`
`Agenda for interview on
`
`@
`
`(App: 14/414,167)
`
`. Discuss claim 1 with respect to the prior art.
`
`. CLAIM 1: Applicants’ claim 1 is directed to a process for controlling
`
`normalized current versus normalized voltage. The normalized current
`
`is compared to the normalized voltage.
`
`If the normalized current is
`
`greater than the normalized voltage, then the duty cycle is decreased.
`
`If, the normalized voltage is greater than the normalized current,
`
`then
`
`the duty cycle is increased.
`
`- REJECTION: The Office Action relies on Holling and Oyobe for
`
`suggesting normalization techniques. The Office Action cites equation
`
`1 of Nishino which shows the relationship between motor voltage and
`
`duty cycle, and then makes the following allegations:
`
`o
`
`1) Since motor power is limited by the rated power, it is a design
`
`requirement for motor current and motor voltage to be
`
`maintained at a constant ratio,
`
`0 2) If the current increases to be greater than the voltage, then
`
`the control system will decrease the voltage to protect the motor
`
`(vice versa for when the voltage increases to be greater than the
`
`current),
`
`. REBUTTAI. 0F ALLEGATIONS: Applicants respectfully disagree with
`
`these allegations for the following reasons:
`
`0 As for allegation (1), there is no teaching in Nishino that the
`
`current/voltage would be maintained at a constant ratio.
`
`In
`
`addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`the power consumption of the motor can be maintained below
`
`the power rating without requiring the current/voltage to be
`maintained at a constant ratio.
`
`0 As for allegation (2), there is no teaching in Nishino that current
`
`would be controlled (e.g. decreased) based on a comparison with
`
`voltage and vice versa. The various data plots in Nishino merely
`
`show the relationship between the voltage and current.
`
`In
`
`57/ «0173145751
`
`PAGE 112 * RCVD AT 4IZ1I2017 11:08:52 AM [Eastern Daylight Time] * SVR:W-PTOFAX-00316 * DNIS:2737592 * CSID:16104070701 * DURATION (mm-ss):00-59
`
`
`
`04/21/2017 10:10 FAX 16104070701I002/002
`
`addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`the specific type of control recited in Applicants’ claim 1 is not
`required to protect a motor (e.g. voltage and current do not
`have to be compared to one anotherand then duty cycle
`controlled based on these relative values).
`
`o PRIOR ART EXPLANATION: Neither Holling nor Oyobe disclose the
`“normalization/comparing process” as recited in Applicants’ claim 1.
`
`o Holling teaches a “normalization” process to eliminate a DC
`component in the signal (column 6, lines 49-52) for the purpose
`of removing various extraneous factors that influence the
`amount of current flowing within the active stator coil (column
`5,|ines 62—65). Then, Holling compares the remaining AC
`component with a “predetermined voltage" that is a constant
`voltage supplied by a variable voltage reference 64 (column 7,
`lines 13-16).
`
`- This is not the same as the “normalization process” recited
`in Applicants’ claim 1 which includes multiplication with a
`predetermined coefficient and a comparison between the
`“normalized current” and the “normalized voltage”, both of
`which are changing (e.g. they are not constant).
`
`0 Oyobe discloses, in Fig. 21, a “normalization” process of
`multiplying the commercial AC power supply 90 with (V2)
`(paragraph [0160]), and an adding step by using the adding unit
`206 (paragraph [0161]).
`- This is not the same as separately multiplying the voltage
`and current by their own coefficients (as recited in
`Applicants’ claim 1). Furthermore, there is no comparison
`performed between the “normalized current” and the
`“normalized voltage” (as recited in Applicants' claim 1).
`
`PAGE 212 * RCVD AT 4121I201T 11:08:52 AM [Eastern Daylight Time] * SVR:W-PTOFAX-00316 * DNIS:2737592 * CSID:16104070701 * DURATION (mm-ss):00-59
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
