DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The replacement drawings are approved.
Specification
The amendments to the abstract of the disclosure is approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 12-14, 16 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canada et al. (US 5,726,911) in view of Wurth et al. (US 6,361,281).
Regarding claim 1, Canada generally teach the invention of an electric motor 102 having a motor terminal box (monitor housing) 110 and a diagnostics-signaling unit (motor monitor) 100 at least partly located within the motor terminal box, the diagnostics-signaling unit comprising:
a diagnostics device (motor monitor) 100 that is configured to: determine an operating condition of the electric motor and provide an optical-output control signal indicative of the operating condition (i.e., monitor 100 senses, analyzes, stores and outputs various motor operating data; c.2:31-37);
an optical output unit (infrared communications port) 154 configured to receive the optical-output control signal and to provide an optical output signal according to the optical-output control signal (i.e., data and information is transmitted to and from monitor through communications port; c.9:30-39); and
an…optical element (inherent to IR communications port 154, which transmits data to and from monitor) configured to give off the optical output signal to an outside of the electric motor (c.9:30-39), wherein the…optical element is…located between a terminal box body 110a and a terminal box lid 110b of the motor terminal box 110 (Fig.4).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
487
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Canada does not teach the IR communications port 154 is a “transparent” optical element comprising a “transparent optical spacer element” between a terminal box body and a terminal box lid of the motor terminal box.
But, Wurth teaches a motor with contactless controller comprising an optical device comprising infrared device 28 for receives and transmits data and further including a transparent optical spacer element (transparent protective housing) 24 which covers and protects the optical device (c.2:33-65; Figs.2-3).
PNG
media_image3.png
316
363
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Canada with a transparent optical spacer element since Wurth teaches this would have covered and protected the infrared optical device.
Regarding claim 2, Canada teaches the optical output unit comprises a display unit (portable data collector) 362 that receives configured to receive the optical-output control signal and is configured to display, as the optical output signal, a visualization of the operating condition (c.12:5-20; Fig.6).
Regarding claim 3, both Canada and Wurth teach an optical output unit comprising a light-emitting device that is configured to emit an infrared light signal as the optical output signal.
Regarding claim 4, in the combination, the optical output unit comprises a light-emitting device that is configured to emit a human-perceivable light signal as the optical output signal (Wurth, c.4:8-9).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the diagnostics device is configured to provide the optical-output control signal such that information about the operating condition of the electric motor is encoded in a modulation pattern of the infrared light signal emitted by the light-emitting device (Canada c.9:30-39; Wurth c.3:30-c.4:4).
Regarding claim 9, in the combination, the transparent optical element is comprised within the terminal box body…of the motor terminal box.
Regarding claim 12, the transparent optical element of Wurth is an “optical aperture” [sic] (i.e., window section 42; Fig.4).
Regarding claim 13, the transparent optical element of Wurth is an “elongated strip” [sic] in the sense of window section 42 being elongated (Fig.4).
Regarding claim 14, while the combination including Wurth teaches only one optical element, providing plural optical elements would have been an obvious design choice. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Further, as with claim 6, the combination teaches the diagnostics device is configured to provide the optical-output control signal such that information about the operating condition of the electric motor is encoded in a modulation pattern of the infrared light signal emitted by the light-emitting device (Canada c.9:30-39; Wurth c.3:30-c.4:4).
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches the diagnostics device is configured to provide the optical-output control signal such that information about the operating condition of the electric motor is encoded in a modulation pattern of the infrared light signal emitted by the light-emitting device (Canada c.9:30-39; Wurth c.3:30-c.4:4).
Regarding claim 21, both Canada and Wurth teach an optical output unit comprising a light-emitting device that is configured to emit an infrared light signal as the optical output signal.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canada & Wurth as applied to claim 6, further in view of Lesher et al. (US 3,641,539).
Canada & Wurth teach encoding of the infrared modulation pattern, but not that a blinking pattern, per se.
But, Lesher teaches a remote monitoring system capable of monitoring the condition of an apparatus, generating signals indicative of that condition, and, at a remote location, providing signals indicative of the detected status, e.g., electric motors, including a controllable oscillator which produces a signal which may be pulsed or modulated to represent data to be sent to the base station (abstract; c.1:4-11). Lesher in particular teaches a blinking signal for an indicator signal to indicate working conditions (c.2:13-25).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Canada & Wurth with a blinking modulation pattern since Lesher teaches a blinking signal would have been desirable for indication of working conditions of a motor.
Claims 1-2 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US 9,360,017) in view of Heilman et al. (US 8,546,984).
Hansen teaches an electric motor 14 having a motor terminal (control) box 62 and a diagnostics-signaling unit (controller) 66 at least partly located within the motor terminal box 62, the diagnostics-signaling unit comprising:
a diagnostics device that is configured to:
determine an operating condition of the electric motor 14 (i.e., controller determines operating characteristics of pump 10 by measuring power, stator, rotor and heat energy; c.4:37-c.5:25); and provide an optical-output control signal indicative of the operating condition (i.e., controller sends one or more signals relating to the operating characteristics of the pump assembly and/or the flow characteristics of the fluid moved through the pump to optical display 70; c.5:36-47; c.6:5-25); and
an optical output unit (inherent to display 70 & numerical readout section 74 and indication section 76) configured to receive the optical-output control signal and to provide an optical output signal according to the optical-output control signal (c.5:36-47; c.6:5-25); and
a transparent optical element (numerical readout section/ indicator section) 74/76 configured to give off the optical output signal to an outside of the electric motor 14 (i.e., numerical readout section 74 displays one or more digits representative of an output and indicator section 76 that includes one or more indicators that relate to the numerical readout section; c.6:5-25; Fig.4).
PNG
media_image4.png
654
448
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Hansen does not specifically teach the transparent optical element 74/76 is “a transparent optical spacer element that is located between the terminal box body [62] and a terminal box lid of the motor terminal box.”
But, Heilman teaches a pump motor control including a motor terminal box (high/low voltage housings) 40/56 with a user interface comprising an LCD display 90/92 comprising a flexible membrane 98 with a transparent optical element that is a transparent optical spacer element (transparent window section/transparent filler plate) 100/108 located between the terminal box body 40/56 and a terminal box lid 116 (c.7:4-15; Figs.1,4 & 6-7). The transparent optical spacer element 100/108 eliminates air gaps along the underside of the display and reduces condensation (c.8:19-33) and the lid provides protection and further insulates the display against temperature differences and condensation buildup (c.9:15-55).
PNG
media_image5.png
464
672
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
595
833
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to provide Hansen’s transparent optical element with a transparent optical spacer element located between the terminal box body and a terminal box lid of the motor terminal box since Heilman teaches a transparent optical spacer element would have eliminated air gaps along the underside of the display and reduced condensation and the lid would have provided protection and further insulated the display against temperature differences and condensation buildup.
Regarding claim 2, in Hansen the optical output unit comprises a display unit configured to receive the optical-output control signal and to display, as the optical output signal, a visualization of the operating condition (i.e., numerical readout section 74 displays one or more digits representative of an output and indicator section 76 that includes one or more indicators that relate to the numerical readout section; c.6:5-25).
Regarding claim 4, in Hansen the optical output unit comprises a light-emitting device that is configured to emit a human-perceivable light signal as the optical output signal (intrinsic to Hansen’s visual display 70 that has one or more readout, screen or other display component for conveying information to the user; c.4:31-36; c.6:5-25).
Claims 3, 9-10 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen & Heilman as applied to claims 2 and 4, further in view of Mayhew et al. (US 6,894,452).
Hansen and Heilman teach the optical output unit comprises a light-emitting device (i.e., Hansen’s visual display 70 that has one or more readout, screen or other display component for conveying information to the user; c.4:31-36; c.6:5-25) but it is not configured to emit an infrared signal as the optical output signal.
But, Mayhew teaches a motor controller 16 including a remote configuration device (e.g., personal digital assistant/PDA) 18 with an LCD display 44 and a light-emitting device (infrared module) 60/62 configured to emit an infrared signal as the optical output signal (c.3:15-c.4:62 Figs.1-2). Use of infrared communications provides wireless communication with necessary voltage isolation with the PDA (c.4:8-30).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to configure the light-emitting device of Hansen and Heilman to emit an infrared signal as the optical output signal since Mayhew teaches this would have provided wireless communication with necessary voltage isolation.
Regarding claim 9, in the combination, in particular Heilman, the transparent optical element 100/108 is comprised within the terminal box body 40/56…of the motor terminal box.
Regarding claim 10, Hansen teaches a lid (display) 70 comprising the transparent optical element 74/76 (Fig.4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 15 & 17-20 are 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.
To the limited extent these features were searched for within the motor art, the prior art of record does not appear to further teach the particulars of the claimed electric motor terminal box and diagnostics-signaling unit including, inter alia,
“the light-emitting device is configured to emit light in a plurality of different colors, and the diagnostics device is configured to provide the optical-output control signal, such that information about the operating condition of the electric motor is encoded within the plurality of different colors of the human-perceivable light signal emitted by the light-emitting device” (claim 5); or
“wherein the electric motor includes a light-emitting tower that is mounted on a motor frame of the electric motor and that comprises the transparent optical element” (claim 15);
“the light-emitting device is configured to selectively emit light through any one of the plurality of transparent optical elements, and the diagnostics device is configured to provide the optical-output control signal such that information about the operating condition is encoded in a pattern related to through which optical element light is emitted” (claims 18-20).
These determinations are based on keyword and citation searches performed in a limited number of subclasses. Artificial intelligence search tools were employed. Nomenclature in the art is inconsistent. Keyword searches in the foreign art was limited to the text of the abstract. For these reasons, the scope of the search was necessarily truncated and relevant art classified outside the subclasses searched and/or using different terminology or keywords may not have been reviewed. See the Search Notes for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 9, 12-14, 16 & 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Canada et al. (US 5,726,911) in view of Wurth et al. (US 6,361,281)
Applicant argues it would not have been obvious to modify Canada with Wurth’s transparent optical spacer element because such a modification would have rendered Canada inoperable for its intended purpose, since Canada Fig.4 describes an O-ring 132 used to prevent intrusion of moisture and other contaminants at the interface of the flanges 134, 135, and incorporation of Wurth’s transparent optical spacer element would require inserting it between the flanges of Canada (Response, pp.6-7). This is not persuasive. Applicant provides no basis for his presumption that incorporation of Wurth’s transparent optical spacer element would require inserting it between the flanges of Canada. While one could construe Canada’s optical output unit/infrared communications port 154 to lie generally in a plane defined by the interface of the flanges, this does not mean Wurth’s transparent optical spacer element 24 would be located there. Further, even if it were, this would not render the O-ring of Canada inoperable, since Wurth’s transparent optical spacer element 24 is located entirely within the housing/end cap 14 and would not affect a housing interface. See Wurth Figs.1-2.
Applicant argues Canada’s upper housing 110b is transparent to IR and it would be functionally redundant to modify the structure with an additional transparent optical spacer element (Response, p.7). This is not persuasive. Wurth’s transparent optical spacer element (transparent protective housing) 24 covers and protects the optical device (c.2:33-65; Figs.2-3). This is a distinct function from that provided by the transparency of Canada’s housing, e.g., transmissibility of IR communications. There is no functional redundancy as Applicant asserts.
Rejection of claims 1-2 & 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hansen (US 9,360,017) in view of Heilman et al. (US 8,546,984)
As a preliminary matter, Applicant’s assumption that the Office equates Hansen’s user interface 68 with the “terminal box lid” of claim 1 is incorrect. As noted in the rejection, Hansen does not teach the transparent optical element 74/76 is “a transparent optical spacer element that is located between the terminal box body [62] and a terminal box lid of the motor terminal box.” As further noted, Heilman teaches a terminal box (high/low voltage housings) 40/56 including a terminal box lid 116 (Figs.1&6-7) which provides protection and further insulates the display against temperature differences and condensation buildup (c.9:15-55).
Applicant argues Hansen’s control box 62 does not correspond to the claimed “terminal box” on the basis that it is mounted to a front end 64 of stator housing 46 and is not “external to” the motor 14 (Response, pp.10-11). This is not persuasive for multiple reasons. First, the feature that the terminal box is not “external to” the motor in the sense Applicant alleges---i.e., on the basis of ¶[0030] of the specification’s teaching that the terminal box is an “enclosed housing that receives the power source connection lines of the external electric power source and the motor connection lines and where the external electric power source is electronically connected to the electric motor through the plurality of terminal connections”---is not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, even if construed in this manner, Hansen teaches the noted features. Hansen’s control/terminal box 62 is an “enclosed housing” in the sense that a “box” constitutes an “enclosed housing” and the control module’s controller 66 is described as being “received within the control box 62…” (c.3:52-53). Also, Hansen’s control/terminal box 62 is “external to” motor (stator) housing 46 by virtue of its being mounted to a front end 64 of the stator housing 46 (c.3:51-52; Fig.2), and the control/terminal box 62 receives power source connection lines (power cables) 18 from an external electric power source (c.2:53-56) and has motor connection lines (power connectors) 60 connecting control module 16 to power connectors 18 for transmission of power to stator 40 of the motor (c.3:36-50; Fig.2).
Applicant argues it would be redundant to modify Hansen’s transparent optical element (numerical readout section/ indicator section) 74/76 with a transparent optical spacer element per Heilman. This is not persuasive. Heilman’s transparent optical spacer element eliminates air gaps along the underside of the display and reduces condensation (c.8:19-33) and Heilman’s lid provides protection and further insulates the display against temperature differences and condensation buildup (c.9:15-55). These are distinct functions from those Hansen’s transparent optical element provides. There is no functional redundancy as Applicant asserts.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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, Tulsidas C Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/BURTON S MULLINS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights