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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is made of record. Due to the excessively lengthy Information Disclosure Statement submitted by applicant, the examiner has given only a cursory review of the listed references. Should applicant desire to call attention to a specific document(s) of importance, please do so at the next response.
As noted in the MPEP:
In accordance with MPEP 609.04(a), applicant is encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability. Applicant is required to comply with this statement for any non-English language documents. See 37 CFR § 1.56 Duty to Disclose Information Material to Patentability.
However, it is impractical for the examiner to review the references thoroughly with the number of references cited in this case. By initializing each of the cited references on the accompanying 1449 forms, the examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and merely indicating that only a cursory review has been made of the cited references. MPEP § 2004.13 states: It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp.948, 175 USPQ260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aft'd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (Sth Cir. 1973), cert, denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Further, it should be noted that an applicant's duty of disclosure of material and information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant material from which he is presumed to have been able, with his experience and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material], It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work." Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573 [220 USPQ 289] (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Patent applicant has a duty not just to disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such a way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art; see Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 USPQ2d 180i (N~D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1889, at 1899 (D.Del 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. etal., 175 USPQ 260, at 272 (S.D. FI. 1972).
Drawings
Figure 3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (“a traditional induction motor, namely, designs with only what is herein referred to as forward windings (12), and a reverse winding induction motor, namely, an induction motor that has both forward (12) and reverse (13) windings” ¶. [0063], Applicant specification). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 39- 49 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 39 recites the limitation “establishing a network of efficiently powered electrical devices” in the preamble; however, the body of the claim is directed to a motor including its conventional structure elements such as rotor, stator, and windings whether reverse or forward. It’s clear that the claim preamble is not in balance with the body of the claim. The preamble contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. Therefore, rendering claim 39 vague and unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers, thereby rendering the definition of the subject-matter of said claim unclear.
Claim 39 recites a method comprising the steps of providing a reverse winding…, rotor…, providing a forward winding…, and providing a source of electrical power…, and a set of functions to be performed by the recited elements (the reverse and forward winding and the rotor). However, the claim recites both motor elements (reverse/forward winding and the rotor) apparatus and steps of using those elements (controlling said reverse winding…, accelerating said rotor…, switching said forward winding…). Hence, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 39- 49 are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
The phrase “substantially directly applying a source voltage” in claim 48 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 39- 43 and 45- 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goche (WO 2012140495 A2).
Re. claim 39, Goche discloses a method of establishing a network of efficiently powered electrical devices (abstract) comprising the steps of:
providing a reverse winding electrical motor (Fig. 6) comprising: a rotor (rotor core which is the rotor shaft is axial), at least one forward winding, and at least one reverse winding (winding circuits 63,64,65,66,67,68);
providing a forward winding electrical reconfiguration switch (contactors 80- 82) to which said at least one forward winding is responsive capable of altering an electrical configuration of said at least one forward winding from a first electrical configuration to a second electrical configuration (Page 25, line 20);
providing a source of electrical power to said forward and reverse winding electrical motor (the power grid applied to 87);
start controlling said reverse winding electrical motor (“Energized Only for 5 Seconds at Start”);
firstly accelerating said rotor with action of said at least one forward winding in said first electrical configuration; switching said forward winding electrical reconfiguration switch to cause at least one forward winding to achieve a second electrical configuration; secondly accelerating said rotor with action of said at least one forward winding in said second electrical configuration; and thirdly accelerating said rotor with action of both said at least one forward winding and said at least one reverse winding (pages 18- 20, figure 12 shows the respective series start configuration and parallel running).
Re. Claim 40, Goche discloses a reverse winding electrical motor comprising multiple windings in a three phase configuration (Fig. 6 shows winding circuits 63,64,65,66,67,68 as three phases).
Re. Claim 41, Goche discloses reconfiguration switch to cause at least one forward winding to achieve a second electrical configuration comprises the step of differentially switching between an electrically reconfigurable star configuration start winding and an electrically reconfigurable delta configuration drive winding (figure 12 shows the respective series start configuration and parallel running.)
Re. Claim 42, Goche discloses switching said at least one forward winding to a delta configuration when a start is substantially complete (pages 18- 20, figure 12 shows the respective series start configuration and parallel running).
Re. claim 43, Goche discloses a timer for timing activation of said step of switching to a delta (or parallel) configuration (page 10, lines 13- 20).
Re. claims 45- 47, Goche discloses start controlling said reverse winding electrical motor comprises the step of passively establishing a limited amount of inrush current (claim 16 and Fig. 6 and page 18, lines 21-32).
Re. claim 48, Goche discloses directly applying a source voltage (Fig. 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
6. 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 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 44 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Goche (WO 2012140495 A2).
Re. claim 44, Goche discloses switching is performed via “contactors and timer” (page 19, line 4), however, it’s silence with regard to setting the timer to about twenty seconds after initiating a start operation. The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to set the timer toa predetermined period (20s) as necessitated by the specific requirements of the particular application because it would tune the motor to comply with predetermined design constraints; furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; also it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re. claim 49, Goche discloses start controlling said reverse winding electrical motor comprises the step of passively establishing a limited amount of inrush current (claim 16 and Fig. 6 and page 18, lines 21-32); however, it’s silence with regard to doing it such that the current ramps down utilizing at least partially a reverse winding effect. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention and within the routine practice in the lab to make the decrease the inrush current gradually since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAID BOUZIANE whose telephone number is (571)272-7592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-15:00.
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.
/SAID BOUZIANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846