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 .
This action is in response to an amendment filed on 06/09/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 1-2, 4-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Saito et al. (US 2007/0098373 A1 and Saito hereinafter).
As to Claims 1, 8 and 15, Saito in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-6 disclose a motor system (see Fig.1)/start-up device for a DC motor (Fig.1 shows a DC motor 21 with the positive terminal connected to the Vcc and the negative terminal connected to the ground via 22)/a method for reducing DC motor start-up current (This invention relates to a direct-current (DC) motor drive unit capable of securely starting up the motor with suppressed startup current and running the motor at the speed in accord with an external speed instruction - see [0001]) , comprising:
a switching element (22) connected in series within a circuit comprising the DC motor (21) and a DC power (Vcc) supply (see [0031]); and
a control unit (11) configured to cause the switching element to periodically switch between an ON state and an OFF state in a predetermined time interval to reduce a peak value of a start-up current flowing through the DC motor (…Conditions for the first acceleration stage S1 are set in step S112 (for example, "acceleration time=T1 ms and the duty ratio of the PWM pulses=D1%"). The DC motor 21 is turned on and off (that is, the switching transistor 22 is turned on and off) in step S103 under this acceleration condition – see [0056] and see also the flowchart of Fig.2), and to cause the switching element to maintain the ON state after the predetermined time interval ends by constantly applying a signal to a control terminal of the switching element (…Thus, after the acceleration period, the DC motor 21 can be rotated at a low speed in accordance with speed instruction data Dsp no matter whether the speed instruction data Dsp gives 100% duty ratio as shown in FIG. 3… (steps S121-S122), the PWM duty generation means 13 and the PWM pulse generation means 14 generate PWM pulses having a duty ratio in accord with the speed instruction data Dsp to control on-off operation of the switching transistor 22. This makes the DC motor 21 to rotate at the speed in accord with the speed instruction data Dsp. Subsequently, the steps S101 to the stationary rotation step S121 via steps S102-S104 is repeated to keep the DC motor 21 in rotation…see [0062]- [0064]).
As to Claim 2 and 9, Saito disclose the start-up device according to claim 1 and the motor system according to claim 8, further comprising an overcurrent protection component coupled between the DC power supply and the DC motor (see [0001]).
As to Claim 4, 11, 16 and 17, Saito disclose the start-up device according to claim 1, the motor system according to claim 8, and the method according to claim 15, wherein the switching element is a metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor with a gate thereof coupled to the control unit, one of a source and a drain thereof coupled to the positive or negative terminal of the DC motor, and the other coupled to ground (see [0070]).
As to Claim 5 and 12, Saito disclose the start-up device according to claim 4 and the motor system according to claim 11, wherein the control unit causes the switching element to periodically switch between the ON state and the OFF state by applying a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal to the gate (see [0056]).
As to Claim 6, 13 and 18, Saito disclose the start-up device according to claim 5, the motor system according to claim 12 and the method according to claim 17, wherein a frequency of the pulse width modulation signal is set such that a value of the start-up current at the start of the predetermined time interval is smaller than a first threshold value (peak level Ip- see [0059] - [0060]).
As to Claim 7, 14 and 19, Saito disclose the start-up device according to claim 6, the motor system according to claim 13 and the method according to claim 18, wherein a length of the predetermined time interval is set to be greater than a second threshold value, so that the value of the start-up current at the start of the predetermined time interval is greater than a value when the switching element begins to maintain the ON state (See Fig.3 (b) and see also (…The level of the current I in the second acceleration stage S2 also remains a little higher than that of the stationary current level Ic of the DC motor 21, and decreases over a period from time t2 to t3…[0059]-[0060])).
As to Claim 20, Saito disclose a computer-readable storage medium, with instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor, enable the processor to perform the method according to claim 15 (see [0033] – [0036]).
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 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 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view Schmerda et al. (US 4,851,743 A and Schmerda hereinafter).
As to Claims 3 and 10, Saito disclose the start-up device according to claim 1 and the motor system according to Claim 8, however, it doesn’t explicitly disclose:
a capacitor connected between positive and negative terminals of the DC motor to absorb electromagnetic pulse components generated by the DC motor
Nonethless, Schmerda in its teachings as shown in Fig.1 disclose a capacitor C5 parallel with the motor which suppresses motor brush noise arising from commutation (see Col.5, Line 43-45).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious modification to include capacitor before the effective filing date of the instant application as thought by Schmerda within the teachings of Saito to suppress noise and voltage spikes to protect driver components from damage caused by rapid voltage spikes.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
As to applicant’s argument “…Applicant respectfully traverses the above rejection. Applicant respectfully submits that Saito does not anticipate all the claimed features as set forth in claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-20. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15
Amended independent claim 1 recites: "a control unit configured to cause the switching element to periodically switch between an ON state and an OFF state in a predetermined time interval to reduce a peak value of a start-up current flowing through the DC motor, and to cause the switching element to maintain the ON state after the predetermined time interval ends by constantly applying a signal to a control terminal of the switching element," which is not anticipated by Saito... Saito fails to describe that during stationary rotation stage (the alleged "ON state after the predetermined time interval"), the switching transistor (the alleged "switching element") maintains a continuous ON state by constantly applying a signal to a control terminal of the switching transistor, in a manner recited in amended independent claim 1…Saito fails to describe that during stationary rotation stage (the alleged "ON state after the predetermined time interval"), the switching transistor (the alleged "switching element") maintains a continuous ON state by constantly applying a signal to a control terminal of the switching transistor, in a manner recited in amended independent claim 1… The rejection of dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) should also be withdrawn by virtue of their dependency from respective amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and as well as for the features they recite individually…dependent claims 3 and 10 are allowable at least by virtue of their dependency on respective amended independent claims 1 and 8, and as well as for the features they recite individually. Accordingly, the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be withdrawn… (Remarks 5-8)”
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertion. The examiner would also like to emphasize that the claims are examined enlight of the specification using the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) as cited in the previous office action of record. In addition, in contrary to applicant’s argument, Saito clearly teaches what is broadly claimed by the applicant in which the steps S101 to the stationary rotation step S121 via steps S102-S104 is repeated to keep the DC motor 21 in rotation (see [0064]) and this reads on what is amended by constantly applying a signal to a control terminal of the switching element. In addition, it also known that switch’s function is either to be turned ON or OFF to keep the motor in rotation. Furthermore, it is also shown by the flow chart of Fig.2 (steps S121-S122), the PWM duty generation means 13 and the PWM pulse generation means 14 generate PWM pulses having a duty ratio in accord with the speed instruction data Dsp to control on-off operation of the switching transistor 22. This makes the DC motor 21 to rotate at the speed in accord with the speed instruction data Dsp. Hence, the claimed and argued limitations of independent claim 1, 8 and 15 are anticipated by Saito and its respective dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, and 16-20 remain rejected and Schmerda cures the deficiency of Saito in regards to claims 3 and 10. In conclusion, applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as shown above.
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 GABRIEL T AGARED whose telephone number is (571)270-1981. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 (Mon- Thur).
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.
/GABRIEL AGARED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights