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 .
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 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of copending Application No. 18932918 in view of Ajima et al (11984821). Claims 1-18 disclose same subject matter as claims 1-20 of 18932918 . 18932918 lacks disclosing rectangular wave . Ajima et al discloses rectangular wave , see paragraph 56 and 25 . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine 18932918 control system with rectangular wave of Ajima et al for improved control .
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2019/0363646 in view of 11984821 .
In regards to claim 1 and its corresponding method claim 10 , 2019/0363646 disclose ( figs 1-7) a control system for an electric motor (300) of an electrified vehicle (fig 6) , the control system and method comprising an inverter (110) of electrified vehicle, inverter comprising a set of switches ( inverter 110 fig 1 , par 21) and being configured to receive the pwm signal and control set of switches to generate ac output voltage from direct current (DC) link voltage ( DCV) provided by battery system (200) of electrified vehicle ( see abstract and par 18-23) and control system ( enclosed on 100 i.e. current controller 120 and pwm controller 145) configured to determine a torque command for electric motor ( T* par 59-61), determine commanded d axis and q axis voltage based on torque command ( par 20-26), generate a modulating signal for carrier based pwm based on commanded d and q axis voltage and generate three pwm signal by performing carrier based pwm using modulating signal, ( see par 16,21,23,25-26,2-32,38,49,52-54) and control motor (300) using ac output voltage generated by inverter (110). 2019/036646 lacks disclosing rectangular wave . 11984821 disclose rectangular wave , see paragraph 56 and 25 . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine 2019/0363646 control system with 11984821 rectangular wave for improved control. Claims 9 and 18 are disclosed in 2019/0363646 fig 1-7 and paragraph 39 .
Claim(s) 2 and 11 , 9,17 , 8 , 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2019/036364 in view of 11984821 as applied to claim1,11,9/18 above, and further in view of 2014/0350871 (Krefta ) cited by Applicant .
2019/0363646 in view of 11984821 as disclosed above lacks disclosing modulation index greater than one . Krefta discloses modulation index for inverter (10 greater than one ( greater than threshold indicating inverter is being over driven or operated in a non-liner region ( par 5,19-20,23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine modify invention of 2019/0363646 and 11984821 to employ to judge a modulation index for inverter be greater than one of Krefta to determine a correction factor as indication of overmodulation and improving stem accuracy and reliability . Claims 8 and 18 disclose in 2019/0363646 comparing by control system for each of phases , the modulating signal to carrier signal to determine pwm signal, see paragraph 23, fig 2 i.e. modulated wave having a shape obtained by linearly approximating sine wave modulation , modulated wave ( modulated wave 4 ) in square wave state providing maximum inverter output and carrier signal compared to modulated wave signal in its magnitude to generate pwm pulse . Fig 2b is pwm pulse l signal of modulated wave 2 , fig 2c is pwm pulse signal of modulated wave 3 . Claims 9 and 18 disclose triangular wave , see 2019/0363646 par 39.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 12-16 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.
Prior art does not disclose calculating magnitude of rectangular wave modulating signal .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EP1263125 discloses rectangular wave .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN MASIH whose telephone number is (571)272-2068. The examiner can normally be reached m-f 8-5 with second Friday off.
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.
KAREN . MASIH
Examiner
Art Unit 2837
/KAREN MASIH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights