DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The specification, the abstract and the drawings are all acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1-3, 10-13, 15-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 10,722,075 to Ottavi, and in view of USPN 6,583,591 to Echols.
As to claim 1, Ottavi teaches a coffee grinder, comprising: one or more blades(col. 1: line 47); a motor coupled to the one or more blades to drive rotation of the one or more blades;and a grind controller that receives a supply voltage; receives a grind setting corresponding to a particular particle distribution(col. 4: lines 35-52) and overall duration of a grind time of the supply voltage for activation of the motor based on the grind setting(col. 4: lines 28-34, col. 5: lines 17-25).
Ottavi does not teach an apparatus to control RMS voltage, duty cycle, activation pulse frequency wherein the controller generates, from the supply voltage, an adjusted voltage signal of a constant RMS voltage that is supplied to the motor during activation pulses occurring during the overall duration of the time to complete operation.
Echols teaches an apparatus to control RMS voltage, duty cycle, activation pulse frequency wherein the controller generates, from the supply voltage, an adjusted voltage signal of a constant RMS voltage that is supplied to the motor during activation pulses occurring during the overall duration of the time to complete operation(col. 3: lines 57 – col. 4: lines 10 & col. 5: lines 42-58).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Echols into Ottavi since Ottavi suggests a motor driven coffee grinder and Echols suggests the beneficial
use of a motor control system in the analogous art of motor control technology.
The motivation for this comes from the fact that Echols teaches a motor control system which can be used to improve the motor driven coffee grinder disclosed by Ottavi.
As to claims 2-3, Ottavi in view Echols teaches the PWM pulse timing controls for the coffee grinder motor control system(Echols col. 5: lines 42-58).
As to claim 10, Ottavi in view Echols teaches the coffee grinder of claim 1. It would obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the supply voltage to the grind controller through the power cord.
As to claim 11, Ottavi in view Echols teaches the coffee grinder of claim 1. It would obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the supply voltage to the grind controller through the power cord, plug connectors and outlets.
As to claim 12, Ottavi in view Echols teaches the coffee grinder of claim 1 which inherently comprising a grind chamber (Ottavi fig. 1: “30”) that confines particles on all sides.
As to claim 13, it is rejected as the same reason as claim 1.
As to claims 15-16, they are rejected as the same reason as claims 2-3.
As to claim 18, it is rejected as the same reason as claim 1.
5. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 10,722,075 to Ottavi in view of USPN 6,583,591 to Echols, and further in view of USPN 7,329,172 to Dieck.
As to claim 5, Ottavi in view Echols teaches the coffee grinder of claim 1.
Ottavi in view Echols does not teach an apparatus wherein the one or more blades are mounted to an axis of rotation wherein a plane of rotation of the one or more blades is perpendicular to the axis of rotation.
Dieck teaches an apparatus wherein the one or more blades are mounted to an axis of rotation wherein a plane of rotation of the one or more blades is perpendicular to the axis of rotation(col. 1: lines 14-17).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Dieck into Ottavi in view Echols since Ottavi in view Echols suggests a machine motor control system and Dieck suggests the beneficial use of blade mounting for a machine motor control system in the analogous art of motor control technology.
The motivation for this comes from the fact that Dieck teaches a blade mounting technique for a machine motor control system which can be used to improve the machine motor control system disclosed by Ottavi in view Echols.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 4, 6-9, 14, 17, 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claims 1, 13, 18, but could be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims for the following reasons: No prior art of record discloses the features as claimed in the noted claims.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The non-obvious features are:
In comparison with the closest prior art as cited in this Office action and any previous Office actions, no prior art of record discloses the following features as claimed in the following claim limitations:
As per claim 4: The grind controller controls the RMS voltage by delaying an amount of time from each zero crossing of the supply voltage before allowing the supply voltage to be output to a load.
As per claim 6: An AC zero crossing detector coupled to receive the supply voltage;
an AC voltage meter coupled to receive the supply voltage; a user interface controller coupled to receive the grind setting and an output of the AC voltage meter, the user interface controller creating an output correction comprising timing data and the activation pulses based on the output of the AC voltage meter and the grind setting; a pulse width controller coupled to receive the output correction from the user interface controller and a zero crossing signal of the AC zero crossing detector; and an AC switch coupled to receive the supply voltage and output the adjusted voltage signal under control of the pulse width controller.
As per claim 9: Create an output correction comprising the activation pulses and timing data based on the input voltage and the grind setting; and perform pulse width modulation of the supply voltage to output the adjusted voltage signal for the overall duration of the grind time according to the output correction such that for each activation of the motor caused by a corresponding activation pulse during the overall duration of the grind time, the adjusted voltage signal has the constant RMS voltage.
As per claim 14: Delaying an amount of time, as indicated by the timing data, from each zero crossing of the supply voltage before allowing the supply voltage to be output to a load.
As per claim 17: Performing a look-up of a corresponding RMS voltage Vrms for the grind setting and the specified duration of the grind time associated with the grind setting; and
calculating a time delay pulse width modulation timing by solving for a closest truncation time to a wave termination angle θt given in the following relation: 4π(VrmsVmax)2=2θt-sin(2θt) where Vmax is given by Vmax=(√2)×VL, where VL is a measured line voltage of the supply voltage.
As per claim 19: A pulse width controller coupled to receive the output correction from the user interface controller and a zero crossing signal of the AC zero crossing detector and
an AC switch coupled to receive the supply voltage and output the adjusted voltage signal during each activation pulse during the specified duration of the grind time under control of the pulse width controller.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPN 10,547,266 to Callerant discloses a motor control system.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID S LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5251. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-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, 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.
/DAVID LUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights