Application No.: 14/414,167
`Amendment Dated February 7, 2017
`Reply to Final Office Action of December 1, 2016
`
`RemarksZArguments:
`
`MAT-10642US
`
`Claims 1 and 2 are pending and rejected in the application. Claim 1 has been amended.
`
`No new matter has been added.
`
`On page 3, the Office Action rejects claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over the combination of Nishino (US. 6,141,494), Holling (US. 5,600,218) and
`
`Miller (US. 8,288,970). It is respectfully submitted, however, that the claims are patentable
`
`over the applied art for at least the reasons set forth below.
`
`Applicant’s claim 1 includes features which are neither disclosed nor suggested by the
`
`applied art, namely:
`
`obtained by
`...output a normalized motor voltage value
`multiplying the detected voltage by a predetermined
`voltage coefficient;
`
`obtained by
`output a normalized motor current value
`.
`. multiplying the detected current by a predetermined
`current coefficient; and
`
`output the control signal to control the duty indicator to
`vary the control the duty indicator to vary the ON/OFF
`duty of the PWM control, the control signal decreasing
`the ONZOFF 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 ONZOFF duty in
`response
`to the
`comparison indicating that the normalized motor voltage
`is greater than the normalized motor current... (Emphasis
`Added)
`
`Claim 1 relates to an air blower that is driven by a DC motor. The speed of the DC
`
`motor is controlied by a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal. The PWM signal has a duty cycle
`
`that is controlled based on the comparison between a normalized motor voltage value and a
`
`normalized motor current value. Specifically, a control signal is output to decrease the duty
`
`cycle of the PWM signal when the comparison indicates that the normalized current is greater
`
`than the normalized voltage.
`
`In contrast, a control signal is output to increase the duty cycle of
`
`the PWM signal when the comparison indicates that the normalized voltage is greater than the
`
`normalized current. Support for this feature can be at least found in Figs. 1, 3A, and
`
`furthermore described on pages 11—14 of Applicant’s specification. No new matter has been
`
`added.
`
`Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`

`

`Application No.: 14/414,167
`Amendment Dated February 7, 2017
`Reply to Final Office Action of December 1, 2016
`
`MAT—10642US
`
`Nishino is directed to a power steering system that utilizes a DC motor. Specifically, Fig.
`
`1 of Nishino suggests an inverter BR that allegedly includes high side switches 29/30 and low
`
`side switches 31/32, a current detector 24, a voltage detector 25, and a PWM controller 23 for
`
`driving motor 11. The Office Action acknowledges that Nishino is deficient for suggesting a
`
`comparison between a normalized voltage and current.
`
`In order to address this deficiency, the
`
`Office Action cites Holland and Miller which allegedly both suggest normalizing voltage and
`
`current values.
`
`The Office Action essentially relies on column 9 line 65 — column 10 line 7, and Figs. 2
`
`and 3 of Nishino for suggesting a basic “comparison” between the voltage and current value in
`
`order to determine duty ratio of the PWM signal (eg. the data plot shows how the voltage and
`
`current values relate to duty ratio). The Office Action then alleges that it would be obvious to
`
`normalize these voltage and current values, which would allow the CPU (see Fig. 1) to
`
`determine the duty ratio of the PWM signal based on a “comparison” of these normalized
`
`values.
`
`Applicant’s claim 1 is different than the applied art, because Applicant’s claim 1 now
`
`clarifies how the comparison between the normalized voltage/current is utilized in order to
`
`generate a control signal to either increase or decrease the duty of the PWM signal. For
`
`example, as described on page 12 of Applicant’s specification, the “comparison” between the
`
`normalized voltage and current produces a control signal that either increases or decreases the
`
`duty cycle.
`
`In one example, the control signal decreases the ON/OFF duty cycle in response to the
`
`comparison indicating that the normalized motor current is greater than the normalized motor
`
`voltage. This results in the current decreasing.
`
`In another example, the control signal increases the ON/OFF duty cycle in response to
`
`the comparison indicating that the normalized motor voltage is greater than the normalized
`
`motor current. This results in the current increasing.
`
`This control process is beneficial, because it ensures that the normalized voltage and the
`
`normalized current eventually converge on the straight line shown in Fig. 3A and become equal
`
`to one another.
`
`Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`

`

`Application No.: 14/414,167
`Amendment Dated February 7, 2017
`Reply to Final Office Action of December 1, 2016
`
`MAT—10642US
`
`In addition, it should also be noted that claim 1 now clarifies how the voltage and
`
`current are normalized. Specifically, the voltage and current are multiplied by respective
`
`predetermined coefficients to perform the normalization. This allows the voltage and current
`
`values to be properly compared to one another.
`
`The above described features are not suggested by the applied prior art. For example,
`
`even for arguments sake, assuming Nishino suggests a “comparison” between the voltage and
`
`current value, there is no suggestion of generating a control signal to increase or decrease the
`
`duty cycle based on any such comparison. This feature is also not suggested in Holling or
`
`Miller. Accordingly, claim 1 is patentable over the applied art.
`
`Dependent claim 2 includes ail the features of claim 1 from which it depends. Thus,
`
`claim 2 is also patentable over the applied art for at least the reasons set forth above.
`
`In view of the amendments and arguments set forth above, the above-identified
`
`application is in condition for allowance which action is respectfully requested.
`
`Respectfully submitte,
`
`,
`
`My
`
`w”
`we“
`
`
`
`
`Jac
`. Etkowicz, Reg. No. 41,738
`Attor
`for Applicant
`
`
`JLE/dmw
`
`Dated: February 7, 2017
`
`2200 Renaissance Blvd.
`Suite 350
`
`King of Prussia, PA 19406
`(610) 407-0700
`
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge or credit Deposit Account No. 180350 for
`any additional fees, or any underpayment or credit for overpayment in connection herewith.
`3421627
`
`Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`