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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains Figure 9a. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 27, 30 and 34 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 27, limitation “to reduce the excitation of a motor frequency producing the noise”, on lines 4-5, should be change to -- to reduce an excitation of a motor frequency producing the noise--.
For claim 30, limitation “Drum Column, Diameter, Depth”, on line 6, should be changed to -- Drum Column, Diameter, Depth, --.
For claim 34, limitation “control speed of the motor”, on line 5, should be changed to – a speed of the motor --.
For claim 34, limitation “to reduce the noise or vibration of the domestic appliance”, on lines 6-7, should be changed to – “to reduce a noise or vibration of the domestic appliance” --.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 13, 17-18, 24, 27 and 34 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitations are: “the controller is configured to obtain a motor control signal configured to control the speed of the motor, obtain a cancellation signal configured to reduce the noise or vibration of the domestic appliance, combine the motor control signal and the cancellation signal to form a combined signal, and apply the combined signal to the motor” (emphasis added), as recited in the claim 34. Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 34 have been treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “step” with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitations are: “obtaining a motor control signal configured to control the speed of the motor, obtaining a cancellation signal configured to reduce the noise or vibration of the domestic appliance, combining the motor control signal and the cancellation signal to form a combined signal, and applying the combined signal to the motor”, as recited in the claim 1; “identifying one or more frequencies of the domestic appliance; and calculating a cancellation signal dependent on the ore or more frequencies ”, as recited in claim 2; “Identifying one or more frequencies”, as recited in claim 3; “calculating, or selecting a harmonic of the electrical frequency”, as recited in claim 5; “monitoring a noise level”, as recited in claim 6; “driving the motor”, “measuring a noise”, and “identifying frequencies”, as recited in claim 7; “obtaining a phase of the cancellation signal, obtaining an amplitude of the cancellation signal, obtaining a frequency of the cancellation signal” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 10; “loading a store phase, testing one or more potential phases”, “testing one, or a range of, potential phases and selecting a phase”, “testing a range of phase “, “adjusting the phase based on feedback from the domestic appliance”, and “adjusting the phase based on sensor measurement”, as recited in claim 13; “calibrating a cancellation signal function”, “generating a cancellation signal”, as recited in claim 17; “Obtaining noise data” and “obtaining signal parameters”, as recited in claim 18; “obtaining a feedback signal” and “generating the cancellation signal”, as recited in claim 24; “identifying noise” and “calculating a cancellation signal”, as recited in claim 27; . Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 13, 17-18, 24, and 27 have been treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (See page 15, line 18 through page 16, line 2; page 18, lines 20-22 and page 19, lines 6-21and in conjunction with Figs. 6-9 and 15) as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitations " the step of obtaining a cancellation signal” (emphasis added) in lines 1-2 and “calculating a cancellation signal” in line 4. There are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3-8 and 30 are rejected due to dependencies to base claim 2.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “calculating a cancellation signal” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation " a cancellation signal” in lines 2 and 4. There are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation " a cancellation signal” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation " a cancellation signal” in lines 1-2. There isinsufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 17-20, 24, 27-28, 30 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 17-20, 24, 27-28, 30 and 34 are ineligible.
Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 34 is an apparatus and Claims 1-8, 10, 12-13, 17-20, 24, 27-28 and 30 are a method. The machine/apparatus and method involve multiple mental steps.
Step 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claims recite an apparatus (Claim 34) and a method (claims 1-8, 10, 12-13, 17-20, 24, 27-28 and 30). Thus, the claim 34 is machine and claims 1-8, 10, 12-13, 17-20, 24, 27-28 and 30 are process, which are one of statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception.
Limitations receiving data (i.e., “obtaining a motor control signal” and “obtaining a cancellation signal” of claim 1; “monitoring a noise level” of claim 6; “measuring a noise of the appliance” of claim 7; “obtaining a phase”, “obtaining an amplitude” and “obtaining a frequency” of claim 10; “obtaining noise data” of claim 18; “obtaining a feedback signal” of claim 24; and “obtaining a motor control signal” and “obtaining a cancellation signal” of claim 34) and performing mathematical calculations (i.e. “combining the motor control signal and the cancellation signal” of claim 1; “identifying one or more frequencies” and “calculating a cancellation signal” of claim 2; “identifying one or more frequencies” of claim 3; “calculating, or selecting, a harmonic of the electrical frequency” of claim 5; “identifying frequencies where noise levels are high relative to neighbouring frequencies” of claim 7; “identifying noise” and “calculating a cancellation signal” of claim 27; and “combine the motor control signal and the cancellation signal” of claim 34, are all mental steps as evident from the disclosure. The grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, and in fact specifically includes “mathematical relationships” and “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, these limitations recite a concept that falls into the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas.
These limitations also fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving algebraic equations in their minds using a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii) and (iii).
As explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 Update, in situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II), and October 2019 Update at Section I.B. Thus, for purposes of further discussion, this example considers these limitations as a single abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section Ill(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
Besides the abstract ideas, the claims recite the additional elements “controller”, in claim 34, which uses controller to perform the recited steps. The controller in the above steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. An evaluation of whether limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong Two analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well- understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not limitation is well- known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, these additional elements are recited so generically that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(d). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the short primary linear motor does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(l) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of using controller to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. A controller to no more than well-understood, routine or conventional which is notoriously well-known. Also, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Such as “as a function of the measured current”, etc.). The claims are not patent eligible.
Thus, claims 1-8, 10, 12, 17-20, 24, 27-28, 30 and 34 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodjohn et al. (hereinafter Goodjohn, US 11,174,875 B1).
For claim 1, Goodjohn discloses a method of reducing the noise of a domestic appliance comprising a motor (Figs. 1 and 3 of Goodjohn disclose a method of reducing the noise of a domestic appliance 100 comprising a motor 180 – see Goodjohn, Figs. 1 and 4, abstract, col. 1, lines 6-9 and col. 4, lines 63-65), the method comprising the steps of:
Obtaining a motor control signal configured to control the speed of the motor (see Goodjohn, Fig. 4, col. 5, line 58 through col. 6, line 27),
Obtaining a cancellation signal configured to reduce the noise of the domestic appliance (see Goodjohn, Figs. 3-4, steps 404, 406, col. 6, lines 28-58),
Combining the motor control signal and the cancellation signal to form a combined signal (see Goodjohn, Figs. 3-4, col. 6, lines 45-58) and
Applying the combined signal to the motor (see Goodjohn, Figs. 3-4, steps 408, 410, col. 6, line 59 through col. 7, line 47).
For claim 2, Goodjohn discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining a cancellation signal comprises the steps of:
identifying one or more frequencies of the domestic appliance (see Goodjohn, Figs. 3-4, abstract, col. 6, lines 28-44); and
calculating a cancellation signal dependent on the one or more frequencies (see Goodjohn, Figs. 3-4, col. 6, lines 45-65).
For claim 3, Goodjohn discloses the method as claimed in claim 2 wherein the step of identifying one or more frequencies comprises the step of:
Identifying one or more frequencies at each of one or more motor or load rotation speeds (see Goodjohn, Fig. 4, col. 6, lines 4-30 and 59-65).
For claim 6, Goodjohn discloses the method as claimed in claim 2 wherein the step of identifying the one or more frequencies comprises:
monitoring a noise level of the domestic appliance for a plurality of motor speeds (see Goodjohn, col. 6, lines 28-44).
Claims 1-2, 5, 10, 24, 27-28, 30 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaso et al. (hereinafter Takaso, JP 2008000501 A).
For claim 1, Takaso discloses a method of reducing the noise of a domestic appliance comprising a motor (Fig. 1 of Takaso disclose a method of reducing the noise of a domestic appliance 10 comprising a motor 12 – see Takaso, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0005] and [0046]), the method comprising the steps of:
Obtaining a motor control signal (Fig. 1 of Takaso discloses obtaining a motor control signal via speed detection means 30 and current detection means 40) configured to control the speed of the motor (see Takaso, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0047]),
Obtaining a cancellation signal configured to reduce the noise of the domestic appliance (Fig. 1 of Takaso discloses obtaining a cancellation signal via vibration control means 51 tto reduce the noise of the domestic appliance 10 -- see Takaso, Fig. 1, paragraph [0043] and [0048]),
Combining the motor control signal and the cancellation signal to form a combined signal (Fig. 1 of Takaso discloses combining the motor control signal from current control means 24 and the cancellation signal from vibration control means 51 to form a combined signal via adder 27 -- see Takaso, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0047]-[0048]) and
Applying the combined signal to the motor (Figs. 1-2 of Takaso discloses applying the combined signal to the motor 12 via control command means 25 and drive means 26 -- see Takaso, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
For claim 2, Takaso discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining a cancellation signal comprises the steps of:
identifying one or more frequencies of the domestic appliance (see Takaso, paragraph [0035]); and
Calculating a cancellation signal dependent on the one or more frequencies ((see Takaso, paragraph [0035])).
For claim 5, Takaso discloses the method as claimed in claim 2 wherein the step of calculating a cancellation signal comprises the step of:
calculating or selecting, a harmonic of the electrical frequency associated with each of the identified frequencies (see Takaso, paragraph [0038]).
For claim 10, Takaso discloses the method as claimed in claim 1 wherein the step of obtaining the cancellation signal comprises any one or more of:
Obtaining a phase of the cancellation signal (see Takaso, paragraphs [0033] and [0062]),
Obtaining an amplitude of the cancellation signal (see Takaso, paragraphs [0033] and [0062]),
Obtaining a frequency of the cancellation signal (see Takaso, paragraphs [0033] and [0062]).
For claim 24, Takaso discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining the cancellation signal comprises:
obtaining a feedback signal (Figs. 1-2 of Takaso disclose obtaining a feedback signal via speed detection means 30 and current detection means 40 – see Takaso, Figs. 1-2, paragraph [0047]) , and
Generating the cancellation signal based on the feedback signal (see Takasp, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0062]-[0063]).
For claim 27, Takaso discloses a method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining the cancellation signal comprises:
identifying noise produced by the domestic motor driven appliance (see Takaso, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0005], [0015], [0022] and [0025]), and
calculating a cancellation signal configured to reduce the excitation of a motor frequency producing the noise (see Takaso, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0024] and 0058]).
For claim 28, Takaso discloses a method as claimed in claim 27 wherein the step of calculating a cancellation signal comprises any one or more of:
A look-up table,
A look-up table linking undesirable noise parameters to cancellation signal parameters,
A look-up table linking motor parameters to cancellation signal parameters,
Minimising a feedback signal,
Minimising a sound feedback signal, and/or
Minimising a vibration feedback signal (see Takaso, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
For claim 30, Takaso discloses a method as claimed in claim 2 wherein the frequencies of the domestic appliance are determined from the domestic appliance characteristics (Fig. 1 of Takaso discloses the frequencies of the domestic appliance 10 which are determined from the domestic appliance characteristics (motor cogging) – see Takaso, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0022], [0024], [0026], and [0034]) the characteristics including any one or more of:
Motor dimensions,
Motor Cogging (see Takaso, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0022], [0024], [0026], and [0034]),
Drum Volume, Diameter, Depth
Fan Size,
Motor Type, and/or
Load Size, Load Type or Load Weight (see Takaso, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0080]).
For claim 34, Takaso discloses a domestic appliance (Fig. 1 of Takaso discloses a domestic appliance 10 -- see Takaso, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0005] and [0046]) comprising:
a load (Fig. 1 of Takaso discloses load “a washing tub” including the rotating drum 11 – see Takaso, Fig. 1, paragraph [0046]),
A motor configured to operate the load (Fig. 1 of Takaso discloses a motor configured to operate the load 11 -- see Takaso, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0001] and [0046]), and
A controller (Fig. 1 of Takaso discloses a controller 100 – see Takaso, Fig 1, paragraphs [0003], [0047] and [0049]) configured to:
Obtain a motor control signal configured to control the speed of the motor (same as explanation in claim 1 above),
Obtain a cancellation signal configured to reduce the noise or vibration of the domestic appliance (same as explanation in claim 1 above),
Combine the motor control signal and the cancellation signal to form a combined signal (same as explanation in claim 1 above), and
Apply the combined signal to the motor (same as explanation in claim 1 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodjohn et al. (hereinafter Goodjohn, US 11,174,875 B1).
For claim 4, Goodjohn discloses all limitation as applied to claim 2 above. Goodjohn discloses the cancellation signal which is not specifically configured to reduce the motor excitation which excites the identified one or more frequencies. However, Goodjohn discloses controlling the rotation speed of the fan motor according to a first control loop, as a field-oriented control to control speed and determine frequencies (see Goodjohn, col. 6, lines 4-30). It is well-known in art that the field-Oriented Control, also known as vector control which breaks into components: a torque-producing current and a flux-producing (excitation). Therefore, the examiner is taking Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Goodjohn’s cancellation signal to be configured to reduce the motor excitation which excites the identified one or more frequencies for purpose of improving voltage stability.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaso et al. (hereinafter Takaso, JP 2008000501 A).
For claim 12, Takaso discloses all limitation as applied in claim 10 above. Talaso discloses the amplitude of the cancellation signal (see Takaso, paragraphs [0033] and [0062]) which is silent to be specifically 2-5% of the amplitude of the motor control signal. However, Takaso discloses the amplitude of the cancellation signal which is estimated from the current and speed errors, wherein the current and speed errors are respectively calculated from target values and actual values of current and speed. Also, Takaso discloses reducing noise caused by motor rotation even when a large current is flowing at high speed (see Takaso, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0027] and [0032]-[00332]). All of these teaching of Takaso imply that the amplitude of the cancellation is very small amount compared to amplitude of the motor control signal. Furthermore, target current and target rotation speed are output from the controller (see Takaso, paragraphs [0049] and [0052]). Thus, amplitude of the cancellation signal can be obviously set to 2-5% of the amplitude of the motor control signal by Takaso’s controller. Therefore, the examiner is taking Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Takaso’s cancellation signal to be get amplitude to be 2-5% of the amplitude of the motor control signal for purpose of controlling noise of motor control system efficiently.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodjohn et al. (hereinafter Goodjohn, US 11,174,875 B1) in view of Kessler et al. (hereinafter Kessler, US 2012/0306421 A1).
For claim 7, Goodjohn discloses the method as claimed in claim 2 wherein the step of identifying one or more resonant frequencies comprises any one or more of the steps of:
driving the motor at a plurality of motor driving frequencies or speeds (see Takaso, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0047]-[0048]);
measuring a noise of the appliance at each of the plurality of frequencies or speeds (see Goodjohn, Figs. 3-4, col. 6, lines 45-65).
Goodjohn is silent for Identifying frequencies where noise levels are high relative to neighbouring frequencies.
However, Kessler discloses Identifying frequencies where noise levels are high relative to neighbouring frequencies (see Kessler, Figs. 2-3, paragraph [0035] and 0064]-[0065])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Goodjohn to incorporate teaching of Kessler for purpose of controlling motor control system efficiently.
For claim 8, Goodjohn discloses all limitations as applied to claim 2 above. Goodjohn discloses one or more frequencies which is silent to be a resonant frequency. However, Kessler disclose one or more frequencies which is a resonant frequency (see Kessler, Fig. 2, paragraph [0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Goodjohn to incorporate teaching of Kessler for purpose of increasing system speed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-3852. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-3852.
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.
/THAI T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Jun 27, 2026
