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 .
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamado JP 11-270365 (see IDS with translation).
In Re 1, Kamado teaches A control device for an electronic control throttle (title abstract) that drives a motor (19 fig 1) to control a throttle opening of a throttle valve (5a fig 1) against a spring reaction force of a return spring (valve return spring 48 figs 2-3, paras 25-27),
wherein power saving control is performed to reduce a motor drive DUTY (“control DUTY” and or I, Ioffset paras 70-71, “the stability of the actual throttle opening degree TA can be significantly improved by setting the generated torque in consideration of the static friction”) of the motor by an amount corresponding to a friction torque (ITf) that is a static friction of the throttle valve (S208 fig 8 “S208, the predetermined current ITf corresponding to the frictional torque Tf is subtracted from the previous offset current Ioffset to obtain the current offset current !offset as the reset of the frictional torque”) in a case where the throttle valve is held at a predetermined throttle opening and is in a stationary state (S206 YES fig 8, paras 47-48)(paras 1-5,15,22,27,47,69,70, figs 1-4,8)(at least all figs and paras).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamado JP 11-270365 (see IDS with translation) in view of Ishida et al JP 10-238382 (see IDS with translation) and Hoshino et al US 2003/0226542.
In Re 2, Koichi teaches
that determines that the throttle valve is in the stationary state for matching an actual throttle opening with a target throttle opening in a case where the target throttle opening of the throttle valve is fixed (S206) and a deviation between the target throttle opening and the actual throttle opening of the throttle valve (para 47); and
a stop DUTY computation unit that computes a motor drive DUTY by subtracting a motor drive DUTY (prescribed current value ITf) corresponding to the friction torque (motor drive including the previous offset current value Ioffset) from an value of a motor drive DUTY before the feedback control is stopped in a case where the feedback control stop determination unit determines to stop the feedback control (motor drive DUTY including the current offset current value Ioffset).
Kamado does not teach although Ishida teaches that determines that the throttle valve is in the stationary state, in a case where the target throttle opening of the throttle valve is fixed and a deviation between the target throttle opening and the actual throttle opening of the throttle valve is held at a predetermined value or less (paras 20,24-26, figs 2-4) for a predetermined time (S2 yes fig 4, para 26 40 milliseconds); an average value (abstract average, throughout written description). Ishida further teaches constant throttle response with inclusion of variation due to frictional resistance para 6. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Ishida’s throttle control with deviation/variation to Kamado’s controller to attain constant throttle response.
Kamodo does not teach although Hoshino teaches a feedback control stop determination unit that determines that the throttle valve is in the stationary state and determines to stop feedback control for matching an actual throttle opening with a target throttle opening in a case where the target throttle opening of the throttle valve is fixed (“fixed” para 71), and determines to stop feedback control (figs 10,12, para 71), when the feedback control is stopped (figs 10,12,para 71). Hoshino further teaches preventing undesirable hunting when fixed (para 71). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Hoshino’s fixed stop feedback control to Kamodo’s valve control to prevent undesirable hunting.
In Re 3, Kamodo in view of Ishida and Hoshino teaches
wherein the control device comprises a feedback control amount computation unit that computes a feedback control amount for matching the actual throttle opening with the target throttle opening (see Kamodo as modified by Hoshino in re 2 above), and
in a case where the feedback control stop determination unit determines to resume the feedback control in a stopped state, the feedback control amount computation unit sets the average value (see Kamodo as modified by Ishida’s average value) of the motor drive DUTY before (temporally the control calculation needs to be calculated before actualization, Ishida figs 6-8, Hoshino figs 5-12) the feedback control is stopped as an initial DUTY value for feedback resumption.
In Re 7, Kamado in view of Ishida teaches
in a case where an output request amount (Ishida required opening degree RA, paras 20-26) from a host system controller (Ishida construed as determination unit 30, fig 2 30 commanding controller 1) is constant (Ishida matching for 40 ms or more), it is determined that the throttle valve is held at a predetermined throttle opening and is in the stationary state (Ishida S2 fig 4 yes).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamado JP 11-270365 (see IDS with translation) in view of Ishida et al JP 10-238382 (see IDS with translation) and Hoshino et al US 2003/0226542 and Kishi et al US 2005/0161022.
In Re 4, Kamado does not teach although Kishi teaches the feedback control amount computation unit changes the motor drive DUTY such that the actual throttle opening of the throttle valve is increased or decreased based on the target throttle opening (paras 42-47 “micro pulse control” figs 1-3). Kishi further teaches accurate throttle driving/positioning with correction at all engine speeds para 42. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Kishi’s micro pulse control to allow accurate driving with correction at all engine speeds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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 prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious the stop DUTY computation unit computes an opening holding margin for actively suppressing vibration by offsetting a rotational torque variation in a main direction of a valve shaft of the throttle valve, and adds the opening holding margin to the motor drive DUTY when the feedback control is stopped as a variation component of the spring reaction force in combination with the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: teaching throttle control based on friction torque.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Interview Agendas can be faxed to examiner at (571)273-3748.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
