DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: Application filed on Oct. 14, 2024.
Claims 1-6 are presented for Examination. Claim 1 is independent.
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 .
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 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:"...wherein the control unit selects the plurality of main drive pulses such that a difference in energy between a plurality of main drive pulses in main drive pulses having a predetermined first energy or more is larger than a difference in energy between a plurality of main drive pulses in main drive pulses having an energy less than the first energy” which is indefinite because "Predetermined first energy" lacks sufficient clarity - the limitation is not adequately defined in the claim itself. While the specification provides examples (energy corresponding to between rank "4" and "5" in Fig. 6, or energy where pulse length is 3.5ms or more and 5.0ms or less), the claim does not incorporate these specific criteria, making it difficult for a person of ordinary skill to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Also in claim 1 , there is an ambiguous comparison comparing "a difference in energy between a plurality of main drive pulses in main drive pulses having a predetermined first energy or more" with "a difference in energy between a plurality of main drive pulses in main drive pulses having an energy less than the first energy" is convoluted and could be interpreted in multiple ways.
Examiner Note: Consider incorporating the specific definitions from dependent claims 2-3 into the independent claim, or clarifying the energy comparison with more precise language that aligns with the detailed description in the specification.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Since the independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and hence the dependent claims of 1 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 2020/0225621 A1) in view of Sakai (US 2020/0249630 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a stepping motor control circuit comprising: a rotation detection unit configured to detect, in a detection section for detecting a detection signal generated by rotation of a stepping motor, a rotation state of the stepping motor based on whether the detection signal exceeds a predetermined reference threshold voltage in a predetermined detection section ( [0039]-[0041], [0066] (where rotation detection circuit 113 executes rotation detection processing based on induced voltages exceeding reference threshold voltage Vcomp in first section T1, second section T2, and third section T3; see also Fig. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B showing detection signals exceeding threshold voltages in different sections); and
a control unit configured to drive and control the stepping motor with any one of a plurality of main drive pulses having different energies according to a detection result obtained by the rotation detection unit ([0027], [0037]-[0039], [0075]-[0077] (where control circuit 103 controls stepping motor 107 with main drive pulses of different energies based on rotation detection results; see also Fig. 6 showing flowchart of processing based on detection results))
While Yamamoto teaches adjusting drive pulse energy based on detection results and dividing detection sections into three parts [0049]-[0053], Yamamoto does not explicitly teach that the control unit selects the plurality of main drive pulses such that a difference in energy between a plurality of main drive pulses in main drive pulses having a predetermined first energy or more is larger than a difference in energy between a plurality of main drive pulses in main drive pulses having an energy less than the first energy.
But Sakai teaches concepts related to stepping motor control where different drive pulses have different energy characteristics based on rotor position and stability requirements. Sakai specifically teaches that drive pulses can have different energy characteristics based on the stable stationary position of the rotor (Fig.9 [0089]-[0090], [0118]-[0119] (where drive pulse P1 has stable stationary position at 90 degrees or less, and drive pulse P2 has stable stationary position at 90 degrees or more, with different application times/energies: "In the first embodiment, the application time (for example, 2.25 ms) of the drive pulse P2 is longer than the application time (for example, 0.75 ms) of the drive pulse P1")).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto's stepping motor control circuit to implement the energy difference selection as claimed, based on Sakai's teachings about different energy characteristics for drive pulses based on rotor position stability requirements. This modification would enhance the motor control circuit's ability to expand the drive range even when the number of selectable ranks of main drive pulses is limited, as recognized in Sakai [0006]-[0007], by providing larger energy differences for higher-energy pulses where needed for stable operation at critical positions. The combination would yield predictable results of improved stepping motor control with better responsiveness to varying load conditions.
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Yamamoto and Sakai teaches the stepping motor control circuit according to claim 1, but Yamamoto does not explicitly teach wherein the first energy is an energy of a main drive pulse that continues to act after a magnetic pole of a rotor passes a point where a magnetic potential of a stator is maximized and acts to attract the rotor to an end of a second quadrant.
Sakai teaches detailed concepts related to magnetic potential, rotor position, and quadrants in stepping motor control. Sakai discloses that the stepping motor includes a stator with specific magnetic pole portions and describes rotor behavior in different quadrants [0048]-[0054], [0061]-[0066] (where stator 20 includes first magnetic pole portion 20A, second magnetic pole portion 20B, and third magnetic pole portion 20C arranged around rotor 30; reference numeral g151 in Fig. 6 is described as "a line segment connecting the pair of notches 25a, and this angle is 0 degree" establishing reference positions; see also discussion of quadrants I-IV in paragraphs [0042]-[0043]).
Sakai further teaches that drive pulses can continue to act after the magnetic pole passes certain positions to maintain rotor position [0097]-[0099], [0105]-[0107] (where different drive pulses are applied to maintain rotor position through different quadrants). Specifically, Sakai describes how magnetic fields are generated to attract the rotor to specific positions even after passing initial detection points( [0064]-[0069], [0073]-[0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the "first energy" threshold as an energy level where the main drive pulse continues to act after the magnetic pole passes the point of maximum magnetic potential and attracts the rotor to the end of the second quadrant. This modification would provide reliable rotor positioning at critical transition points where the rotor is most susceptible to instability, particularly when moving between quadrants where magnetic forces change significantly. One skilled in the art would recognize that defining energy thresholds based on these critical magnetic transition points would optimize motor performance while maintaining efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Yamamoto and Sakai teaches the stepping motor control circuit according to claim 1, and Sakai further teaches wherein the first energy is an energy at which a main drive pulse having the first energy or more has a total length of 3.5 ms or more and 5.0 ms or less [0167]-[0168], [0199], [0230] (where Sakai explicitly states "In the first embodiment, the application time (for example, 2.25 ms) of the drive pulse P2 is longer than the application time (for example, 0.75 ms) of the drive pulse P1" and discusses timing requirements, with waiting periods being "approximately 0.5 ms to 2 ms"; see also discussion of pulse timing and durations throughout the reference).
Additionally, Yamamoto supports the use of specific timing thresholds for pulse control ([0044], [0068]-[0071] where Yamamoto discusses specific timing parameters for drive pulse application and detection signal evaluation).
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 claimed timing parameters (3.5 ms to 5.0 ms) for the first energy threshold pulses. This specific timing range represents an optimal balance between providing sufficient energy for reliable rotor movement while avoiding excessive power consumption. One skilled in the art would recognize that these timing parameters ensure the drive pulse continues to act after critical magnetic transition points while maintaining efficiency, particularly when combined with the quadrant-based control taught by Sakai.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Yamamoto and Sakai teaches the stepping motor control circuit according to claim 1, and Yamamoto further teaches wherein the control unit changes the main drive pulse to a main drive pulse having a small energy when the control unit determines that the rotation is rotation with reserved capacity in which the main drive pulse has a drive energy having a reserved capacity ([0059]-[0065], [0071, where Yamamoto describes rotation detection processing that determines rotation states based on induced voltage timing and magnitude, and specifically teaches: "when it is determined that the braking force is preferably small...the determination circuit 114 determines that the braking force is preferably small when the first induced voltage or the second induced voltage is output after the predetermined time" and "when the correction drive pulse is output, the timepiece 1 determines that the braking force applied to the rotor 202 is preferably small and executes the second rotation detection processing").
Yamamoto's teaching of adjusting drive characteristics based on rotation state with reserved capacity directly corresponds to the claimed limitation, where "rotation with reserved capacity" is equivalent to Yamamoto's conditions where additional braking force is not needed (rotation occurs after predetermined time or requires correction drive pulse).
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Yamamoto and Sakai teaches the stepping motor control circuit according to claim 1, and Yamamoto specifically teaches wherein the control unit divides the detection section, which starts immediately after drive with the main drive pulse, into a plurality of sections, which are three or more sections, and controls the main drive pulse according to a section in which the rotation detection unit detects a detection signal exceeding the reference threshold voltage ([0049]-[0053], [0065], where Yamamoto explicitly states: "the detection section is divided into three sections (the first section T1, the second section T2, and the third section T3)" and "the determination circuit 114 determines whether the braking force is preferably large or small...the detection control circuit 115 controls the main drive pulse according to a section in which the rotation detection unit detects a detection signal exceeding the reference threshold voltage"; see also Fig. 6 showing flowchart of processing based on which section detects the signal).
Yamamoto's detailed disclosure of three-section detection and corresponding control logic directly anticipates this claim limitation.
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Yamamoto and Sakai teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Yamamoto further discloses an analog electronic timepiece including a stepping motor configured to rotationally drive a time hand and a stepping motor control circuit configured to control the stepping motor, wherein the stepping motor control circuit implements the claimed control features ([0002]-[0004], [0025]-[0027] , where Yamamoto states "An embodiment of the present invention relates to a timepiece and a timepiece control method" and describes "a timepiece in which a pointer is rotated by using a stepping motor driven by a battery"; see also Fig. 1 showing the complete timepiece system with stepping motor 107 driving pointer 111).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8439. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 6:00pm.
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 on 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.
/MUHAMMAD S ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Prosecution Insights