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 .
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/813,623. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/23/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because line 1, “An embodiment wheel” should be changed to - -A wheel- -. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1, “the central axis of the wheel” should be changed to - -a central axis of the wheel- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 4, 6, 7, 14 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-3 and 9 of copending Application No. 19/296,459 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each the limitations of Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 14 and 18 of the instant application are fully contained by 1-3 and 9 of copending Application No. 19/296,459 as follows:
Claim 1 of the instant application is fully contained by Claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/296,459;
Claim 4 of the instant application is fully contained by Claim 3 of copending Application No. 19/296,459;
Claim 6 of the instant application is fully contained by Claim 9 of copending Application No. 19/296,459;
Claim 7 of the instant application is fully contained by Claim 2 of copending Application No. 19/296,459;
Claim 14 of the instant application is fully contained by Claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/296,459; and
Claim 18 of the instant application is fully contained by Claim 9 of copending Application No. 19/296,459.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 7 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 14 of copending Application No. 19/328,566 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each the limitations of Claims 1, 7 and 14 of the instant application are fully contained by Claim 14 of copending Application No. 19/328,566.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NAGAYA (US 2004/009455 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, NAGAYA discloses a wheel assembly structure of a vehicle (Figs. 1-3 and 23), the structure comprising: a wheel (2); a tire (1) mounted around the wheel; a rotor housing (3b) connected to the wheel; a buffer device (13) interposed between a circumference of a central axis of the rotor housing and a central portion of the wheel or between an upper surface of the rotor housing and a lower surface of the wheel (Fig. 1), the buffer device being configured to rotate together with the wheel and to alleviate a shock between the rotor housing and the wheel (paragraph [0156], “elastic member 13”); and a stator housing (3a) fixable to the vehicle and configured to rotate the rotor housing by applying a current (paragraph [0155], “inwheel motor”).
Regarding Claim 2, NAGAYA discloses a rotor brake disc (8a) disposed at the central axis of the rotor housing facing an inner side of the vehicle (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, NAGAYA discloses the stator housing includes a caliper (8b) configured to contact the rotor brake disc and brake the vehicle by applying frictional force to the rotor housing.
Regarding Claim 4, NAGAYA discloses the stator housing includes a vehicle connection part (5, 12) on a surface of the stator housing facing an inner side of the vehicle (Fig. 1), the vehicle connection part being configured to connect the stator housing to the vehicle (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, NAGAYA discloses the stator housing and the rotor housing are configured to not move relative to each other up and down and left and right (see, at least, element 3j in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, NAGAYA discloses a permanent magnet (3R) disposed on an inner surface of the rotor housing facing a rotation axis of the rotor housing (Fig. 1); and a coil (3S) disposed on an outer surface of the stator housing at a position facing the permanent magnet (Fig. 1), wherein the rotor housing is configured to operate to rotate by electromagnetic force generated by applying power to the coil (paragraph [0155], “inwheel motor”).
Regarding Claim 7, NAGAYA discloses a wheel assembly structure of a vehicle (Figs. 1-3 and 23), the structure comprising: a wheel (2), wherein a central portion of the wheel includes a wheel hub (4) extending toward an inner side of the vehicle (Fig. 1); a tire (1) mounted around the wheel; a rotor housing (3b) connected to the wheel; a buffer device (13) interposed between a circumference of a central axis of the rotor housing and the central portion of the wheel or between an upper surface of the rotor housing and a lower surface of the wheel (Fig. 1), the buffer device being configured to rotate together with the wheel and to alleviate a shock between the rotor housing and the wheel (paragraph [0156], “elastic member 13”); and a stator housing (3a) fixable to the vehicle and configured to rotate the rotor housing by applying a current (paragraph [0155], “inwheel motor”).
Regarding Claim 8, NAGAYA discloses a shock absorber (Fig. 23; (21b)) disposed between an upper surface of the wheel hub and a lower surface of the stator housing (Fig. 23), the shock absorber being configured to alleviate the shock between the stator housing and the wheel.
Regarding Claim 9, NAGAYA discloses a bump stopper (21a) configured to support an upper end of the shock absorber on the stator housing.
Regarding Claim 10, NAGAYA discloses the shock absorber is configured to operate such that a central axis of the shock absorber moves reciprocally by being inserted through an opening in the stator housing (Fig. 23).
Regarding Claim 11, NAGAYA discloses a spring disposed around the shock absorber (Fig. 23), the spring being configured to support the lower surface of the stator housing, support a load of the stator housing and the vehicle, and alleviate the shock (Fig. 23).
Regarding Claim 14, NAGAYA discloses a vehicle (Figs. 1-3 and 23) comprising: a vehicle body (inherent to “vehicle” of NAGAYA); a wheel (2) coupled to the vehicle body; a tire (1) mounted around the wheel; a rotor housing (3b) connected to the wheel; a buffer device (13) interposed between a circumference of a central axis of the rotor housing and a central portion of the wheel or between an upper surface of the rotor housing and a lower surface of the wheel (Fig. 1), the buffer device being configured to rotate together with the wheel and to alleviate a shock between the rotor housing and the wheel (paragraph [0156], “elastic member 13”); and a stator housing (3a) fixed to the vehicle and configured to rotate the rotor housing by applying a current (paragraph [0155], “inwheel motor”).
Regarding Claim 15, NAGAYA discloses a rotor brake disc (8a) disposed at the central axis of the rotor housing facing an inner side of the vehicle (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 16, NAGAYA discloses the stator housing includes a caliper (8b) configured to contact the rotor brake disc and brake the vehicle by applying frictional force to the rotor housing.
Regarding Claim 17, NAGAYA discloses the stator housing includes a vehicle connection part (5, 12) on a surface of the stator housing facing an inner side of the vehicle (Fig. 1), the vehicle connection part being configured to connect the stator housing to the vehicle (Fig. 1); and wherein the stator housing and the rotor housing are configured to not move relative to each other up and down and left and right (see, at least, element 3j in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18, NAGAYA discloses a permanent magnet (3R) disposed on an inner surface of the rotor housing facing a rotation axis of the rotor housing (Fig. 1); and a coil (3S) disposed on an outer surface of the stator housing at a position facing the permanent magnet (Fig. 1), wherein the rotor housing is configured to operate to rotate by electromagnetic force generated by applying power to the coil (paragraph [0155], “inwheel motor”).
Regarding Claim 19, NAGAYA discloses the central portion of the wheel includes a wheel hub (4) extending toward an inner side of the vehicle (Fig. 1), and wherein the vehicle further comprises a shock absorber (Fig. 23; (21b)) disposed between an upper surface of the wheel hub and a lower surface of the stator housing (Fig. 23), the shock absorber being configured to alleviate the shock between the stator housing and the wheel (Fig. 23).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13 and 20 are 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MIYAZONO (US 2023/0327511 A1) discloses an in-wheel motor structure (see ABSTRACT).
MATAYOSHI et al. (US 2016/0052359 A1) discloses a suspension device for an in-wheel motor (see ABSTRACT).
MAEDA et al. (US 2006/0158050 A1) discloses an in-wheel motor structure (see ABSTRACT).
CLAYPOLE et al. (US 2003/0159866 A1) discloses a wheel motor system (see ABSTRACT).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm (CST).
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571)270-3415. 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.
EDWIN YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/Edwin A Young/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights