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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment to the claims dated 1/14/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 3 was amended.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description:
115 designating a capacitor as seen in FIG. 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0216692 to Brown et al. (hereinafter Brown) in view of Japanese Patent No. 2020-129904 to Masuda et al. (hereinafter Masuda; provided by Applicant on 1/14/2025) and Japanese Patent No. 2001-28893 to Matsubara et al. (hereinafter Matsubara; provided by Applicant on 1/14/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches a power supply system (FIG. 1, 100) comprising:
a servo amplifier (FIG. 1, 110; Paragraph [0014]);
a power supply (Paragraph [0015]-[0016]);
a servo amplifier control circuit (FIG. 1, 105) being connected to the power supply and configured to control the servo amplifier (Paragraph [0014]);
a voltage comparison circuit (FIG. 2; 250, 255) configured to compare voltage output by the power supply with a predefined threshold value (Paragraph [0025]-[0026]).
Brown does not teach the power supply being configured to output voltage of at least two kinds of magnitude in a switchable manner;
switches configured to open and close an electric circuit between the power supply and the servo amplifier; and
a switch control circuit configured to control opening and closing of an electric circuit between the power supply and the servo amplifier by the switches, based on a comparison result by the voltage comparison circuit.
However, Masuda teaches a power supply FIG. 1, 10) configured to output voltage of at least two kinds of magnitude in a switchable manner (FIG. 1; 20, 60; Paragraph [0022]-[0023]) to a motor drive control system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power supply system of Brown with the teachings of Masuda to provide a switchable power supply to more efficiently provide power to different parts of the system.
Brown in view of Masuda does not teach switches configured to open and close an electric circuit between the power supply and the servo amplifier; and
a switch control circuit configured to control opening and closing of an electric circuit between the power supply and the servo amplifier by the switches, based on a comparison result by the voltage comparison circuit.
However, Matsubara teaches switches configured to open and close an electric circuit between the power supply (FIG. 2, E) and a motor amplifier (FIG. 2, 10); and
a switch control circuit (FIG. 2, 50) configured to control opening and closing of an electric circuit between the power supply and the amplifier by the switches, based on a comparison result by the voltage comparison circuit (Paragraph [0013]-[0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power supply system of Brown in view of Masuda with the teachings of Matsubara to provide switch control between the power supply and the amplifier to further protect the amplifier and the motor from overvoltage (Paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 2, Brown in view of Masuda and Matsubara teaches the power supply system according to claim 1, wherein Matsubara further teaches the switch control circuit controlling the switches in such a way as to open an electric circuit between the power supply and the servo amplifier when voltage output by the power supply is determined to be equal or less than the threshold value by the voltage comparison circuit (Paragraph [0013]-[0015]; [0017]) and controls the switches in such a way as to close an electric circuit between the power supply and the servo amplifier when voltage output by the power supply is determined to be greater than the threshold value by the voltage comparison circuit (Paragraph [0013]-[0015]; [0017]).
Regarding claim 3, Brown in view of Masuda and Matsubara teaches the power supply system according to claim 1, wherein Masuda further teaches the servo amplifier control circuit including a voltage conversion circuit configured to convert voltage input from the power supply into driving voltage for driving the servo amplifier control circuit (Paragraph [0036]-[0037]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA KIEL MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7:00pm ET.
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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/JOSHUA KIEL M RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights