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Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 July 2026.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krueger, US 2010/0223968 A1.
Claim 1: Krueger discloses a motor assembly comprising:
a housing (Fig. 4);
a motor (106) mounted to the housing ([0048]), the motor having an output shaft (motor shaft 108 with gear 110 form an output shaft) that is configured for movement between a first position and a second position ([0062]); and
a spring (200) that is directly or indirectly coupled to the shaft of the motor (the spring is indirectly coupled to the shaft) and configured to resist the movement of the output shaft between the first position and the second position ([0062] (“the drive motor must initially overcome the resistance of the bi-stable spring”));
a rotator (146) rotatably mounted within the housing () and coupled to the output shaft of the motor for rotation along with the output shaft ([0061]), wherein the spring is positioned to bear on the rotator and the housing to resist the rotation of the output shaft (shown in Fig. 27; [0058]); and
wherein the spring is configured to resist movement of the output shaft as the output shaft moves the rotator (i) from a first rotational position of the rotator toward a second rotational position of the rotator (movement from Fig. 27 to Fig. 28; [0062]), and (ii) from the second rotational position of the rotator toward the first rotational position of the rotator (movement from Fig. 28 to Fig. 27; [0067]).
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.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger, US 2010/0223968 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hudson et al., US 2017/0314643 A1.
Claim 5: Krueger discloses the motor assembly of claim 1, but is silent to a rotation stop configured to rotate between two stop surfaces disposed on the housing.
Hudson et al. teaches a rotator (36) includes a rotation stop (176, Fig. 9) that is configured to rotate between two stop surfaces disposed on the housing (Figs. 2-3 depict an arc with a stop surface 66 and a second stop surface corresponding the two side walls of the stop (Fig. 9); [0027]; [0056]), wherein one of the two stop surfaces corresponds to the second rotational position and the other of the two stop surfaces corresponds to the first rotational position ([0027]; Figs. 10-11).
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 method of operating a motor disclosed by Krueger so that the rotator of the motor includes a rotation stop that is configured to rotate between two stop surfaces disposed on the housing, as taught by Hudson et al., wherein one of the two stop surfaces corresponds to the second rotational position and the other corresponds to the first rotational position, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a bumper to reduce noise during operation (Hudson et al. [0027]).
Claim 7: Krueger, in view of Hudson et al., teaches the motor assembly of claim 5, further comprising a gear set attached to the output shaft of the motor (Krueger Fig. 5).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger, US 2010/0223968 A1, and Hudson et al., US 2017/0314643 A1, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Zhao et al., US 2014/0265991 A1.
Claim 6: Krueger, in view of Hudson et al., teaches the motor assembly of claim 5. Krueger, in view of Hudson et al., further teaches a controller coupled to the motor ([0062]), Krueger, in view of Hudson et al., is silent to a controller configured to deactivate the motor when a current drawn by the motor reaches a pre-determined percentage of a stall current of the motor.
Zhao et al. teaches a controller coupled to a motor ([0023]) and configured to deactivate the motor when a current drawn by the motor reaches a pre-determined percentage of a stall current of the motor ([0032] (the motor is stopped when the sensed current reaches a predetermined current that is less than a stall current, corresponding to the predetermined current being a pre-determined percentage of the stall current)).
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 assembly taught by Krueger, in view of Hudson et al., to configure the controller coupled to the motor to deactivate the motor when a current drawn by the motor reaches a pre-determined percentage of a stall current of the motor, as taught by Zhao et al., in order to monitor the motor and rotator position and prevent damage to the motor (Zhao [0031-32]).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian, CN 206917434 U, references to attached machine translation.
Claim 1: Qian discloses a motor assembly comprising:
a housing (1, 2);
a motor (51) mounted to the housing (Fig. 5), the motor having an output shaft (511) that is configured for movement between a first position and a second position ([0035]; [0037-38]); and
a spring (55) that is directly or indirectly coupled to the shaft of the motor (Fig. 7) and configured to resist the movement of the output shaft between the first position and the second position ([0036-37]);
a rotator (52) rotatably mounted within the housing (Fig. 4) and coupled to the output shaft of the motor for rotation along with the output shaft ([0036]), wherein the spring is positioned to bear on the rotator (Fig. 10 illustrates a leg of the spring bears on the rotator) to resist the rotation of the output shaft; and
wherein the spring is configured to resist movement of the output shaft ([0036]) as the output shaft moves the rotator (i) from a first rotational position of the rotator toward a second rotational position of the rotator ([0037]: the spring is configured to store energy when the output shaft rotates to move the rotator toward the second rotational position, correlating to resisting movement of the output shaft), and (ii) from the second rotational position of the rotator toward the first rotational position of the rotator ([0038]: the spring is configured to resist rotation of the output shaft during operation of the output shaft to move the rotator toward the first rotational position).
Qian does not explicitly disclose the spring is positioned to bear on the housing to resist the rotation of the output shaft. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a torsion spring (Qian [0038]) operates by forces applied to the legs. Qian discloses the rotator applies a force to one leg but is silent to a force applied to the other leg (Figs. 5-7 depict one leg on the rotator and one leg free). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the spring disclosed by Qian to bear on the housing for the spring to resist the rotation of the output shaft, as suggested by Qian ([0036]-[0038]), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2: Qian discloses the motor assembly of claim 1, wherein the spring is configured to resist movement of the output shaft in two different rotational directions as the output shaft moves the rotator (i) from the first rotational position of the rotator toward the second rotational position of the rotator ([0037] (counterclockwise)), and (ii) from the second rotational position of the rotator toward the first rotational position of the rotator ([0038] (clockwise)), thereby reducing the momentum of the rotator (by resisting movement of the output shaft, the spring is configured to reduce momentum of the rotator).
Claim 3: Qian teaches the motor assembly of claim 2, further comprising a controller that is coupled to the motor ([0034]) and configured to deactivate the motor when a current drawn by the motor reaches a pre-determined percentage of a stall current of the motor ([0036]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian, CN 206917434 U, references to attached machine translation, as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Garneau et al., US 7,455,335 B2.
Claim 4: Qian discloses the motor assembly of claim 2, however Qian is silent to a gear set attached to the output shaft of the motor.
Garneau et al. teaches a motor (69) having an output shaft (depicted in Fig. 17), and a gear set attached to the output shaft of the motor (col. 5 line 62-col. 6 line 3; Fig. 16). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motor assembly disclosed by Qian to further comprise a gear set attached to the output shaft of the motor, as taught by Garneau et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the needed torque and speed to operate the lock (Garneau et al., col. 2 lines 47-51, col. 3 lines 33-36).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krueger, US 2010/0223968 A1, in view of Zhao et al., US 2014/0265991 A1, and Hudson et al., US 2017/0314643 A1.
Claim 8: Krueger discloses a method of operating a motor (106) mounted to a housing (Fig. 4), the motor having an output shaft (motor shaft 108 with gear 110 form an output shaft) that is configured to move between a first position and a second position ([0062]) and a rotator (146) coupled to the output shaft for rotation along with the output shaft ([0061] (the rotator 146 is indirectly coupled to the output shaft and configured to be rotated by the output shaft), said method comprising:
operating the motor to move the output shaft between the first position and the second position ([0062]), thereby compressing a spring (200) that is configured to resist the movement of the output shaft between the first position and the second position ([0062] (“the drive motor must initially overcome the resistance of the bi-stable spring”), wherein the spring is positioned to bear on the rotator (shown in Fig. 27; [0058]) to resist the rotation of the output shaft as the output shaft moves the rotator (i) from a first rotational position of the rotator toward a second rotational position of the rotator (movement from Fig. 27 to Fig. 28; [0062]) and (ii) from the second rotational position of the rotator toward the first rotational position of the rotator (movement from Fig. 28 to Fig. 27; [0067]).
While Krueger teaches stopping the motor before stalling the motor ([0062]), Krueger is silent to monitoring a current drawn by the motor during the operating step and stopping the motor when the current drawn by the motor reaches a pre-determined percentage of a stall current of the motor.
Zhao et al. teaches a method comprising monitoring a current drawn by a motor during an operating step ([0032]); and stopping the motor when the current drawn by the motor reaches a pre-determined percentage of a stall current of the motor ([0032] (the motor is stopped when the sensed current reaches a predetermined current that is less than a stall current, corresponding to the predetermined current being a pre-determined percentage of the stall current)).
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 method disclosed by Krueger to include steps of monitoring a current drawn by the motor during the operating step and stopping the motor when the current drawn by the motor reaches a pre-determined percentage of a stall current of the motor, as taught by Zhao et al., in order to automatically control the motor and prevent damage to the motor (Zhao [0031-32]).
Krueger, in view of Zhao et al., is silent to the method of operating a motor that includes a rotator with a rotation stop configured to rotate between two stop surfaces disposed on the housing.
Hudson et al. teaches a rotator (36) includes a rotation stop (176, Fig. 9) that is configured to rotate between two stop surfaces disposed on the housing (Figs. 2-3 depict an arc with a stop surface 66 and a second stop surface corresponding the two side walls of the stop (Fig. 9); [0027]; [0056]), wherein one of the two stop surfaces corresponds to the second rotational position and the other of the two stop surfaces corresponds to the first rotational position ([0027]; Figs. 10-11).
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 method of operating a motor disclosed by Krueger, in view of Zhao et al., so that the rotator of the motor includes a rotation stop that is configured to rotate between two stop surfaces disposed on the housing, as taught by Hudson et al., wherein one of the two stop surfaces corresponds to the second rotational position and the other corresponds to the first rotational position, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a bumper to reduce noise during operation (Hudson et al. [0027]).
Claim 9: Krueger, in view of Zhao et al. and Hudson et al., teaches the method of claim 8. wherein the pre-determined percentage is 30 percent or more (Zhao et al. Fig. 9 depicts a stall current reaches 5.5, Fig. 10 depicts the motor is stopped when the current reaches a predetermined value that is 30 percent or more of the stall current).
Claim 10: Krueger, in view of Zhao et al. and Hudson et al., teaches the method of claim 8. However, Krueger, in view of Zhao et al. and Hudson et al. are silent to the pre-determined percentage being 90 percent or more.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method to include monitoring the current drawn and stopping the motor when the current drawn by the motor reaches a pre-determined percentage of 90 percent or more of the stall current, so as to achieve an optimal current for overcoming the spring bias without stalling (Krueger [0062]; Zhao et al. [0032]), since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Claim 11: Krueger, in view of Zhao et al. and Hudson et al., teaches the method of claim 8. However, Krueger, in view of Zhao et al. and Hudson et al. are silent to the pre-determined percentage being 95 percent or more.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method to include monitoring the current drawn and stopping the motor when the current drawn by the motor reaches a pre-determined percentage of 95 percent or more of the stall current, so as to achieve an optimal current for overcoming the spring bias before stalling (Krueger [0062]; Zhao et al. [0032]), since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nakasone (US 2018/0371795 A1) is related to an assembly comprising a motor driving a rotator with a stop member that abuts a side of a stop.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Gail Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/EGB/ Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights