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 .
Claims 1-16 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. Refer to VAC0- in line 3 of claim 4. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 recites the limitation “the external connection” in line 3 of the claim. This appears to mean “an external connection”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 11, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ochsenbein et al. U.S. Patent Application 2010/0007301 (hereinafter “Ochsenbein”).
Regarding claim 1, Ochsenbein teaches a control device (1) (refer to fig.7) with integrated energy conditioning and integrated energy management (refer to abstract) for actuating an electrically operated and/or controlled actuator (2) (i.e. electric motor 28)(fig.7), the control device (1) comprising: a controller (4) (i.e. microcontroller 26 and ASIC 30)(fig.7) for generating an actuation signal for the actuator (2) (refer to MP bus 39)(fig.7)(refer also to [0052]); a connection (A-C) for connecting the control device (1) to an external electrical energy supply that provides a grid voltage (VAC0) (refer to 24VAC\DC)(fig.7); a circuit arrangement (8) for the conditioning, rectification and conversion of the grid voltage (VAC0) into a first intermediate circuit DC voltage (VCC1) (refer to energy converter 22)(fig.7)(refer also to abstract), wherein a level of the first intermediate circuit DC voltage (VCC1) is independent of a level of the grid voltage (VAC0) (refer to [0053]); and at least one electrical buffer store (7) (i.e. capacitive energy storage unit 20)(fig.7) for the first intermediate circuit DC voltage (VCC1) for buffering a power necessary for maintaining at least one further voltage (VCC2, VCC3), derived from the first intermediate circuit DC voltage, for supplying power to the controller (4) in the event of failure of the external electrical energy supply (refer to [0053])(refer also to VDD out)(fig.7) and for transferring the actuator (2) to a safe state, in an event of failure of the external electrical energy supply (refer to [0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Ochsenbein teaches the control device (1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first intermediate circuit DC voltage (VCC1) is adapted to be adjusted in principle as desired and independently of a value of the grid voltage (VAC0) (refer to [0053]).
Regarding claim 5, Ochsenbein teaches the control device (1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein a size of the buffer store (7) for the first intermediate circuit DC voltage (VCC1), with respect to a power that is buffer-stored or is adapted to be buffer-stored therein, corresponds at least to a maximum power required by the actuator (2) that is permissibly adapted to be connected to the control device (1) for transfer to a safe final position (refer to Abstract and [0053] and [0054]).
Regarding claim 6, Ochsenbein teaches the control device (1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one further derived voltage (VCC2, VCC3) (refer to VDD out)(fig.7) is derived from the first intermediate circuit DC voltage (VCC1) (refer to VCC)(fig.7), and the at least one further derived voltage (VCC2) provides a sequential energy supply in order to supply electrical power to one or more further components of the control device (1), including at least one of the controller (4), or internal and external communication interfaces (implicit)(refer to VDD in)(fig.7).
Regarding claim 7, Ochsenbein teaches the control device (1) as claimed in claim 6, wherein the at least one further derived voltage (VCC2, VCC3) is derived from the first intermediate circuit DC voltage (VCC1) and the at least one further voltage (VCC3) (refer to VCC, VDD out, and VDD in)(fig.7).
Regarding claim 11, Ochsenbein teaches the control device (1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one further derived voltage (VCC2) is a DC voltage (refer to [0070]), and the grid voltage (VAC0) is an AC voltage (refer to 24VAC/DC)(fig.7).
Regarding claim 14, Ochsenbein teaches the control device (1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein power is supplied or is adapted to be supplied to the controller (4) by the at least one further derived voltage (refer to [0053] and [0054]).
Regarding claim 16, Ochsenbein teaches the control device (1) as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: at least one sensor (6) (i.e. sensor circuit 42)(fig.7) configured to capture the grid voltage (VAC0) (refer to [0054]) and for detecting failure of the external electrical energy supply and for transmitting corresponding signals (S1) to the controller (4) (refer to [0054]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochsenbein.
Regarding claim 4, Ochsenbein teaches the control device (1) as claimed in claim 3; however, Ochsenbein does not teach wherein the first intermediate circuit DC voltage (VCC1) is adapted to be adjusted to a value greater than a peak value VAC0^ of the grid voltage (VAC0). However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the first intermediate circuit DC voltage (VCC1) is adapted to be adjusted to a value greater than a peak value VAC0^ of the grid voltage (VAC0), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ochsenbein to include wherein the first intermediate circuit DC voltage (VCC1) is adapted to be adjusted to a value greater than a peak value VAC0^ of the grid voltage (VAC0) to provide the advantage of supplying proper voltages to each component within the device.
Regarding claim 8, Ochsenbein teaches the control device (1) as claimed in claim 1; however, Ochsenbein does not teach wherein the at least one further derived voltage (VCC2) is lower than the first intermediate circuit DC voltage (VCC1) in terms of absolute value. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the at least one further derived voltage (VCC2) is lower than the first intermediate circuit DC voltage (VCC1) in terms of absolute value, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ochsenbein to provide the advantage of supplying proper voltages to each component within the device.
Regarding claim 9, Ochsenbein teaches the control device (1) as claimed in claim 6; however, Ochsenbein does not teach wherein the grid voltage is 110-230 V AC, the intermediate circuit DC voltage (VCC1) is 380 V DC, the at least one further derived voltage (VCC2) is 24 V DC. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the grid voltage is 110-230 V AC, the intermediate circuit DC voltage (VCC1) is 380 V DC, the at least one further derived voltage (VCC2) is 24 V DC, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ochsenbein to include wherein the grid voltage is 110-230 V AC, the intermediate circuit DC voltage (VCC1) is 380 V DC, the at least one further derived voltage (VCC2) is 24 V DC to provide the advantage of supplying proper voltages to each component within the device.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochsenbein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Augesky et al. U.S. Patent Application 2014/0346870 (hereinafter “Augesky”).
Regarding claim 2, Ochsenbein teaches the control device (1) as claimed in claim 1; however, Ochsenbein does not teach wherein the circuit arrangement (8) for the conditioning, rectification and conversion of the grid voltage comprises a power factor correction filter comprising a step-up converter or a PFC input stage (5). However, Augesky teaches wherein the circuit arrangement (8) for the conditioning, rectification and conversion of the grid voltage comprises a power factor correction filter (i.e. active PFC circuit 12)(fig.5) comprising a step-up converter or a PFC input stage (5) (implicit). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Ochsenbein to include the PFC filter of Augesky to provide the advantage of minimizing harmonics which could affect operation of the actuator (refer to Augesky [0044]).
Regarding claim 10, Ochsenbein teaches the control device (1) as claimed in claim 9; however, Ochsenbein does not teach wherein the at least one further derived voltage includes additionally derived voltages (VCC3) that are 5 V DC and 3.3 V DC. However, Augesky teaches wherein the at least one further derived voltage includes additionally derived voltages (VCC3) (refer to output switching controllers 91-9n)(fig.5). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ochsenbein to include the additionally derived voltages of Augesky to provide the advantage of conditioning the voltage supply to a plurality of different components within the system so as to properly power each component of the entire system with its proper voltage. However, Ochsenbein and Augesky do not teach the additionally derived voltages are 5 V DC and 3.3 V DC. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the additionally derived voltage be 5 V DC and 3.3 V DC, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ochsenbein and Augesky to include the additionally derived voltages being 5 V DC and 3.3 V DC to provide the advantage of supplying proper voltages to each component within the device.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochsenbein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Unsin et al. U.S. Patent Application 2015/0053514 (hereinafter “Unsin”).
Regarding claim 12, Ochsenbein teaches the control device (1) as claimed in claim 1; however, Ochsenbein does not teach the control device further comprising at least one external connection (N, O); and the at least one further derived voltage (VCC2) is applied to the external connection (N, O) in order for the at least one further derived voltage to be captured by an external superordinate controller (3) or to supply electrical energy to external components; or the external connection (N, O) is used as an external voltage input for externally supplying this voltage (VCC2) to the control device (1). However, Unsin teaches the control device further comprising at least one external connection (N, O) (i.e. output connections 60a, 60b, and 60c)(fig.1); and the at least one further derived voltage (VCC2) is applied to the external connection (N, O) in order for the at least one further derived voltage to be captured by an external superordinate controller (3) (i.e. control system 14)(fig.1)(refer also to [0059]) or to supply electrical energy to external components; or the external connection (N, O) is used as an external voltage input for externally supplying this voltage (VCC2) to the control device (1) (refer to [0059]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify device of Ochsenbein to include the external connections of Unsin to provide the advantage of communicating with an external controller to ensure correct operation of the actuator.
Regarding claim 13, Ochsenbein teaches the control device (1) as claimed in claim 1; however, Ochsenbein does not teach wherein the at least one further derived voltage (VCC2) or at least one additionally derived voltage (VCC2) is applied to the external connection (N, O) in order for the at least one further derived voltage to be captured by an external superordinate controller (3) or to supply electrical energy to external components or at least one optionally additionally derived voltage (VCC2). However, Unsin teaches wherein the at least one further derived voltage (VCC2) or at least one additionally derived voltage (VCC2) is applied to the external connection (N, O) (i.e. output connections 60a, 60b, and 60c)(fig.1) in order for the at least one further derived voltage to be captured by an external superordinate controller (3) (i.e. control system 14)(fig.1)(refer also to [0059]) or to supply electrical energy to external components or at least one optionally additionally derived voltage (VCC2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ochsenbein to include the external connections and components of Unsin to provide the advantage of communicating with an external controller to ensure correct operation of the actuator.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochsenbein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakamura et al. U.S. Patent Application 2021/0041035 (hereinafter “Sakamura”).
Regarding claim 15, Ochsenbein teaches the control device (1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein power is supplied or is adapted to be supplied to the controller (4) by an optionally additionally derived voltage (VCC3) or by an external supply at an external connection (N, O) of the control device (refer to controlling power supply 24)(fig.1)(refer also to [0019]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ochsenbein to include the external supply of Sakamura to provide the advantage of providing redundant power to ensure operation of the safety features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J COMBER whose telephone number is (571)272-6133. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Thienvu V. Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/KEVIN J COMBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights