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 12/22/2025.
Claims 4-8 are added per the amendment.
Claims 1-8 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Rethinam et al. (US 2017/0012559 A1 and Rethinam hereinafter).
As to Claim 1, Rethinam in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-9 disclose a method for controlling commutation of a brushless DC (8) motor having a rotor, switching elements (6), and a position sensor (10), the method (see [0017] and [0026]) comprising:
activating one or more of the switching elements (The controller may be configured to receive inputs (e.g., hall sensor signals) from the plurality of sensors and generate an output or outputs based on the inputs from the plurality of sensors to control the plurality of electronic switches and the BLDC motor- see [0017]);
receiving signals from the position sensor respectively corresponding to transitions between first and second states of the position sensor, wherein the signals are used to indicate a position of the rotor (Fig.1 and 3 shows controller 2 receiving signals from the hall sensors 10 to determine rotor positions – see [0026] and [0033]- [0034]);
causing the one or more of the switching elements (A-, B+) to remain active when the position sensor fails (10C) (see [0065] and [0071] – [0072]); and
indicating a fault (constant LOW or constant HIGH) when a signal from the position sensor is not received within a predetermined amount of time (Upon the failure of one of the three hall sensors and during the three-hall sensor mode of controller 20, inputs 10 may no longer sufficient to detect the rotor position of BLDC motor 8 and apply the appropriate commutation pattern – see [0072] and also [0065], [0071]).
As to Claim 2, Rethinam disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising determining when the signal is not received within the predetermined amount of time (Upon the failure of one of the three hall sensors and during the three-hall sensor mode of controller 20, inputs 10 may no longer sufficient to detect the rotor position of BLDC motor 8 and apply the appropriate commutation pattern within the predetermined amount of time- see [0065] and [0071] – [0072]).
As to Claim 3, Rethinam disclose the method of claim 1, wherein indicating a fault includes activating an indicator when the position sensor fails (constant LOW or constant HIGH indicates the failure of a position sensor and upon the failure of one of the three hall sensors and during the three hall sensor mode of controller 20, inputs 10 may no longer sufficient to detect the rotor position of BLDC motor 8 and apply the appropriate commutation pattern within the predetermined amount of time- see [0065] and [0071] – [0072]).
As to Claim 4, Rethinam in its teachings as shown in Fig.1-9 disclose a method for controlling commutation of a brushless DC (8) motor having a rotor, switching elements (inverter 6 – [A-, A+; B-, B+; C-, C+]), and position sensors (10- [10A, 10B, 10C]), the method comprising:
when a first combination of the switching elements (inverter 6) is active and a first signal is not received from a first position sensor (10C) of the position sensors within a predetermined amount of time, causing the first combination of the switching elements to remain active until a second signal is received from a second position sensor (10A or 10B) of the position sensors (Upon the failure of one of the three hall sensors and during the three-hall sensor mode of controller 20 and the controller apply the appropriate commutation pattern within the predetermined amount of time- see [0063]-[0072], [0044] – [0054] and also Fig.4 and Fig.6).
As to Claim 5, Rethinam disclose the method of claim 4, further comprising causing a second combination of the switching elements to be active when the second signal is received (see mode 300 and [0044]).
As to Claim 6, Rethinam disclose the method of claim 4, further comprising determining the first position sensor has failed when the first signal is not received from the first position sensor within the predetermined amount of time (see Fig.6, 10C and also [0063]- [0072]).
As to Claim 7, Rethinam disclose the method of claim 6, indicating a fault when it is determined that the first position sensor has failed (constant LOW or constant HIGH indicates the failure of a position sensor and upon the failure of one of the three hall sensors and during the three hall sensor mode of controller 20 and apply the appropriate commutation pattern within the predetermined amount of time- see [0063]- [0072]).
As to Claim 8, Rethinam disclose the method of claim 7, wherein indicating the fault includes activating an indicator (constant LOW or constant HIGH indicates the failure of a position sensor- see [0071]).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
As to applicant’s argument “…The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as allegedly anticipated by U.S. Pat. Appln Pub. No. 2017/0012559 (Rethinam). Applicant traverses these rejections…Rethinam does not disclose causing the one or more of the switching elements to remain active when the position sensor fails, as claimed in independent claim 1; or when a first combination of the switching elements is active and a first signal is not received from a first position sensor of the position sensors within a predetermined amount of time, causing the first combination of the switching elements to remain active until a second signal is received from a second position sensor of the position sensors, as claimed in new independent claim 4. For at least these reasons, independent claims 1 and 4, and the claims respectively depending therefrom, are patentable over the cited references. Reconsideration is requested (Remarks 1-5)”
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, Rethinam clearly teaches what is broadly claimed by the applicant in which upon the failure of one of the three hall sensors and during the three-hall sensor mode of controller 20 and the controller apply the appropriate commutation pattern within the predetermined amount of time (see also [0063] – [0071]). Furthermore, Fig.6 is reproduced below (for applicant’s convenience) to show how the commutation pattern is carried when one sensor fails among the hall sensors (10A, 10B, 10C) and two hall sensors mode is carried out without affecting the operation or the generation of the driver outputs 5 based on outputs of 3 from controller 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
236
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hence, the claimed and argued limitations of independent claim 1 and 4 is anticipated by Rethinam and its respective dependent claims 2-3 and 5-8 remain rejected. In conclusion, applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 12/22/2025 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