a difference between the current state of the least one of the duty cycle or the frequency and the reference value for the least one of the duty cycle or the frequency (Nao claim 7: …generating reference signal…, comparing…first motor control signal with …of the reference signal…generating a motor direction control signal based on …the compared edges…generating a motor speed control signal, claim 8: the generated motor speed control signal is based on the pulse width of the first motor control signal; also see col 4 lines 16-57, col 5 1-8; Fig. 2).
Claim 22-23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nao in view of Hatano and further in view of Monson (US20230277397).
As to claim 22, Nao teaches the remote actuation system of claim 21.
Nao does not teach a position sensing arrangement to provide rotor position measurement data indicative of a current position of a rotor of the motor, wherein the excitation logic is configured to convert the output of the analog motor drive hardware into the power conversion command for operating the power conversion circuitry to actuate the rotor in the commanded rotational direction based at least in part on the current position of the rotor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hatano teaches the angle sensor 8 is provided in the three-phase AC motor 11 and detects a rotation angle of a rotor of the three-phase AC motor 11. The angle sensor 8 outputs the detected rotation angle to the dq/three-phase conversion unit… converts, based on the calculated electrical angle, the dq-axis voltage command values V q and V d into voltage command values corresponding to three phases of the three-phase AC motor… generate a PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) signal. The carrier modulation unit 10 controls the three-phase AC motor 11 by outputting the generated PWM signal to the inverter 2 and switching the switching elements of the inverter (Hatano para 0046-0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nao so as to include a position sensing arrangement to provide rotor position measurement data indicative of a current position of a rotor of the motor, wherein the excitation logic is configured to convert the output of the analog motor drive hardware into the power conversion command for operating the power conversion circuitry to actuate the rotor in the commanded rotational direction based at least in part on the current position of the rotor in view of Hatano et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Nao and Hatano because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Nao modified by Hatano does not teach position sensing arrangement is a set of Hall effect sensors.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Monson teaches Monson teaches …the motors of casters 230, as well as the motors 102a, 102b of casters 30, 30′, 130 for that matter, are pulse modulated (PM) brushless direct current (DC) motors with Hall effect sensors for rotor position … (Monson para 0261).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nao so as to include the position sensing arrangement comprises one or more Hall effect sensors in view of Monson et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Nao and Monson because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 23, Nao in view of Hatano teaches the remote actuation system of claim 22.
Nao modified by Hatano does not teach the position sensing arrangement comprises one or more Hall effect sensors; and the motor comprises a brushless direct current (BLDC) motor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Monson teaches …the motors of casters 230, as well as the motors 102a, 102b of casters 30, 30′, 130 for that matter, are pulse modulated (PM) brushless direct current (DC) motors with Hall effect sensors for rotor position… (Monson para 0261).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nao so as to include the position sensing arrangement comprises one or more Hall effect sensors; and the motor comprises a brushless direct current (BLDC) motor in view of Monson et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Nao and Monson because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nao in view of Monson.
As to claim 24, Nao teaches the remote actuation system of claim 21.
Nao does not teach wherein the interface comprises an individual pin for connecting the remote actuation system to an individual electrical cable for receiving the analog input command signal via the individual electrical cable.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Monson teaches …pins or similar electrical contacts that are electrically coupled to traces 186a via wires or other conductors… (Monson para 0231).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nao so as to include wherein the interface comprises an individual pin for connecting the remote actuation system to an individual electrical cable for receiving the analog input command signal via the individual electrical cable in view of Monson et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Nao and Monson because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664