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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 06/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12 are still pending.
Response to Arguments
The examiner withdraws 112(a) and 112(b) rejections based on applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 that Shimada merely discloses that power obtained by superimposing the power for charging the battery Bt and the power for driving the rotating electrical machine MG is supplied to the battery Bt. That is, in Shimada, the object to which power is supplied is the battery Bt, not the motor. Yuji fails to cure the deficiencies of Shimada. Accordingly, even if combined, Yuji and Shimada fail to disclose or suggest the features of “circuitry configured to output the second power to the motor, the second power including driving power for the motor and the first power superimposed on the driving power for the motor, wherein the circuitry adjusts the first power to be superimposed on the driving power for the motor by controlling a d-axis current value in a driving current for the motor’, as recited in amended claim 1.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The examiner wants to clarify that item 41 controls currents and generates signal Suvw to control the motor (MG) according to Fig. 1. Therefore, arguments are not persuasive.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/520,874. Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim 1 and claim 1 of the copending application are basically the same besides few wording changes.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YUJI WO 2019163000A1 in a view of Shimada et al. US 2014/0145660 A1.
Regarding claim 1, YUJI discloses
A driver (Fig. 1, item 10) for supplying driving power to a motor (Item 50) that extracts first power from second power (DC power) and supplies the extracted first power (power supplies to item 17) to an external device (Item 17)
PNG
media_image1.png
136
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
139
908
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
51
910
media_image3.png
Greyscale
YUJI does not disclose but Shimada discloses the driver comprising: an circuitry (Fig, 1, item 30 and IN) configured to output the second power to the motor (Item MG), the second power including driving power (Currents drive the motor MG) for the motor and the first power (Currents Iu, Iv, and Iw) superimposed on the driving power (Current Iqc) of the motor (The power from Bt is combined with voltages of an inverter), wherein the circuitry adjusts the first power to be superimposed (Via feedback within item 41) on the driving power for the motor by controlling a d-axis current value in a driving current for the motor. [0030, 0050-0055, 0061-0063]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a circuitry along with the external device and superimposing technique as disclosed by Shimada in YUJI’s teachings to perform maximum torque and flux weakening control.
Regarding claim 2, Shimada discloses
wherein the circuitry (Item 30) generates the first power by controlling the d-axis current value within an allowable range of a current to be output from the driver to the motor. [0050, 0053-0055]
Regarding claim 3, Shimada discloses
, wherein the circuitry controls the d-axis current value in the driving current for the motor based on a rotational speed of the motor. [0053-0055]
Regarding claim 4, Shimada discloses
, wherein in response to the rotational speed of the motor being higher than a predetermined threshold, the circuitry generates the first power by controlling the d-axis current value not to vary over time (This happens during flux weakening control), and superimposes the first power on the driving power for the motor (During flux weakening control, item 41 superimposes currents Idc and Iqc). [0050-0055]
Regarding claim 5, Shimada discloses
, wherein in response to the rotational speed of the motor being less than or equal to a predetermined threshold, the circuitry generates the first power by controlling the d-axis current value to vary over time, and superimposes the first power on the driving power for the motor. (This happens during the maximum torque current control), and superimposes the first power on the driving power for the motor (During the maximum torque current control, item 41 superimposes currents Idc and Iqc). [0050-0054]
Regarding claim 6, Shimada discloses
, wherein the circuitry controls the d-axis current value to vary over time at a frequency higher than an electrical angular frequency corresponding to the rotational speed of the motor. [0042 and 0055]
Regarding claim 7, Shimada discloses
, wherein in response to a determination that a power to be supplied to the external device is lower than a threshold (During the maximum torque current control, speed or power is below the rated value) associated with driving power for the external device, the circuitry generates the first power by controlling the d-axis current value in the driving current for the motor, and outputs the first power to the motor. [0057]
Regarding claim 8, Shimada discloses
,wherein the circuitry generates the first power (Torque is related to power) by controlling the d-axis current value and a q- axis current value in the driving current for the motor. [0051-0053]
Regarding claim 9, Shimada discloses
, wherein the circuitry generates the first power by controlling a q-axis current value at a constant value and by controlling the d-axis current value to vary over time, and outputs the first power to the motor. [0057]
Regarding claim 10, Shimada discloses
, wherein when the motor is stopped, the circuitry generates the first power (Maximum torque curve passes via a point where Iq is zero) and outputs the first power to the motor. [0054]
Regarding claim 11, Shimada discloses
wherein the circuitry performs feedback control of the d-axis current value based on power actually extracted in the motor and based on power to be supplied to the external device. [0032]
Regarding claim 12, a combination of Yuji and Shimada discloses
a method of supplying driving power to a motor that extracts first power from second power and supplies the extracted first power to an external device, the method comprising: outputting the second power to the motor, the second power including driving power for the motor and the first power superimposed on the driving power for the motor; and adjusting the first power to be superimposed on the driving power for the motor by controlling a d-axis current value in a driving current for the motor (See claim 1 rejection for detail).
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 BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Jessica Han can be reached on 5712722078. 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896