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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2024 and 12/19/2024 the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 1 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jellison et al. (US 2024/0424659) in view of Vanko et al. (US 8,476,853).
Regarding claim 1, Jellison teaches A manually operated motor-driven working device (see figures 1-2 and 3; and par. [0046], “FIG. 3 illustrates a block diagram 300 of the power tool 100, 400”) having a battery (fig. 3@ a battery pack interface 122)-powered electric motor (fig. 3@ a motor 200), the motor-driven working device comprising: a user-operated operating unit (fig. 1@ 115, and par. [0036], “a user to actuate the trigger 115 to variably control at least one parameter of the power tool 100”); and a motor control circuit (fig. 3@ controller 305; and par. [0046-0052]), the motor control circuit (305) comprising: a control unit (fig. 3@ 350 [a control unit 370]), configured to receive a motor operating signal from the operating unit and to generate a motor control signal on the basis thereof (see par. [0051-0057]), a motor function enabling unit (fig. 2@ PCB 210), configured to generate a motor function enable signal on the basis of a supplied enable control signal (see par. [0044], “The PCB 210 may include switching elements 345 (e.g., field-effect transistors 345) that are controlled by the electronic processor 350 to selectively provide power to coils of the motor 200 to allow operation thereof”).
However, Jellison does not explicitly teach a redundancy control circuit, implemented as a discrete electrical circuit and configured to receive the motor operating signal and the motor control signal and to generate the enable control signal on the basis thereof.
Vanko teaches a redundancy control circuit (fig. 1@ overspeed protection subsystem 20), implemented as a discrete electrical circuit and configured to receive the motor operating signal and the motor control signal and to generate the enable control signal on the basis thereof (see figure 1 and col. 3, lines 32-40 and col. 4, lines 35-58, “The overspeed protection subsystem 20 may operate independently from the motor control module 18, thereby providing a redundant safety feature. Alternatively, the overspeed protection subsystem 20 may operate cooperatively with the motor control module 18. For example, upon detecting an overspeed condition, the overspeed detection module 22 provides a disabling signal to the motor control module 18. In response to the disabling signal, the motor control module 18 opens the motor switch 16 and thereby discontinues motor operation, thereby providing an additional or alternative technique for disabling the power tool”).
Therefore, 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 Jellison with the teachings of Vanko by having a redundancy control circuit, implemented as a discrete electrical circuit and configured to receive the motor operating signal and the motor control signal and to generate the enable control signal on the basis thereof in order to prevents dangerous motor states (like unintended motion) even if the primary controller fails.
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches wherein the motor control circuit comprises a status information circuit path that is routed from an output side of the redundancy control circuit to an input side of the control unit (see figure 1; Abstract and col. 3, lines 32-40 and col. 4, lines 35-58; Vanko).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches wherein the working device is handheld garden (see Abstract, “a power tool having an electric motor”; Vanko).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 2 is allowed because the prior art of record taken alone or in combine fails to teach or fairly suggest “wherein the redundancy control circuit comprises: a comparator circuit section, the input side of which receives the motor operating signal; a threshold value circuit section, which is connected downstream of the comparator circuit section and receives an output signal of the comparator circuit section; and a logic circuit section, which receives the motor control signal and an output signal of the threshold value circuit section and delivers the enable control signal.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUAN LY whose telephone number is (571)272-9885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7492. 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.
/XUAN LY/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/ELIM ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights