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 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 1-17 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “a driver circuit connected to the open loop circuit and the closed loop circuit of the controller circuit, and connected to the detector circuit and the motor, wherein the driver circuit, according to the rotational speed of the motor that is detected by the detector circuit, selects one of the open loop rotational speed control command of the open loop circuit and the closed loop rotational speed control command of the closed loop circuit to output a driving signal to the motor” (emphasis added), on lines 9-15. It appears that the claim is misdescriptive, for example, Fig. 2 clearly show that the driver circuit is not connected to the open loop circuit and the closed loop circuit to select one of these circuits. Thus, for examination purposes and advance the prosecution of the present patent application, examiner has interpreted that “the driver circuit receives selected signal output from selector to drive the motor”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 2-17 are also rejected due to their dependencies on the base claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the open loop reference rotational command in the open loop control mode" (emphasis added) in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “the driver circuit determines that the detector circuit does not receive a motor rotational speed limit stop command from an external indication circuit” (emphasis added), on lines 2-4. It is not understood how the driver circuit can determine that the detector circuit does not receive a motor rotational speed limit stop command because the driver circuit only drives the motor based on control signals from controller circuit. Furthermore, this limitation “the driver circuit determines that the detector circuit does not receive a motor rotational speed limit stop command” (emphasis added) is considered as negative limitations that rendered the claims indefinite. This limitation is considered indefinite because the claim should define what an invention is, not what it lacks. See In re Schechter, 205 F.2d 185, 98 USPQ 144 (CCPA 1953).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 17, as beast understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (hereinafter Kelly, US 2021/0008688 A1) in view of Wen et al. (hereinafter Wen, US 2021/0119589 A1).
For claim 1, Kelly discloses a motor rotational speed limit circuit (Fig. 2 of Kelly discloses a motor rotational speed limit circuit 100 – see Kelly, Fig. 2, paragraphs [0004] and [0025]), comprising:
a controller circuit (Fig. 2 of Kelly discloses a motor speed limit selector 120, a micro-switch 158, a trigger assembly 160, motor controller 220 and other components 230 which altogether constitute a controller circuit – see Kelly, Fig. 2, paragraph [0025]-[0026]), including:
an open loop circuit configured to output an open loop rotational speed control command (Figs. 2-3 of Kelly disclose, a micro-switch 158, motor controller 220 and other components 230 which altogether constitute an open loop circuit configured to output an open loop rotational speed control command to field effect transistors (FETs) 205 – see Kelly, Figs. 2-3, paragraphs [0026] and [0029]-[0031] and [0032], lines 1-13); and
a closed loop circuit configured to output a closed loop rotational speed control command (Fig. 2 of Kelly discloses a motor controller 220 which is silent for disclosing specific closed loop circuit configured to output a closed loop rotational speed control command. It would have been obvious matter design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to include a closed loop circuit included inside the motor controller 220, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Besides, using closed loop circuit for operating the motor provides real-time feedback, allowing the controller to automatically adjust for load changes, disturbances, and component variations);
a detector circuit connected to a motor and configured to detect a rotational speed of the motor (Fig. 2 of Kelly discloses a detector circuit 215 connected to a motor 110 and configured to detect a rotational speed of the motor 110 – see Kelly, Fig. 2, paragraph [0025], lines 8-12); and
a driver circuit connected to the open loop circuit and the closed loop circuit of the controller circuit, and connected to the detector circuit and the motor, wherein the driver circuit, according to the rotational speed of the motor that is detected by the detector circuit, selects one of the open loop rotational speed control command of the open loop circuit and the closed loop rotational speed control command of the closed loop circuit to output a driving signal to the motor (Figs. 2-3 of Kelly disclose a driver circuit 205 connected to the open loop circuit and the closed loop circuit of the controller circuit, and connected to the detector circuit 215 via motor controller 220 and the motor 110, wherein the driver circuit 205, according to the rotational speed of the motor that is detected by the detector circuit 215, selects one of the open loop rotational speed control command of the open loop circuit and the closed loop rotational speed control command of the closed loop circuit to output a driving signal to the motor 110 – see Kelly, Figs. 2-3, paragraphs [0025]-[0026] and [0031]-[0032]).
For claim 4, Kelly discloses the motor rotational speed limit circuit according to claim 1, wherein the closed loop circuit outputs the closed loop rotational speed control command according to a closed loop reference rotational command from an external instruction circuit (Figs. 2-3 of Kelly disclose the closed loop circuit outputs the closed loop rotational speed control command to driver circuit 205 according to a closed loop reference rotational command from an external instruction circuit (160/162, 120) -- see Kelly, Figs. 2-3, paragraphs [0026] and [0032]-[0034]).
For claim 5, Kelly discloses the motor rotational speed limit circuit according to claim 1, wherein the open loop circuit outputs the open loop rotational speed control command according to an open loop reference rotational command from an external instruction circuit (Figs. 2-3 of Kelly disclose the open loop circuit outputs the open loop rotational speed control command according to an open loop reference rotational command from an external instruction circuit (160/162, 120) – see Kelly, Figs. 2-3, paragraphs [0025] and [0029]-[0031]).
For claim 17, Kelly discloses the motor rotational speed limit circuit according to claim 1, wherein, when the driver circuit determines that the detector circuit does not receive a motor rotational speed limit stop command from an external indication circuit, the driver circuit outputs the driving signal to the motor according to the open loop rotational speed control command (see Kelly, Figs. 2-3, paragraphs [0025] and [0029]-[0031]. It is noted that when the motor rotational speed limit circuit is in open loop mode, the driver circuit outputs the driving signal to the motor according to the open loop rotation speed control command even though the detector circuit, receives or does not receive a motor rotational speed limit stop command).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (hereinafter Kelly, US 2021/0008688 A1) in view of Wen et al. (hereinafter Wen, US 2021/0119589 A1).
For claim 2, Kelly discloses all limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Kelly discloses the motor rotational speed limit circuit which is silent for comprising:
a selector circuit connected between the controller circuit and the driver circuit, and connected to the detector circuit.
However, Wen discloses a circuit which is similar as Kelly’s circuit. Wen ‘s circuit also includes processing circuit, detector and a driving circuit (see Wen, Fig. 2, paragraph [0005]). Wen discloses the circuit which comprises:
a selector circuit connected between the controller circuit and the driver circuit, and connected to the detector circuit (Fig. 2 of Wen discloses a selector circuit (252, 254) connected between the controller circuit (120, 230) and the driver circuit (256, MP1, MN1, MP2, MN2), and connected to the detector circuit 140, wherein the selector circuit (252,254) – see Wen, Fig. 2, paragraphs [0018]-[0019]).
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 Kelly to incorporate teaching of Wen for purpose of optimizing for either high precision and stability (closed loop) or low cost and simplicity (open-loop) based on real time needs.
Kelly in view of Wen discloses the motor rotational speed limit circuit, according to the rotational speed of the motor that is detected by the detector circuit, selects one of the open loop rotational speed control command of the open loop circuit and the closed loop rotational speed control command of the closed loop circuit, and outputs the one of the open loop rotational speed control command and the closed loop rotational speed control command to the driver circuit (Fig. 2 of Kelly in view of Fig. 2 of Wen disclose, according to the rotational speed of Kelly’s motor 110 that is detected by Kelly’s detector circuit 215, selects one of the open loop rotational speed control command of the open loop circuit and the closed loop rotational speed control command of the closed loop circuit, and outputs the one of the open loop rotational speed control command and the closed loop rotational speed control command to Kelly’s driver circuit 205 – see Kelly, Fig. 2, paragraph [0025]-[0026] and see Wen, Fig. 2, paragraph [0019], lines 12-18).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al. (hereinafter Kelly, US 2021/0008688 A1) in view of Yates et al. (hereinafter Yates, US 2019/0201047 A1).
For claim 6, Kelly discloses all limitation as applied to claim 1 above. Kelly is silent for disclosing, before the detector circuit detects the motor, the motor rotational speed limit circuit enters an open loop control mode and the driver circuit outputs the driving signal to the motor according to the open loop reference rotational command in the open loop control mode. However, Fig. 17 of Yates discloses, before the detector circuit detects the motor, the motor rotational speed limit circuit enters an open loop control mode (see Yates, Fig. 17, paragraph [0454]). 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 Kelly to incorporate teaching of Yates for purpose of providing faster initial response due to the absence of feedback components.
Kelly in view of Yates disclose the driver circuit outputs the driving signal to the motor according to the open loop reference rotational command in the open loop control mode (Figs. 2-3 of Kelly disclose the driver circuit 205 which outputs the driving signal to the motor 110 according to the open loop reference rotational command from motor speed limit selector and/or trigger assembly 160 in the open loop control mode – see Kelly, Figs. 2-3, paragraphs [0025] and [0029]-[0031]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 7-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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
Prosecution Insights