DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 application 18773106 filed on 07/15/2024. Claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of foreign priority document, Application No. CN202310485223.0, filed in China on 05/04/2023, has been received.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 1, “The motor encoder” should read “A motor encoder”; in line 10, “and” after semicolon should be removed, being that the subsequent component is not the last component and there is another “and” in line 12..
In claim 14, line 1, “The operation method” should read “An operation method”
Appropriate correction is required.
Prior Art Rejections
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin (US Patent Pub. No. 2008/0158149 A1) in view of Kuras et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2004/0085034 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Levin teaches a motor encoder with a programmable and tactile feedback (Levin, Figs. 1 and 2 system providing virtual detent through vibrotactile feedback comprising actuator; Levin, [0046], actuator can be motor), wherein the motor encoder comprises:
a rotary knob (Levin, Fig. 4, rotary knob 400);
a motor for providing virtual stopping, virtual termination and virtual elastic loading when the knob is turned, and generating a tactile feedback and resistance in different events (Levin, [0046], actuator can be motor; Levin, [0040]-[0045], vibrotactile feedback to provide virtual detent; Levin, [0105]-[0113], virtual detent can include various profiles to simulate various acts, including a stop virtual detent);
a position sensor for providing position information when the knob is started and in a movement process (Levin, [0025], generate signal when sensor detect manipulation of input device; Levin, [0056]-[0060], rotary encoder to detect rotation of the knob);
a controller with a motor driver, wherein the controller is electrically connected with the motor and the position sensor respectively and used for obtaining a position feedback from the position sensor (Levin, Figs. 1 and 2, processor 106, 206; Levin, [0041], provide vibrotactile feedback based on signals received from the processor; Levin, Figs. 9A-9H, different vibrotactile feedback is provided in different position of the knob); and
an input interface electrically connected with the controller and used for inputting instruction information to the controller (Levin, [0044] and [0061], input device can also be a touch screen or touch pad).
Levin does not seem to explicitly teach the motor driver driving the motor to form closed-loop torque feedback control.
However, in a related art of controlling a motor, Kuras teaches a method of driving a motor to form closed-loop torque feedback control (Kuras, [0024], torque command in a closed loop control system).
Before the time of the first effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to control the motor in the system of Levin in a closed-loop torque feedback method as suggested by Kuras. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to increase useful life of the motor (Kuras, [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Levin in view of Kuras teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches the input interface is a button/key or a communication port capable of accepting external instructions (Levin, [0093], sensor can further include one that detect pressure on a touch pad, i.e., analogous to button).
Regarding claim 4, Levin teaches a motor encoder with a programmable and tactile feedback (Levin, Figs. 1 and 2 system providing virtual detent through vibrotactile feedback comprising actuator; Levin, [0046], actuator can be motor), wherein the motor encoder comprises:
a rotary knob (Levin, Fig. 4, rotary knob 400);
a motor for providing virtual stopping, virtual termination and virtual elastic loading when the knob is turned, and generating a tactile feedback and resistance in different events (Levin, [0046], actuator can be motor; Levin, [0040]-[0045], vibrotactile feedback to provide virtual detent; Levin, [0105]-[0113], virtual detent can include various profiles to simulate various acts, including a stop virtual detent);
a position sensor for providing position information when the knob is started and in a movement process (Levin, [0025], generate signal when sensor detect manipulation of input device; Levin, [0056]-[0060], rotary encoder to detect rotation of the knob);
a controller with a motor driver, wherein the controller is electrically connected with the motor and the position sensor respectively and used for obtaining a position feedback from the position sensor (Levin, Figs. 1 and 2, processor 106, 206; Levin, [0041], provide vibrotactile feedback based on signals received from the processor; Levin, Figs. 9A-9H, different vibrotactile feedback is provided in different position of the knob);
an input interface electrically connected with the controller and used for inputting instruction information to the controller (Levin, [0044] and [0061], input device can also be a touch screen or touch pad); and
a display output module electrically connected with the controller and used for displaying or outputting a state of the knob (Levin, Figs. 2 and 3, display 212 and graphical user interface display 304).
Levin does not seem to explicitly teach the motor driver driving the motor to form closed-loop torque feedback control.
However, in a related art of controlling a motor, Kuras teaches a method of driving a motor to form closed-loop torque feedback control (Kuras, [0024], torque command in a closed loop control system).
Before the time of the first effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to control the motor in the system of Levin in a closed-loop torque feedback method as suggested by Kuras. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to increase useful life of the motor (Kuras, [0003]).
Regarding claim 5, Levin in view of Kuras teaches the limitations of claim 4 and further teaches the display output module is a display screen, an LED indicator lamp or a communication port (Levin, Figs. 2 and 3, display 212 and graphical user interface display 304).
Regarding claim 6, Levin in view of Kuras teaches the limitations of claim 5 and further teaches the input interface is the display screen in the display output module (Levin, [0051], display can be a touch-sensitive display).
Regarding claim 7, Levin in view of Kuras teaches the limitations of claim 4 and further teaches the input interface is a button/key or a communication port capable of accepting external instructions (Levin, [0093], sensor can further include one that detect pressure on a touch pad, i.e., analogous to button).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin (US Patent Pub. No. 2008/0158149 A1) in view of Kuras et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2004/0085034 A1) and Kuge et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2025/0216945 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Levin in view of Kuras teaches the limitations of claim 1. Levin in view of Kuras does not seem to explicitly teach the motor is a brushless direct current motor or a stepping motor.
However, in a related art of utilizing motor to provide vibration feedback to a user of a rotary knob, Kuge teaches the use of a brushless direct current motor (Kuge, [0050], DC power for motor drive; Kuge, [0115], brushless motor).
Before the time of the first effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to ultilze a brushless direct current motor as suggested by Kuge in the system of Levin. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide a smooth rotation (Kuge, [0115]).
Regarding claim 8, Levin in view of Kuras teaches the limitations of claim 4. Levin in view of Kuras does not seem to explicitly teach the motor is a brushless direct current motor or a stepping motor.
However, in a related art of utilizing motor to provide vibration feedback to a user of a rotary knob, Kuge teaches the use of a brushless direct current motor (Kuge, [0050], DC power for motor drive; Kuge, [0115], brushless motor).
Before the time of the first effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to ultilze a brushless direct current motor as suggested by Kuge in the system of Levin. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide a smooth rotation (Kuge, [0115]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-18 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 and resolve the minor informality objection indicated above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, whether considered alone or in combination, fail to disclose the technical features of the claimed invention in context as a whole. The above cited prior art references Levin and Kuge teach similarly the use of motor to provide tactile/vibration feedback to a rotary knob (see above rejection for more detail). However, the specifics of the controlling of both torque and speed of the motor by electromagnetic control and the initializing of the orientation of the knob by aligning a mark on the nob with a mark on a machine panel, and causing the knob to be turned to a potion in the manner claimed as a whole, is not sufficiently taught or suggested in the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONG HUI LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm EST.
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, BENJAMIN C. LEE can be reached at (571)272-2963. 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.
/DONG HUI LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights