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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 1, the recitation “on signal processing”, on line 5, should be changed to –one signal processing--. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 10 does not further limitation claim 9, since claim 9 already recites the limitation “the accelerometer output being the acceleration due to gravity along at least one axis of the device” as disclosed in claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abbott et al. (hereinafter Abbott, US 2024/0217082 A1).
For claim 1, Abbott discloses an accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system (Figs. 1 and 3 of Abbott discloses an accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system 100 – see Abbott, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs [0002] and [0091]) comprising:
at least one accelerometer (Fig. 3 of Abbott discloses at least one accelerometer 250– see Abbott, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0029] and [0095]);
at least one motor (Fig. 3 of Abbott discloses one motor 150 – see Abbott, Fig. 3, paragraph [0092], lines 5-7);
at least one implement (Figs. 1 and 3 of Abbott discloses one implement (load, e.g. blade) which can be connected to motor via mechanism 108 – see Abbott, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraph [0091]);
at least on signal processor (Fig. 3 of Abbott discloses one signal processor 205 – see Abbott, Fig. 3, paragraph [0096]),
at least one electronic motor speed controller (Fig. 3 of Abbott discloses one electronic motor speed controller 265 – see Abbott, Fig. 3, paragraph [0099]);
a power switch (Figs. 1 and 3 of Abbott disclose a power switch 110/260, 262 – see Abbott, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraph [0092], lines 1-5 and [0095]);
a power source (Fig. 3 of Abbott discloses a power source 120/270 and/or 285– see Abbott, Fig. 3, paragraph [0100]);
at least one handle connected to a housing (Fig. 1 of Abbott discloses one handle 104 connected to a housing 102 – see Abbott, Fig. 1, paragraph [0092]);
the at least one handle allowing the user to control the attitude orientation of the device (Fig. 1 of Abbott discloses one handle 104 allowing the user to control the attitude orientation of the device 100 – see Abbott, Fig. 1);
the at least one accelerometer being mechanically connected to the at least one housing (Figs. 1 and 3 of Abbott discloses one accelerometer 250 being mechanically connected to the at least one housing of power tool 100 via fastener and/or lug nut – see Abbott, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs [0108] and [0145]);
the at least one accelerometer being electronically connected to the at least one signal processor (Fig. 3 of Abbott discloses one accelerometer being electronically connected to the at least one signal processor 205 – see Abbott, Fig. 3, paragraph [0095]);
the at least one electronic motor speed controller being electronically connected to the at least one motor, the at least one signal processor, and the power source (Fig. 3 of Abbott discloses one electronic motor speed controller 265 being electronically connected to the at least one motor 150, the at least one signal processor 200/205, and the power source 120/270 and/or 285 – see Abbott, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0099]);
the power switch activating the device being controlled (Fig. 3 of Abbott discloses the power switch 260, 262 activating the device 100 being controlled -- see Abbott, Fig. 3, paragraph [0098]-[0099]);
the power source being electrically connected to the at least one motor, the at least one signal processor, the at least one electronic motor speed controller, and the power switch (Fig. 3 of Abbott discloses the power source 120/270 and/or 285 being electrically connected to the at least one motor 150, the at least one signal processor 200/205, the at least one electronic motor speed controller265, and the power switch 260, 262 via power input unit 270 – see Abbott, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0099]-[0100]);
the at least one motor is mechanically coupled to the at least one implement (Figs. 1 and 3 of Abbott discloses the motor 150 which is mechanically coupled to the at least one implement via mechanism 108 – see Abbott, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs [0091]-[0092]); and
the at least one signal processor determines the commanded motor operating speed with a programmed schedule of motor operating speed verses accelerometer output (Fig. 3 of Abbott discloses one signal processor 200/205 which determines the commanded motor operating speed with a programmed schedule of motor operating speed verses accelerometer output – see Abbott, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0095]-[0097] and [0103]-[0105]).
For claim 2, Abbott discloses the accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the accelerometer output is the acceleration due to gravity along at least one axis of the device (see Abbott, paragraph [0105]).
For claim 3, Abbott discloses the accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the at least one implement comprising a motorized fan (Figs. 1 and 3 of Abbott discloses a power tool 300 which can be leaf blower 100/300 (see Abbott, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0003], [0008] and [0018]), wherein the leaf blower 100/300 comprises one implement 108 comprising a motorized fan – see Abbott, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraph [0028], lines 1-5).
For claim 5, Abbott in view of Dallas disclose the accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system as claimed in claim 3 wherein the schedule containing regions below a threshold of accelerometer output where the commanded motorized fan operating speed is a minimum value (see Abbott, Fig. 10, paragraphs [0140], [0146]-[0147] and [0192]).
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 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott et al. (hereinafter Abbott, US 2024/0217082 A1).
For claim 4, Abbott in view of Dallas disclose the accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system as claimed in claim 3, wherein the schedule of motor operating speed verses accelerometer output contains regions where the commanded motorized fan operating speed is proportionally changing with accelerometer output (Abbott in view of Dallas disclose all limitations as disclosed in claim 3. Abbott discloses the programmed schedule of motor operating speed verses accelerometer output which is silent for containing regions where the commanded motorized fan operating speed is proportionally changing with accelerometer output. However, Abbott’s controller 200, as shown in Fig. 3, receives input signal from accelerometer 250 to control speed of motor (see Abbott, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0103]-[0105]). Also, it is well-known in art that acceleration is the rate of change of velocity over time, meaning it describes how quickly an speed or direction (or both) changes; speeding up is positive acceleration, slowing down (deceleration) is negative acceleration, and constant speed with constant direction means zero acceleration, connecting them through change over time. Thus, Abbott obviously discloses motorized fan operating speed is proportionally changing with accelerometer output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Abbott to include the programmed schedule of motor operating speed verses accelerometer output which contains regions where the commanded motorized fan operating speed is proportionally changing with accelerometer output for purpose of controlling speed of motorized fan accurately via accelerometer).
For claim 6, Abbott discloses the accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system as claimed in claim 3 wherein the schedule containing a region above a threshold of accelerometer output where the commanded motorized fan operating speed is a maximum value (see Abbott, Fig. 3, paragraph [0140] and [0148]. It is noted that Abbott does not specifically disclose speed which is a maximum value. However, Abbott discloses “the acceleration vibrations and the rotation are both at peak values” (emphasis added), on paragraph [0148], last four lines, which means operating speed is a maximum value. Furthermore, the so-called “a maximum value” is undefined, any value of fastest speed can be defined as maximum value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include “speed is a maximum value” in Abbott’s system for purpose of gaining a decisive edge in performance).
For claim 7, Abbott discloses the accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system as claimed in claim 3 wherein the schedule containing hysteresis of commanded motorized fan operating speed versus accelerometer output (Abbott discloses all limitations as applied in claim 3 above. Abbott does not specific disclose the schedule containing hysteresis of commanded motorized fan operating speed versus accelerometer output. However, Fig. 3 of Abbott discloses controller 200 which receives input signal from accelerometer 250 to determine what speed for motor has been operated – see Abbott, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0103]-[0105]). Thus, Abbott obviously discloses the schedule containing hysteresis of commanded motorized fan operating speed versus accelerometer output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Abbott to include the schedule containing hysteresis of commanded motorized fan operating speed versus accelerometer output for purpose of controlling speed of motorized fan accurately via accelerometer).
For claim 8, Abbott in view of discloses the accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system as claimed in claim 3 wherein the programmed schedule of commanded motorized fan operating speed being an arbitrary function of accelerometer output (Abbott discloses all limitations as applied in claim 3 above. Abbott does not specific disclose the programmed schedule of commanded motorized fan operating speed being an arbitrary function of accelerometer output. However, Fig. 3 of Abbott discloses controller 200 which is configured to retrieve from the memory 225 and execute instructions based on input signals from accelerometer 250 to determine what speed for motor has been operated – see Abbott, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0097] and [0103]-[0105]). Thus, Abbott obviously discloses the programmed schedule of commanded motorized fan operating speed being an arbitrary function of accelerometer output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Abbott to include the programmed schedule of commanded motorized fan operating speed being an arbitrary function of accelerometer output for purpose of controlling speed of motorized fan accurately via accelerometer).
Claims 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott et al. (hereinafter Abbott, US 2024/0217082 A1) in view of Dallas et al. (hereinafter Dallas, US 2023/0275535 A1).
For claim 9, Abbott discloses the accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system as claimed in claim 2 wherein the least one implement comprising a plurality of motorized wheels (Abbott discloses a power tool which can be grinders (see Abbott, paragraph [0091]. Fig. 5 of Abbott discloses the grinders which are silent for including a plurality of motorized wheels. However, Dallas discloses power tools which are grinders, wherein the grinders comprise implements comprising of motorized wheels for grinding (Dallas discloses a power tool 100 which is grinder 100 – see Dallas, paragraphs [0027] and [0059], wherein the grinders comprise implements 108 comprising of motorized wheels – see Dallas, Fig. 1, paragraph [0018], [0044], [0057] and [0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Abbott’s power tool to comprise a motorized wheels as teaching of Dallas for purpose of performing specific functions and achieving better control).
For claim 10, Abbott in view of Dallas disclose the accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system as claimed in claim 9 wherein the accelerometer output being the acceleration due to gravity along at least one axis of the device (see Abbott, paragraph [0105]).
For claim 11, Abbott in view of Dallas disclose the accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system as claimed in claim 9, wherein the schedule of motor operating speed verses accelerometer output contains regions where the commanded motorized fan operating speed is proportionally changing with accelerometer output (Abbott in view of Dallas disclose all limitations as disclosed in claim 9. Abbott discloses the programmed schedule of motor operating speed verses accelerometer output which is silent for containing regions where the commanded motorized fan operating speed is proportionally changing with accelerometer output. However, Abbott’s controller 200, as shown in Fig. 3, receives input signal from accelerometer 250 to control speed of motor (see Abbott, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0103]-[0105]). Also, it is well-known in art that acceleration is the rate of change of velocity over time, meaning it describes how quickly an speed or direction (or both) changes; speeding up is positive acceleration, slowing down (deceleration) is negative acceleration, and constant speed with constant direction means zero acceleration, connecting them through change over time. Thus, Abbott obviously discloses motorized fan operating speed is proportionally changing with accelerometer output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Abbott to include the programmed schedule of motor operating speed verses accelerometer output which contains regions where the commanded motorized fan operating speed is proportionally changing with accelerometer output for purpose of controlling speed of motorized fan accurately via accelerometer).
For claim 12, Abbott in view of Dallas disclose the accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system as claimed in claim 9 wherein the schedule containing regions of accelerometer output where the commanded motorized wheel operating speed is a zero (Abbott discloses the programmed schedule of motor operating speed verses accelerometer output which is silent for containing regions of accelerometer output where the commanded motorized wheel operating speed is a zero. However, Abbott’s controller 200, as shown in Fig. 3, receives input signal from accelerometer 250 to control speed of motor (see Abbott, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0103]-[0105]). Also, it is well-known in art that acceleration is the rate of change of velocity over time, meaning it describes how quickly an speed or direction (or both) changes; speeding up is positive acceleration, slowing down (deceleration) is negative acceleration, and constant speed with constant direction means zero acceleration, connecting them through change over time. Thus, Abbott obviously discloses the schedule containing regions of accelerometer output where the commanded motorized wheel operating speed is a zero. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Abbott to include the schedule containing regions of accelerometer output where the commanded motorized wheel operating speed is a zero for purpose of controlling speed of motorized fan accurately via accelerometer).
For claim 13, Abbott in view of Dallas disclose the accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system as claimed in claim 9 wherein the schedule containing a regions of accelerometer output where the commanded motorized wheel operating speed is a maximum value resulting in motion of the device in the forward direction (see Abbott, Fig. 10, paragraph [0148]. It is noted that Abbott does not specifically disclose speed which is a maximum value. However, Abbott discloses “the acceleration vibrations and the rotation are both at peak values” (emphasis added), on paragraph [0148], last four lines, which means operating speed is a maximum value. Furthermore, the so-called “a maximum value” is undefined, any value of fastest speed can be defined as maximum value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include “speed is a maximum value” in Abbott’s system for purpose of gaining a decisive edge in performance).
For claim 14, Abbott in view of Dallas disclose the accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system as claimed in claim 9 wherein the schedule containing a regions of accelerometer output where the commanded motorized wheel operating speed is a maximum value resulting in motion of the device in the reverse direction (see Abbott, Fig. 10, paragraph [0148]. It is noted that Abbott does not specifically disclose speed which is a maximum value. However, Abbott discloses “the acceleration vibrations and the rotation are both at peak values” (emphasis added), on paragraph [0148], last four lines, which means operating speed is a maximum value. Furthermore, the so-called “a maximum value” is undefined, any value of fastest speed can be defined as maximum value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include “speed is a maximum value” in Abbott’s system for purpose of gaining a decisive edge in performance).
For claim 15, Abbott in view of Dallas disclose the accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system as claimed in claim 9 wherein the programmed schedule of commanded motorized wheel operating speed and direction of motion of the device being an arbitrary function of accelerometer output (Abbott in view of Dallas disclose all limitations as applied in claim 9 above. Abbott does not specific disclose the programmed schedule of commanded motorized wheel operating speed and direction of motion of the device being an arbitrary function of accelerometer output. However, Fig. 3 of Abbott discloses controller 200 which is configured to retrieve from the memory 225 and execute instructions based on input signals from accelerometer 250 to determine what speed and direction of motion for motor has been operated – see Abbott, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0097] and [0103]-[0105]). Thus, Abbott obviously discloses the programmed schedule of commanded motorized fan operating speed being an arbitrary function of accelerometer output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Abbott to include the programmed schedule of commanded motorized wheel operating speed and direction of motion of the device being an arbitrary function of accelerometer output for purpose of controlling speed and direction of motorized wheel accurately via accelerometer).
For claim 16, Abbott discloses all limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Abbott discloses the implement (see Abbott, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraph [0091]) which is silent to be two independently controlled motorized wheels. However, Dallas discloses an accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system which comprises the implement, wherein the implement being two independently controlled motorized wheels (Figs. 1-2 of Dallas disclose an accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system 100 which comprises the implement 108, wherein the implement being two independently controlled motorized wheels – see Dallas, paragraphs [0018], [0027]-[0028], [0044], lines 1-7, and [0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Abbott’s power tool to comprise a motorized wheels as teaching of Dallas for purpose of performing specific functions and achieving better control.
For claim 17, Abbott in view of Dallas disclose the accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system as claimed in claim 16 wherein the accelerometer output being the acceleration due to gravity along a longitudinal, a lateral and a vertical axis of the device (Figs 9A-9B of Abbott disclose the accelerometer output being the acceleration due to gravity along a longitudinal, a lateral and a vertical axis of the device – see Abbott, Figs. 9a-9B, paragraphs [0105] and [0144]-[0145]).
For claim 18, Abbott in view of Dallas disclose the accelerometer controlled rotating motor speed system as claimed in claim 17 wherein where the programmed schedule of commanded motorized wheel operating speed in the forward or reverse direction of motion of the device being an arbitrary function of accelerometer output along the longitudinal axis (see Abbott, Fig. 10, paragraph [0148]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-3852. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-3852.
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 at (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.
/THAI T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846