`“x
`‘\\f
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`14/414,167
`
`01/12/2015
`
`Toshihiro Matsumoto
`
`MAT—10642Us
`
`2406
`
`1011/2017 —RATNERPRESTIA m
`
`7590
`52473
`
`BOUZIANE’ SA )
`2200 RENAISSANCE BLVD
`SUITE 350
`KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`2837
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`10/11/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`pcorrespondence @ratnerprestia.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 14/414,167 MATSUMOTO, TOSHIHIRO
`
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`SAID BOUZIANE its“ 2837
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 06/07/2017.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:l This action is non-final.
`2a)|Z| This action is FINAL.
`3)|:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1 and2is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)|:I Claim(s)
`7)|Z| CIaim(s)_1and2is/are rejected.
`8)|:| Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)|:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`I/lWlI‘v'WllSMO. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`iindex.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|Xl The drawing(s) filed on 06/07/2017is/are: a)IXI accepted or b)|:l objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)IXI Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)IZl All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.IXI Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) I] InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20170918
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/414,167
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2837
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`2.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 06/07/2017 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive. Applicant submitted that the applied art does not disclose the newly
`
`added features of claim 1.
`
`Examiner asserts that Holling teaches the normalization technique (Fig. 1, 30) is
`
`performed to remove various extraneous factors which significantly affect the rate of
`
`change of the current (dl/dt) or voltage (dV/dt) flowing within the motor windings.
`
`Furthermore, Oyobe teaches steps of normalizing current or voltage depicted in Fig. 21;
`
`wherein Mean value operating unit 404 calculates a mean value of the magnitude of
`
`current IAC from current sensor 86, in the similar manner as mean value operating unit
`
`402 which integrates the absolute value of detected current IAC for 1 period or several
`
`periods, divide the integrated value by the number of samplings, and multiply the result
`
`by a coefficient, to find the normalized value of detected current IAC (Oyobe, 11. [0157]-
`
`[0163]), wherein the technique described here uses the normalized correlation
`
`coefficient. The coefficient is arbitrary selected in order to develop a cross correlation
`
`between the two detected parameters.
`
`Hence, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention, to modify the invention of Nishino with the teaching of Holling and Oyobe to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/414,167
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2837
`
`implement normalization technique in order to normalize the output of the
`
`current/voltage detectors; therefore, providing improved signal integrity for
`
`current/voltage detector circuits. As a result, the significant variations in current and
`
`voltage rate of change that normally result from fluctuations in bus voltage and motor
`
`speed are eliminated. For all that, one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to
`
`compare the normalized motor voltage value with the normalized motor current value
`
`instead of comparing the detected motor voltage value with the detected motor current
`
`value as taught in Nishino “FIG. 3 is a characteristic diagram corresponding to that of
`
`FIG. 11 and shows motor current (lM)-versus-motor voltage (VM) characteristics in the
`
`state in which the DC motor 11 is driven in the second motor drive mode in which both
`
`the FETs of each pair are controlled by the PWM control signals” (Nishino, column 12,
`
`lines 19-24. the CPU 20A inputted with normalized motor voltage and normalized motor
`
`current as shown in Fig. 10, and generating on the basis of these input signals the
`
`motor driving signal DM indicating duty ratios of the PWM control signals PC1 to P04
`
`mentioned previously for effectuating the PWM control of the FETs constituting the
`
`bridge commutation circuit BR (Nishino, column 9, lines 65-68), reads on the correlation
`
`detector recited in the claim. In addition, the coefficient is arbitrary selected in order to
`
`develop a cross correlation between the two detected parameters, so it would have
`
`been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set a coefficient that make the range
`
`of normalized current values be easily compared to a range of normalized voltage
`
`values in order to determine a cross correlation between the two detected parameters.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/414,167
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2837
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`3.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`
`(b) CONCLUSION— The specification shall conclude With one or more claims
`particular/y 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 particular/y pointing out and
`distinctly claiming the subject matter Which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`Claims 1- 2 are 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 pre-AIA the
`
`applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Claim 1 recites a first range of voltage values and a second range of current
`
`values, wherein “the second range is the same as the first range.” It’s unclear how two
`
`values of two different parameters of two different physical proprieties are supposed to
`
`be the same. Current is a parameter with different properties than voltage, they cannot
`
`be the same even when they have the same values. For instance, distance and mass
`
`are two different parameters, so it cannot be said that five miles have the same value as
`
`five pound. Consequently, the limitation “the second range [current] is the same as the
`
`first range[voltagej” used in claim 1
`
`is vague and unclear and leaves the reader in doubt
`
`as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers, thereby rendering the
`
`definition of the subject-matter of said claim unclear.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`4.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/414,167
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2837
`
`correction of the statutory basis 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis
`
`for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or
`described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject
`matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
`skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by
`the manner in which the invention was made
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
`
`obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1 and 2 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 6141494 A) in view of Holling et al. (US 5600218
`
`A) and Oyobe at al. (US 20090067205 A1).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Nishino discloses a brushless DC motor (Fig. 1 shows DC
`
`motor 11)
`
`comprising:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/414,167
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2837
`
`an inverter circuit (Fig. 1, fl) including a plurality of upper stage side switching
`
`elements (29, 30) and a plurality of lower stage side switching elements (31, 32)
`
`connected to form a bridge (Fig. 1, Q);
`
`a drive logic controller (Fig. 1, element 23) configured to perform PWM control of
`
`the upper stage side switching elements or the lower stage side switching elements “a
`
`motor drive circuit 23 is provided for generating PWM (Pulse-Width Modulated) control
`
`signals PC1 to P04 on the basis of the motor driving signal DM” (Nishino, column 3,
`
`lines 1-4), and control a DC voltage applied to the inverter circuit by energizing driving
`
`coils of the brushless DC motor sequentially in a specified direction and order;
`
`a duty indicator configured to indicate ON/OFF duty of the PWM control (Fig. 1,
`
`signals DM);
`
`a motor voltage detector configured to detect a voltage applied to the driving coils
`
`(Fig. 1 shows motor terminal voltage detection circuit 25 detecting signal VM indicative
`
`of a voltage applied to the driving coils);
`
`Nishino discloses a motor current detector configured to detect a current flowing
`
`through the driving coils (24) and a motor voltage detector configured to detect a
`
`voltage applied to the driving coils (25).
`
`However, Nishino does not explicitly teach wherein current detector and voltage
`
`detector output normalized values of the current and voltage and the normalizing
`
`treatment of the detected voltage/current including multiplying the detected
`
`voltage/current by a predetermined voltage/current coefficient to normalize the motor
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/414,167
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2837
`
`voltage value within a first range of values the motor current value within a second
`
`range of values; so that the second range is the same as the first range.
`
`While Nishino is silence with regard to the types of values the current/voltage
`
`detectors are outputting and comparing at latter steps. Normalization is a well-known
`
`technique in data analysis used to normalize two or more distributions to each other. On
`
`the same field of endeavor, Holling teaches the normalization technique (Fig. 1, 30) is
`
`performed to remove various extraneous factors which significantly affect the rate of
`
`change of the current (dl/dt) or voltage (dV/dt) flowing within the motor windings.
`
`Furthermore, Oyobe teaches steps of normalizing current or voltage depicted in Fig. 21;
`
`wherein Mean value operating unit 404 calculates a mean value of the magnitude of
`
`current IAC from current sensor 86, in the similar manner as mean value operating unit
`
`402 which integrates the absolute value of detected current lAc for 1 period or several
`
`periods, divide the integrated value by the number of samplings, and multiply the result
`
`by a coefficient, to find the normalized value of detected current lAc (Oyobe, 11. [0157]-
`
`[O163]), wherein the technique described here uses the normalized correlation
`
`coefficient. The coefficient is arbitrary selected in order to develop a cross correlation
`
`between the two detected parameters.
`
`Hence, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention, to modify the invention of Nishino with the teaching of Holling and
`
`Oyobe to implement normalization technique in order to normalize the output of the
`
`current/voltage detectors; therefore, providing improved signal integrity for
`
`current/voltage detector circuits. As a result, the significant variations in current and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/414,167
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2837
`
`voltage rate of change that normally result from fluctuations in bus voltage and motor
`
`speed are eliminated. For all that, one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to
`
`compare the normalized motor voltage value with the normalized motor current value
`
`instead of comparing the detected motor voltage value with the detected motor current
`
`value as taught in Nishino “FIG. 3 is a characteristic diagram corresponding to that of
`
`FIG. 11 and shows motor current (lM)-versus-motor voltage (VM) characteristics in the
`
`state in which the DC motor 11 is driven in the second motor drive mode in which both
`
`the FETs of each pair are controlled by the PWM control signals” (Nishino, column 12,
`
`lines 19-24. the CPU 20A inputted with normalized motor voltage and normalized motor
`
`current as shown in Fig. 10, and generating an the basis of these input signals the
`
`motor driving signal DM indicating duty ratios of the PWM control signals PC1 to
`
`P04 mentioned previously for effectuating the PWM control of the FETs constituting the
`
`bridge commutation circuit BR (Nishino, column 9, lines 65-68), reads on the correlation
`
`detector recited in the claim. In addition, the coefficient is arbitrary selected in order to
`
`develop a cross correlation between the two detected parameters, so it would have
`
`been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set a coefficient that make the range
`
`of normalized current values be easily compared to a range of normalized voltage
`
`values in order to determine a cross correlation between the two detected parameters.
`
`Nishino with the teaching of Holling and Oyobe:
`
`Nishino teaches the motor voltage is estimated based on the duty ration in
`
`accordance with the expression (1):
`
`VMS=(DTY—D0)xVBxK1
`
`(1)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/414,167
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2837
`
`This expression shows that the motor voltage is proportional to the duty ratio. In addition
`
`Nishino Figs. 1 and 2 show characteristic diagrams showing graphically characteristic
`
`relations between a motor current and a motor voltage. The combination of Nishino and
`
`Holling and Oyobe teaches that the coefficient is arbitrary selected in order to develop a
`
`cross correlation between the two detected parameters, so it would have been obvious
`
`to one with ordinary skill in the art to set a coefficient that make the range of normalized
`
`current values be easily compared to a range of normalized voltage values in order to
`
`determine a cross correlation between the two detected parameters. Therefore,
`
`controlling the motor output, torque, so that the normalized motor voltage is equal the
`
`normalized motor current. Since the motor power is limited by the rated power, it is a
`
`design requirement for the motor current and the motor voltage to be maintained in a
`
`constant ratio.
`
`If the current increase to be greater than the voltage; the control system
`
`has to decrease the voltage to protect the motor; and therefore, decrease the duty ratio
`
`of the PWM and vice versa. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary
`
`skill in the art in the light of the teaching of the references on the record to decreasing
`
`the ON/OFF duty in response to the comparison indicating that the normalized motor
`
`current is greater than the normalized motor voltage, and the control signal increasing
`
`the ON/OFF duty in response to the comparison indicating that the normalized motor
`
`voltage is greater than the normalized motor current. Therefore, keeping the motor
`
`performance in normal and safe zones.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/414,167
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2837
`
`Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nishino, Holling and Oyobe teaches
`
`wherein the motor current detector is replaced by a circuit current detector (Nishino, Fig.
`
`1, element 24) configured to detect a current of the inverter circuit.
`
`Conclusion
`
`5.
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
`
`extension fee 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 SAID BOUZIANE whose telephone number is (571)272-
`
`7592. The examiner can normally be reached on 6AM-2:30PM.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/414,167
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2837
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272—2060. The fax phone
`
`number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -
`
`273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272—1000.
`
`/SAID BOUZIANE/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2837
`
`/Eduardo Colon Santana/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
`
`