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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
“a plurality of second housing recesses extending from the outer circumferential surface of the rotor core to the radial-direction inner side further than the plurality of first housing recesses” and “each of the plurality of permanent magnets being in a corresponding second housing recess” of claim 9
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because figures 3 and 7 are not of quality, for example, the reference lines are blending in with the lines of the invention. The Examiner is unable to determine which components are being shown. Claim 9 recites a plurality of first and second housings with magnets in the second housing recesses but the figures does not show any magnets inside any housing recesses.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/655,342 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim a motor comprising: a stator having a cylindrical shape; and a rotor having a cylindrical shape provided in the stator and is rotatable about a central axis of the stator, a driving wheel of a vehicle being driven by rotation of the rotor, wherein the rotor has a cage and a permanent magnet provided on an inner side of the cage.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, “The vehicle driving system according to Claim 1” should be changed to “The motor according to Claim 1”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 4,506,181), in view of Sakai (US 2010/0327689).
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses a motor (abstract) comprising:
a stator (30 of Figure 1) having a cylindrical shape; and
a rotor (see Figure 1, 3; Col. 12:57-59, 63-65) having a cylindrical shape provided in the stator and is rotatable about a central axis of the stator, wherein
the rotor has a cage (7, 9 of Figure 1) and a permanent magnet (5 of Figure 1) provided on an inner side of the cage, and
the permanent magnet is formed by a ferrite magnet (Col. 3:20-22).
Jones does not explicitly disclose a driving wheel of a vehicle being driven by rotation of the rotor.
Sakai discloses a driving wheel of a vehicle being driven by rotation of the rotor (Para. 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to use the motor of Jones to drive the wheels of a vehicle, as taught by Sakai, since it is well-known in the art that electric motors are used for driving wheels of a vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Jones discloses wherein the rotor (see Figure 1, 3; Col. 12:57-59, 63-65) is divided into an outer rotor part and an inner rotor part,
the inner rotor part has a polygonal shape when viewed in an axial direction (see Figure 1, 3),
the permanent magnet (5 of Figure 1) includes a plurality of plate-like shaped permanent magnets see (Figure 1, 3),
the plurality of plate-like shaped permanent magnets are disposed side by side in a circumferential direction between the outer rotor part and the inner rotor part in a radial direction (Figure 1, 3),
a surface on a first side in a thickness direction of each plate-like shaped permanent magnet is in contact with an inner circumferential surface of the outer rotor part (Figure 1, 3), and
a surface on a second side in the thickness direction of each plate-like shaped permanent magnet, opposite the first side, is in contact with an outer circumferential surface of the inner rotor part (Figure 1, 3).
Regarding claim 9, Jones discloses wherein the rotor includes a rotor core (see Figure 1, 3; Col. 12:57-59, 63-65);
a plurality of first housing recesses (15 of Figure 1-4, 6) extending from an outer circumferential surface of the rotor core to a radial-direction inner side; and
a plurality of second housing recesses (15 of Figure 1-4, 6) extending from the outer circumferential surface of the rotor core to the radial-direction inner side further than the plurality of first housing recesses, and
the permanent magnet (5 of Figure 1) includes a plurality of permanent magnets, each of the plurality of permanent magnets being in a corresponding second housing recess (Col. 3:34-40).
known in the art that electric motors are used for driving wheels of a vehicle.
Claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 4,506,181), in view of Sakai (US 2010/0327689) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gieras (US 2018/0115204).
Regarding claims 3, 6, Jones discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose a vehicle driving system comprising the motor according to Claim 2, wherein the vehicle driving system further comprises:
a control circuit configured to switch between a synchronous operation mode in which the rotor is rotated using a magnetic force of the permanent magnet (5 of Figure 1) and an asynchronous operation mode in which the rotor is rotated using an induced current produced in the cage (7, 9 of Figure 1).
Gieras discloses a vehicle driving system comprising the motor (102 of Figure 1-2) according to Claim 2, wherein the vehicle driving system further comprises:
a control circuit (112 of Figure 1-2) configured to switch between a synchronous operation mode (Para. 0006, 0010) in which the rotor (106 of Figure 2) is rotated using a magnetic force of the permanent magnet (120 of Figure 2) and an asynchronous operation mode (Para. 0006, 0010) in which the rotor is rotated using an induced current produced in the cage (126 of Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have a vehicle driving system comprising a control circuit with the motor of Jones, as taught by Gieras, to control current flow to the control winding [Gieras: Para. 0010].
Regarding claims 5, 8, Jones discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the control circuit is configured to select the synchronous operation mode when a motor torque is lower than a predetermined value and implements the asynchronous operation mode when the motor torque is equal to or higher than the predetermined value.
Gieras discloses wherein the control circuit is configured to select the synchronous operation mode when a motor torque is lower than a predetermined value and implements the asynchronous operation mode when the motor torque is equal to or higher than the predetermined value (Para. 0033, discloses the switching of operation modes depending on torque characteristics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have a vehicle driving system comprising a control circuit with the motor of Jones to select between synchronous and asynchronous mode determined by torque, as taught by Gieras, to control current flow to the control winding [Gieras: Para. 0010].
Regarding claim 10, Jones discloses a method of operating a motor of a vehicle driving system including
a stator (30 of Figure 1) having a cylindrical shape; and
a rotor (see Figure 1, 3; Col. 12:57-59, 63-65) having a cylindrical shape in the stator and rotatable about a central axis of the stator, wherein
the rotor has a cage (7, 9 of Figure 1) and a ferrite magnet (5 of Figure 1; Col. 3:20-22) on an inner side of the cage.
Jones does not explicitly disclose a driving wheel of a vehicle being driven by rotation of the rotor, and;
the method comprising
operating the motor in a synchronous operation mode in which the rotor is rotated using a magnetic force of the permanent magnet;
monitoring a characteristic of the motor; and
in response to a condition regarding characteristic being met, switching to an asynchronous operation mode in which the rotor is rotated using an induced current produced in the cage.
Sakai discloses a driving wheel of a vehicle being driven by rotation of the rotor (Para. 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to use the motor of Jones to drive the wheels of a vehicle, as taught by Sakai, since it is well-known in the art that electric motors are used for driving wheels of a vehicle.
Gieras discloses the method comprising
operating the motor (102 of Figure 1-2) in a synchronous operation mode (Para. 0006, 0010) in which the rotor (106 of Figure 2) is rotated using a magnetic force of the permanent magnet (120 of Figure 2);
monitoring (via 112 of Figure 1-2) a characteristic of the motor; and
in response to a condition regarding characteristic being met, switching to an asynchronous operation mode (Para. 0006, 0010) in which the rotor is rotated using an induced current produced in the cage (126 of Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have a method of operating the of Jones, as taught by Gieras, to control current flow to the control winding [Gieras: Para. 0010].
Regarding claim 12, Jones discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
detecting a motor torque, and
in response to the motor torque being equal to or higher than a predetermined value, switching to the asynchronous operation mode.
Gieras discloses further comprising:
detecting a motor torque, and
in response to the motor torque being equal to or higher than a predetermined value, switching to the asynchronous operation mode (Para. 0033, discloses the switching of operation modes depending on torque characteristics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have a vehicle driving system comprising a control circuit with the motor of Jones to select between synchronous and asynchronous mode determined by torque, as taught by Gieras, to control current flow to the control winding [Gieras: Para. 0010].
Regarding claim 13, Jones discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage device having computer readable instructions that when executed by circuitry, causes the circuitry to perform a method of operating a motor of a vehicle driving system including a stator (30 of Figure 1) having a cylindrical shape and a rotor (see Figure 1, 3; Col. 12:57-59, 63-65) having a cylindrical shape in the stator and rotatable about a central axis of the stator, wherein the rotor has a cage (7, 9 of Figure 1) and a ferrite magnet (5 of Figure 1; Col. 3:20-22) on an inner side of the cage.
Jones does not explicitly disclose a driving wheel of a vehicle being driven by rotation of the rotor, and;
the method comprising
operating the motor in a synchronous operation mode in which the rotor is rotated using a magnetic force of the permanent magnet;
monitoring a characteristic of the motor; and
in response to a condition regarding characteristic being met, switching to an asynchronous operation mode in which the rotor is rotated using an induced current produced in the cage.
Sakai discloses a driving wheel of a vehicle being driven by rotation of the rotor (Para. 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to use the motor of Jones to drive the wheels of a vehicle, as taught by Sakai, since it is well-known in the art that electric motors are used for driving wheels of a vehicle.
Gieras discloses the method comprising
operating the motor (102 of Figure 1-2) in a synchronous operation mode (Para. 0006, 0010) in which the rotor (106 of Figure 2) is rotated using a magnetic force of the permanent magnet (120 of Figure 2);
monitoring (via 112 of Figure 1-2) a characteristic of the motor; and
in response to a condition regarding characteristic being met, switching to an asynchronous operation mode (Para. 0006, 0010) in which the rotor is rotated using an induced current produced in the cage (126 of Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have a method of operating the of Jones, as taught by Gieras, to control current flow to the control winding [Gieras: Para. 0010].
Regarding claim 15, Jones discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose further causing the circuitry to perform:
comparing a motor torque to a predetermined value, and
in response to the motor torque being equal to or higher than the predetermined value, switching to the asynchronous operation mode.
Gieras discloses further causing the circuitry to perform:
comparing a motor torque to a predetermined value, and
in response to the motor torque being equal to or higher than the predetermined value, switching to the asynchronous operation mode (Para. 0033, discloses the switching of operation modes depending on torque characteristics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have a vehicle driving system comprising a control circuit with the motor of Jones to select between synchronous and asynchronous mode determined by torque, as taught by Gieras, to control current flow to the control winding [Gieras: Para. 0010].
Claims 4, 7, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 4,506,181), in view of Sakai (US 2010/0327689) and Gieras (US 2018/0115204) as applied to claims 3, 6, 10, and 13 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 2022/0115974).
Regarding claims 4, 7, 11, 14, Jones discloses all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above, however does not explicitly disclose wherein the control circuit is configured to select the asynchronous operation mode when a temperature of the permanent magnet is lower than a predetermined temperature (claims 4, 7);
further comprising:
detecting a temperature of the permanent magnet, and
in response to the temperature being lower than a predetermined temperature, switching to the asynchronous operation mode (claim 11);
further causing the circuitry to perform:
comparing a temperature of the permanent magnet to a predetermined temperature, and
in response to the temperature being lower than the predetermined temperature, switching to the asynchronous operation mode (claim 14).
Kobayashi discloses wherein the control circuit (4 of Figure 1) is configured to select the asynchronous operation mode when a temperature of the permanent magnet is lower than a predetermined temperature (Para. 0088) (claims 4, 7);
further comprising:
detecting a temperature of the permanent magnet (via 42 of Figure 1), and
in response to the temperature being lower than a predetermined temperature, switching to the asynchronous operation mode (Para. 0088) (claim 11);
further causing the circuitry to perform:
comparing a temperature of the permanent magnet to a predetermined temperature (via 4, 42 of Figure 1), and
in response to the temperature being lower than the predetermined temperature, switching to the asynchronous operation mode (Para. 0088) (claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing of the claimed invention to have the motor of Jones include a control circuit to select operating modes based on magnet temperature, as taught by Kobayashi, to provide a driving apparatus capable of reducing a decrease in output performance and preventing the demagnetization of the permanent magnet due to the overcurrent [Kobayashi: Para. 0009].
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujiwara (US 5,920,139), Seguchi (US 5,917,248), Kajiura (US 2003/0090167) disclose a motor comprising a cylindrical stator and rotor and a plurality of permanent magnets and driving the wheels of a vehicle.
Steen (US 4,139,790) disclose a motor comprising a cylindrical stator and rotor and a plurality of permanent magnets.
Hyde (US 2009/0091138) discloses a motor and driving system configured to select asynchronous operation mode based on the magnet temperature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES H REID whose telephone number is (571)272-9248. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-4:45 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, Tulsidas Patel can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/Charles Reid Jr./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834