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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 16 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bylund in view of Mullin.
While the examiner agrees that Bylund alone does not disclose the voltage limitations provided in claim 1, similar limitations were previously rejected in the 103 rejection of claims 4 and 5. The applicant fails to make any arguments as to why the combination of Bylund in view of Mullin is insufficient in teaching these limitations. As such, a new rejection of claim 1 is being presented in view of Bylund in view of Mullin as can be seen below.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bylund (US 20170089349) in view of Mullin (US 20210025631).
Regarding claim 1, Bylund discloses A blower, comprising:
a main body (Figure 1, item 110);
an air duct extending between an air inlet and an air outlet opposite the air inlet (Figure 1 shows a duct body 150 with an outlet 156 that combines with the motor housing 120 to define the inlet 158 as well), the air duct including an air duct body (The combination of 150 and 120 form the air duct body);
a motor for driving a fan (Par. 0021) disposed in the air duct body between the air inlet and the air outlet (This language allows for either of the fan or motor to be disposed in the air duct body while meeting the limitations. Paragraph 0021 describes the fan being placed in the flowpath and Paragraph 0015 describes the motor being located in the motor housing portion which is part of the air duct body and located between the inlet and the outlet as the inlet extends entirely to the back of the housing); and
a controller disposed in the main body (Par. 0023 describes a processor serving as a controller) and electrically coupled to the motor for controlling a power output of the motor (Par. 0023 describes the processor operating the functions described below which interface and control the motor), the controller configured to:
receive a power setpoint (Paragraph 0025 describes the cruise control or regular mode having a maximum speed that can be set by the user. Paragraph 0026 further describes that increased speed is achieved by increased power, so when the speed being modified is discussed in the prior art, the power must follow to achieve that speed),
operate in a first mode based on the power setpoint being less than or equal to a power threshold (Paragraph 0025 describes that during the cruise control mode the power setpoint is maintained at below the threshold), wherein the first mode includes controlling a rotational speed of the fan (Paragraphs 0025 and 0026 describe that the speeds are varied in different modes and as the operation of the modes is controlled, the speeds of the different modes are controlled in both modes), and
operate in a second mode based on the power setpoint being greater than the power threshold (Paragraph 0026 describes that the boost mode operates the speed of the blower and thereby the power of the blower above the threshold provided at the maximum of the blower).
However, Bylund does not explicitly disclose that the second mode includes controlling a voltage output of the motor.
Bylund and Mullin are analogous prior art because both describe fan structures with controllers to modulate the speed. Mullin teaches using a power sensor to determine the operating status of the fan (Par. 0009) and using the power sensed to create a signal to modify the voltage and current to the fan (Pars. 0041-0042) to adjust the speed of the fan. Bylund already describes that various motor sensors can be used to selectively control the application of power to the motor based on user intent (Par. 0019) so the addition of a specific sensor as part of the operating modes of Bylund would provide predictable results. Further, Mullin describes that the use of the sensors allows for more changes in the system (Pars. 0044-0045). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the power sensor of Mullin in the system of Bylund to control the voltage and current through the motor in the control system because the use of the sensors allows for more changes in the system (Pars. 0044-0045) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). As Bylund already describes ensuring that the speed and thereby the power of the system stays below the setpoint in the first mode, the sensed power must be compared to the setpoint power to adjust and maintain the speed below the setpoint of Bylund in view of Mullins. As such, both modes modify the voltage and current through the motor to change the speed of each mode.
Regarding claim 3, Bylund in view of Mullins teaches that the controller comprises a secondary controller (No first controller is ever set forth in claim 1, so the secondary controller is the controller described in the rejection of claim 1 above and is not required by the limitations to be a second, different controller from the controller described above) configured to perform a second plurality of operations in the second mode, the second plurality of operations comprising:
receiving a measured power (Mullins Par. 0009);
comparing the measured power to the power setpoint to obtain a power difference (As Bylund already describes ensuring that the speed and thereby the power of the system stays below the setpoint in the first mode, the sensed power must be compared to the setpoint power to adjust and maintain the speed below the setpoint of Bylund in view of Mullins);
generating a control signal based on the power difference (Mullins Pars. 0041-0042); and
adjusting the power output of the motor based on the control signal (Bylund Par. 0019 describes controlling the power based on user intent).
Regarding claim 4, Bylund in view of Mullins teaches that the adjusting the power output of the motor includes adjusting a voltage output of the motor based on the control signal (Bylund describes adjusting the power provided to the motor to determine the speed and Mullins paragraph 0034 describes that adjusting the speed of the motor is achieved by changing the compressor voltage).
Regarding claim 5, Bylund in view of Mullins teaches that the adjusting the power output of the motor includes adjusting a rotational speed of the fan. As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, adjusting the power of the motor changes the speed of the motor and the fan.
Regarding claim 6, Bylund in view of Mullins teaches that 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. As described in the rejections of claims 1 and 3 above, the speed and power of the motor and fan is adjusted to be maintained below the maximum power of the cruise mode. As such, when the set point is increased and the power is below the set point, the power and speed is increased to adjust and when the power is above the setpoint during the boost mode and the cruise mode is re-engaged, the power and speed is decreased to adjust. Further, the retaining of the set point cannot be achieved without preventing the power and speed from going above the set point which would require lowering the power.
Regarding claim 7, Bylund in view of Mullins teaches that the controller is configured to operate in a plurality of operating modes, the plurality of operating modes including the first mode and the second mode; and each of the plurality of operating modes include a power range. Bylund Paragraph 0025 describes that the cruise mode operates below a max set speed and thereby power range and paragraph 0026 describes that the boost mode operates at the maximum speed and thereby power of the blower. As the motor and power must speed from that cruise mode max power up to the maximum speed and power, the boost mode range goes from the max speed of the cruise mode to the max speed and power.
Regarding claim 8, Bylund in view of Mullins teaches that the first mode includes a first power range and the second mode includes a second power range different from the first power range. See description of power ranges in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 9, Bylund in view of Mullins teaches that the controller is further configured to: obtain an assigned power range based on the power setpoint being within the power range of one of the plurality of operating modes (see discussion of power ranges in the rejection of claim 7 above);
receive a measured power output (Mullins Par. 0009);
compare the measured power output to the assigned power range); and
operate the motor such that the power output is within the assigned power range (As Bylund already describes ensuring that the speed and thereby the power of the system stays below the setpoint in the first mode, the sensed power must be compared to the setpoint power to adjust and maintain the speed below the setpoint of Bylund in view of Mullins).
Regarding claim 10, Bylund in view of Mullins teaches that the controller is configured to maintain a constant power output. The claim does not require the controller to always maintain a constant power output under ever condition. As such, the boost mode (Bylund par. 0026) describes providing the maximum speed and thereby maximum power which would be constant. Further, paragraph 0025 describes that the cruise mode can operate at the set speed and power point constantly with the trigger fully engaged which provides a constant power determined through the controller.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bylund (US 20170089349) in view of Mullin (US 20210025631) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morimura (US 20200378394).
Regarding claim 2, Bylund in view of Mullins teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 103 rejection and that the controller is further configured to perform a first plurality of operations in the first mode, the first plurality of operations comprising: receiving a rotational speed setpoint of the fan of the motor (Par. 0025 describes a maximum speed for the mode). However, Bylund in view of Mullins does not explicitly disclose receiving a measured rotational speed of the fan of the motor; comparing the rotational speed setpoint to the measured rotational speed to obtain a speed difference; and adjusting a rotational speed of the fan of the motor based on the speed difference obtained.
Bylund in view of Mullins and Morimura are analogous prior art because both describe fan structures with controllers to modulate the speed. Morimura teaches a controller receiving a measured rotational speed of the fan of the motor (Par. 0047); comparing the rotational speed setpoint to the measured rotational speed to obtain a speed difference; and adjusting a rotational speed of the fan of the motor based on the speed difference obtained (Pars. 0047-0048 describes using the measured rotational speed to keep the speed at the target speed, which requires comparing the two and adjusting the motor). Bylund already describes that various motor sensors can be used to selectively control the application of power to the motor based on user intent (Par. 0019) so the addition of a specific sensor as part of the operating modes of Bylund in view of Mullins would provide predictable results. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the speed sensor and comparative speed control of Morimura in the system of Bylund in view of Mullins because it allows for precise control and consistency of the speed (Morimura Pars. 0047-0048) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571)-272-8648. 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights