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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 3/07/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
4. 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Moriya (JP H0646505 A).
Re. claims 1 and 9, Moriya discloses a motor drive device (Fig. 1- 3) comprising:
a heat generator (6) and generates heat due to rotation of a first motor;
a first controller (1) is configured to drive and control the first motor (31);
a second controller (71) is configured to drive and control a second motor (8) that cools the inside (the electric blower 8 for cooling the generator brake resistor 6 is connected in parallel with the generator brake resistor 6); and
a dynamic brake (dynamic brake resistor 6) includes a resistor (6) electrically connected between terminals of the first motor (terminal U, V,W in Fig. 1),
the dynamic brake being configured to short- circuit the terminals to cause the resistor to consume heat of kinetic energy of the first motor to stop the first motor (“when a braking command is issued to the vehicle 4, the circuit breaker 2 is opened and the brake circuit breaker 5 is closed. In other words, VVVF1 and LSM3 are cut off” ¶. [0009]), wherein
the second controller controls a rotation speed of the second motor to change according to a rotation speed of the first motor while the first motor is controlled to be in a standby state (refer to the algorithm of ¶. [0012]- [0015]), and the heat generator includes the resistor (resistors 6).
Moriya discloses the claimed invention except for the component been provided in an inside of the motor drive device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the all the components integrated in an inside of the motor drive device, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article, which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together, involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). The term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973).
Re. Claim 8, Moriya discloses a heat radiator that radiates the heat of the heat generator wherein the second motor causes at least one of the heat generator and the heat radiator to radiate heat (radiating fan and its driving motor 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 2- 7 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
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAID BOUZIANE whose telephone number is (571)272-7592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00-15:00.
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 Colon-Santana. 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.
/SAID BOUZIANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights