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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 12th, 2026.
Claims 1-13 will be examined herein.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitations “a fan” and “a motor”; this renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether these limitations are 1) attempting to refer back to the previously recited “fan” and “motor” of Claim 1, or 2) introducing additional fan and motor elements altogether. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned. For examination purposes, the examiner has applied the first interpretation.
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, 8-10, & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 0538627 to Wolf (attached herein).
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figure 1, Wolf discloses:
1. A blower (10; Fig. 1; Abstract), comprising: a blower housing (windshield 20; Fig. 1; see also “bus” and/or “vehicle” at paras. 6-12); a motor (26) for driving a fan (24) disposed within the blower housing (paras. 6-12; Fig. 1); and a controller (42) disposed in the blower housing and electrically coupled to the motor for controlling a power output of the motor (Abstract; para. 32), the controller configured to perform a plurality of operations, the plurality of operations comprising: receiving a power setpoint (44), receiving a measured power (from multiplier 38), comparing the power setpoint and the measured power to obtain a power difference (paras. 32-39), generating a control signal (“automatically increases the voltage”; “compensates for the drop in power”; paras. 16-20, 39) based on the power difference (paras. 16-20 & 32-39), and adjusting the power output of the motor based on the control signal (“regulated power-supply circuit (32) is designed such that the blower motor (26) has a rated voltage which is less than the on-board power supply rated voltage (44)”; Abstract; “automatically increases the voltage”; paras. 16-20; “the constant control of the electrical power consumed according to the invention”; para. 11; “compensates for the drop in power”; para. 39)
In regards to Claim 8, the adjusting the power output of the motor includes adjusting a voltage output of the motor based on the control signal (paras. 16-20).
In regards to Claim 9, adjusting the power output of the motor includes adjusting a rotational speed of the fan (“speed control”; para. 25).
In regards to Claim 10, adjusting the rotational speed of the fan comprises: increasing the rotational speed of the fan if the measured power is less than the power setpoint; and decreasing the rotational speed of the fan if the measured power is greater than the power setpoint (i.e. the automated voltage/power/speed adjustment design at paras. 11, 16-20, 25, & 39, which clearly describes automated adjustment (increasing and decreasing) of the blower power, and thus, speed).
In regards to Claim 12, the controller is configured to maintain a constant power output (Abstract; paras. 11, 15-17).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (applied above) in view of US 2014/0265963 to Patton et al.
In regards to Claim 2, Wolf discloses the blower of claim 1, but does not further disclose that the plurality of operations further comprise applying a slew limit to the power setpoint received.
However, Patton et al. (Patton) discloses another blower/fan control system (Fig. 8) in which a fan is driven by an electric BLDC motor via PWM control (Abstract), wherein a slew rate of a voltage provided to the motor is slowed (i.e. limited), especially at low motor speeds, so as to ensure lower mechanical vibrations and acoustic noise in the fan motor (Abstract; paras. 4-7, 20-21). Figure 2B of Patton depicts various slew rate limits applied to the motor voltage so as to achieve the desired reductions in motor vibration and noise, and Patton makes clear that a slowed (i.e. limited) slew rate can be used to optimally reduce vibration/noise in a fan motor, especially at low speeds (paras. 30-40). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a blower having reduced acoustic noise and vibration at the fan motor, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Wolf in combination with those seen in Patton in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the input power setpoint and output control signal of Wolf with respective slew limiters in order to obtain predictable results; those results being slower input and output slew rates of the two power variables, and thus, reduced acoustic noise/vibration at the fan drive motor 26.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (applied above) in view of US 5,740,795 to Brydon.
In regards to Claims 3-4, Wolf discloses the blower of claim 1, wherein the receiving the measured power comprises: receiving a current output from the motor (“current sensor 36”; para. 32); receiving a voltage output from the motor (“voltage sensor 34”; para. 32); and multiplying the current output and the voltage output by the motor to obtain the measured power (“multiplier circuit 38”; para. 32). However, Wolf does not specifically disclose applying a low-pass filter to the current output to obtain a filtered current output, as claimed.
However, applying a low-pass filter to a measured current is vastly well known in the art of fan control systems, as shown by Brydon. In particular, Brydon discloses another fan control system (Fig. 1a) in which a fan (14) is driven by an electric motor (12) controlled by a motor power controller (18), wherein motor current is detected by a current sensor (24) and sent through a low-pass filter (28) (Fig. 1). Brydon makes clear that use of such a low-pass filter on the detected current removes high frequency electrical noise from the signal (col. 3, lines 39-50), thereby ensuring a higher quality current feedback signal. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a fan motor control system with improved feedback signal quality, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Brydon in combination with those seen in Wolf in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wolf’s current sensing circuit (34) with a low-pass filter (as taught in Brydon) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being improved feedback signal quality with reduced electrical noise, thereby improving Wolf’s motor control precision.
Claim(s) 3 & 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (applied above) in view of KR 20150063184 to Bae (attached herein).
In regards to Claims 3 & 5, Wolf discloses the blower of claim 3 (as described immediately above), but does not disclose applying an exponential moving average (EMA) filter to the current output to obtain a filtered current output, as claimed.
However, applying an EMA filter to a measured motor current is vastly well known in the art of motor control systems, as shown by Bae. In particular, Bae discloses a variable speed refrigeration system (Fig. 5; paras. 47-49) in which a compressor is driven by an electric motor that is speed/power controlled by a motor controller (“feedback controller”), wherein motor current is detected by a current sensor CT (“current transformer”; para. 48) and sent through an EMA filter (“an exponential moving average was performed using a smoothing filter”; para. 49). Bae makes clear that use of an EMA filter on detected current stabilizes the current signal (para. 49), thereby ensuring a higher quality feedback signal. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a fan motor control system with improved feedback signal quality, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Bae in combination with those seen in Wolf in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wolf’s current sensing circuit (34) with an EMA filter (as taught in Bae) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being improved feedback signal quality with improved stabilization, thereby improving Wolf’s motor control precision.
Claim(s) 6 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (applied above) in view of US 2002/0003381 to Nelson et al.
In regards to Claim 6, Wolf discloses the blower of claim 1, but does not disclose that the generating the control signal comprises: applying a gain to the power difference to obtain a first signal; integrating the power difference to obtain a second signal; and combining the first signal and the second signal to obtain the control signal. In regards to Claim 11, Wolf discloses the blower of claim 1, but does not disclose that the controller comprises a proportional and integral controller.
However, Nelson et al. (Nelson) discloses a speed-controlled fan system (Fig. 9; Abstract) in which a fan (25, 26) is driven by a BLDC motor (12) that is speed/power controlled by a motor controller (52, 62), wherein motor speed is controlled based on temperature feedback (paras. 45-47, 50). Nelson specifically discloses that a PID controller is utilized such that “fan speed is calculated based on the engine coolant temperature error (Tec), the derivative of the coolant temperature error (DTec) and the integral of the coolant temperature error (ITec), according to a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control scheme of a type generally known in the art. A signal is generated at block 92 to control the cooling fan to rotate at the calculated speed, and the algorithm is re-iterated as indicated by block 94” (para. 50). With reference to Figure 10b, Nelson discloses that the generating the control signal (92) comprises: applying a gain to the temperature difference to obtain a first signal (“the derivative of the coolant temperature error (DTec)” at para. 50, along with block 88 requiring full speed); integrating the temperature difference to obtain a second signal (“the integral of the coolant temperature error (ITec)”; para. 50); and combining the first signal and the second signal to obtain the control signal (at 92 of Fig. 10b; see also para. 50). Nelson makes clear that use of a PID controller allows the system to calculate a precise control signal for the fan motor based on first/second signals generated from the detected difference value (i.e. PID control scheme, which is well known for reducing overshoot, improving stability, and dampening rapid changes in the system). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a fan motor control system with reduced control signal overshoot, improved stability, and smoother changes in the system, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Nelson in combination with those seen in Wolf in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wolf’s power controller 40 with the PID control scheme (taught in Nelson) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being improved motor control with reduced overshoot, better stability, and smoother changes in motor speed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 & 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the best available prior art fails to disclose the blower of Claim 6, wherein the generating the control signal further comprises: controlling, via an output limiter, a voltage of the control signal; and controlling, via a slew limiter, a rate of change of the voltage of the control signal, as recited in Claim 7. The best available prior art also fails to disclose the blower of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of operations are a first plurality of operations; and the controller is further configured to: compare the measured power to a desired power range, and operate in a first mode if the measured power is within the desired power range, the first mode including a second plurality of operations, the second plurality of operations comprising: receiving a rotational speed setpoint of a fan of a motor, receiving a measured rotational speed of the fan of the motor, comparing the rotational speed setpoint to the measured rotational speed to obtain a rotational speed difference, and adjusting a rotational speed of the fan of the motor based on the rotational speed difference obtained; and operate in a second mode if the measured power is outside of the desired power range, the second mode including the first plurality of operations, as recited in Claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the attached PTO-892 form, which lists other similarly relevant prior art references not currently applied in this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC
Prosecution Insights