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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s election with traverse of the restriction in the reply filed on 05/04/2026 is acknowledged. The restriction has been withdrawn. All claims are examined on the merit.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 10-13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6 and 5 of U.S. application No. 18/802,693, respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they can be interpreted to describe substantially identical or very similar method step(s) with essentially the same relationships. Regarding claims 10-13 of instant application, see comparison with claims 1, 3 and 6 of U.S. application number 18/802,693, respectively. Differences between the respective claims are underlined.
Instant application 18/613,996
U.S. application No. 18/802,693
Claim 10. A motor control method of controlling, by a controller using an inverter,
a six (6)-phase motor with a first type 3 phase coil and a second type 3-phase coil wound with a fewer number of turns than a number of turns of the first type 3-phase coil, the method comprising:
controlling output torques of a first partial motor and a second partial motor to be equal in a region where a required output of the 6-phase motor is less than or equal to a reference output, wherein the first partial motor includes the first type 3-phase coil and the second partial motor includes the second type 3-phase coil; and
controlling the output torques of the first partial motor and the second partial motor to be different from each other in a region where the required output of the 6-phase motor exceeds the reference output.
Claim 11. The motor control method of claim 10, wherein the reference output is set to an output corresponding to twice a maximum output of the first partial motor.
Claim 12. The motor control method of claim 11,
wherein a driving region for driving only the second partial motor is set to be higher than a driving region for driving only the first partial motor.
Claim 13. The motor control method of claim 11, further comprising:
in a rotation speed region where a rotation speed of the 6-phase motor is less than or equal to a base rotation speed of the first partial motor, controlling phase angles of the first partial motor and the second partial motor to be equal; and
in a rotation speed region where the rotation speed of the 6-phase motor exceeds the base rotation speed of the first partial motor, controlling the phase angles of the first partial motor and the second partial motor to be different from each other.
Claim 1. A motor control controlling a six-phase motor, the method comprising:
controlling a maximum current applied to a first part motor to be equal to a maximum current applied to a second part motor, wherein the first part motor includes first type three-phase coils, and the second part motor includes second type three-phase coils having a smaller number of series turns per phase than the first type three-phase coils;
equally controlling output torque of the first part motor including the first type three-phase coils and output torque of the second part motor including the second type three-phase coils in a region, in which required torque of the six-phase motor is equal to or lower than predetermined reference torque; and
differently controlling the output torque of the first part motor and the output torque of the second part motor in a region, in which the required torque of the six-phase motor is higher than the reference torque.
Claim 3. The motor control method of claim 2, further comprising:
setting the reference torque to twice maximum torque of the second part motor.
Claim 6. The motor control method of claim 1, further comprising:
setting an operation region, in which only the second pard motor is operated, to a rotational speed region higher than an operation region, which only the first part motor is operated.
Claim 4. The motor control method of claim 1, further comprising:
equally controlling a phase angle of the first part motor and a phase angle of the second part motor in a rotational speed region equal to or lower than a predetermined reference rotational speed; and
differently controlling the phase angle of the first part motor and the phase angle of the second part motor in a rotational speed region higher than the reference rotational speed.
Claim 5. The motor control method of claim 4, further comprising: setting the reference rotational speed to a base rotational speed of the first part motor
Note: some claims of instant application are not exactly limitation as U.S. application number 18/802,693. However, they are the same functions. Therefore, these limitations are obvious by system of U.S. application number 18/802,693.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itou et al. (hereinafter Itou, US 2019/0016378 A1) in view of Kinjo et al. (hereinafter Kinjo, US 2020/0373801 A1).
For claim 10, Itou discloses a motor control method of controlling, by a controller using an inverter, a six (6)-phase motor with a first type 3-phase coil and a second type 3-phase coil wound with a fewer number of turns than a number of turns of the first type 3-phase coil (Figs. 1-2 of Itou disclose a motor control method of controlling, by a controller 15 using an inverter (31, 37), a six-phase motor with a first type 3-phase coil 32 and a second type 3-phase coil 38 wound with a fewer number of turns than a number of turns of the first type 3-phase coil – see Itou, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0010]-[0011], [0039] and [0042]. It is noted that Itou discloses a brushless motor (first set of windings A32 and second set of winding B38) which is silent for disclosing a six-phase motor, specifically. However, Itou discloses an electric device 2 composed of a plurality of electric motor windings (A32 and B38 – see Itou, Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0001], [0010] and [0042]) which obviously comprises two set of 3-phase coil (A32, B38). For supporting, Figs. 1 and 4 of Kinjo disclose a six-phase motor 10 comprising two set of 3-phase coil 33a, 33b -- see Kinjo, Figs. 1 and 4, paragraphs [0055] and [0065]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Itou’s motor to include two set of windings as teaching of Kinjo purpose of reducing torque ripple and allowing high-power applications), the method comprising:
controlling output torques of a first partial motor and a second partial motor to be equal in a region where a required output of the 6-phase motor is less than or equal to a reference output, wherein the first partial motor includes the first type 3-phase coil and the second partial motor includes the second type 3-phase coil (see Itou, Fig. 4, steps S14 and S15), paragraph [0051]); and
controlling the output torques of the first partial motor 10 15 and the second partial motor to be different from each other in a region where the required output of the 6-phase motor exceeds the reference output (see Itou, Fig. 4, step S14 and S18, paragraph [0052]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are allowed.
Claims 11-13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-3852. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-3852.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at (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 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.
/THAI T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights