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 18/983,538. Claims 1-12 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 12/17/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following:
Legal phraseology should be removed (i.e., lines 1 and 4, “comprising” should be changed to - -including- -); and
Text “Figure 2” should be removed to comply with the single paragraph requirement for abstracts.
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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: all references to specific claims (see, for reference, page 2, lines 22 and 25) should be removed as claim scope and numbering is subject to change during prosecution.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “between the two permanent magnets” should be changed to - -between two permanent magnets- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “the entire space” should be changed to - -an entire space- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1, “the additional magnetic core” should be changed to - -the supplementary magnetic core- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 2, line 2, “a supplementary magnetic core”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “the vehicle battery pack” should be changed to - -a vehicle battery pack- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 3-4, “the direct-current electric energy” should be changed to - -direct-current electric energy- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “the same coil” should be changed to - -a same coil- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6, “according to the commands” should be changed to - -according to commands- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6, “the vehicle driver” should be changed to - -a vehicle driver- - for claim consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 7-8, “an electric motor” should be changed to - -the electric motor- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 1, “An electric motor”). Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HIMMELMANN (US 2014/0285053 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, HIMMELMANN discloses an electric motor for auto-traction (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a stator (43) that is adapted to generate a rotating magnetic field when travelled by an electric current; and a rotor (42), which is accommodated in axially rotatable manner and with clearance in the stator so as to be driven into rotation by the latter about its longitudinal axis (Fig. 2); said rotor comprising: a central core (52), which extends coaxial to said longitudinal axis and is capable of rotating about said longitudinal axis (Fig. 2); and a series of permanent magnets (54) that are distributed along the periphery of said central core (Fig. 2), so as to create a radial magnetic field; the electric motor being characterised in that said rotor additionally comprises a series of supplementary electric coils (56), which are distributed on the periphery of said central core (Fig. 2) so as to be interspersed between said permanent magnets (Fig. 2), and are oriented so that each supplementary electric coil generates, when travelled by an electric current, a tangential magnetic field (Fig. 2; paragraphs [0017]-[0018], “current through…56”).
Regarding Claim 2, HIMMELMANN discloses the rotor moreover comprises, for each supplementary electric coil, a supplementary magnetic core (portion of 52 encompassed by 56) which has a ferromagnetic behaviour (paragraph [0018], “52 is comprised of a magnetically permeable material”) and is arranged between the two permanent magnets flanking the same supplementary electric coil (Fig. 2), so as to locally intensify the tangential magnetic field produced by said supplementary electric coil (paragraph [0018], “increasing the current…completing the magnetic circuit”).
Regarding Claim 3, HIMMELMANN discloses the supplementary magnetic core is shaped so as to take up substantially the entire space between two consecutive permanent magnets (Fig. 2 shows 56, which encompasses the supplementary magnetic core, filling the entire space between two consecutive permanent magnets 54).
Regarding Claim 4, HIMMELMANN discloses the additional magnetic core comprises a stack of ferromagnetic-material laminations juxtaposed to one another (paragraph [0018], “52 may comprise a plurality of laminations”).
Regarding Claim 5, HIMMELMANN discloses an electrical power-supply assembly, which is adapted to circulate, on command, electric current within said supplementary electric coils (paragraph [0018], “By increasing the current through…56”).
Regarding Claim 9, HIMMELMANN discloses the permanent magnets are oblong in shape (Fig. 2) and extend parallel to said longitudinal axis (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 10, HIMMELMANN discloses each supplementary electric coil is oblong in shape (Fig. 2) and extends between the permanent magnets flanking the same coil substantially parallel to said permanent magnets (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11, HIMMELMANN discloses each supplementary electric coil is substantially elongated rectangular in shape (Fig. 2) and its lying plane is arranged radially (Fig. 2).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIMMELMANN (US 2014/0285053 A1) in view of SCHNEIDER et al. (US 2023/0256802 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, HIMMELMANN discloses the electric motor according to Claim 5, described in detail above, and further wherein the electrical power-supply assembly comprises an electrical power-supply unit (16), which is interposed between said supplementary electric coils and an AC input, and is adapted to convert, on command, the alternating-current electric energy arriving from said AC input into direct-current electric energy suitable for the supplementary electric coils (Fig. 1, (DC)).
However, HIMMELMANN does not disclose an electrical power-supply unit, which is interposed between said supplementary electric coils and the vehicle battery pack, and is adapted to convert, on command, the direct-current electric energy arriving from said battery pack into direct-current electric energy suitable for the supplementary electric coils.
SCHNEIDER et al. discloses an electric vehicle (Figs. 1 and 2) including a vehicle battery pack (43) to supply direct-current electric energy to an electric motor drive (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the AC input of HIMMELMANN with the vehicle battery pack of SCHNEIDER et al., thereby providing an electrical power-supply unit, which is interposed between said supplementary electric coils and the vehicle battery pack, and is adapted to convert, on command, the direct-current electric energy arriving from said battery pack into direct-current electric energy suitable for the supplementary electric coils, since the simple substitution of one known electric power source for an equivalent other yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 7, HIMMELMANN discloses the rotor moreover comprises a slip-ring electrical connection (Fig. 2; necessary to allow rotation of rotor while supplying current to 56), which connects the supplementary electric coils to said electrical power-supply unit, so as to allow the passage of electric current to and from the same supplementary electric coils (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, HIMMELMANN as modified by SCHNEIDER et al. above additionally renders obvious a rigid outer casing (SCHNEIDER et al., Fig. 1 and 2) that accommodates inside itself the stator and the rotor; said electrical power-supply unit being located on said rigid outer casing (SCHNEIDER et al., Figs. 1 and 2) for the predictable result of packaging complementary vehicle components in close proximity to each other.
Regarding Claim 12, HIMMELMANN as modified by SCHNEIDER et al. above additionally renders obvious a road vehicle (SCHNEIDER et al., Fig. 1) provided with ground-resting wheels (SCHNEIDER et al., Fig. 1) and comprising: an electric-or hybrid- powertrain (SCHNEIDER et al., Fig. 1), which is adapted to drive into rotation at least one of said ground-resting wheels (SCHNEIDER et al., Fig. 1); a battery pack (SCHNEIDER et al., Fig. 1, (43)), which is capable of storing inside itself a given amount of electric energy to be supplied to said powertrain; and a main electrical power-supply unit (SCHNEIDER et al., Fig. 1), which is adapted to regulate the flow of electric energy from the battery pack to the powertrain, according to the commands given by the vehicle driver; the road vehicle being characterised in that said powertrain comprises an electric motor (HIMMELMANN, Fig. 2) realized according to Claim 1 (see detailed rejection of Claim 1 above) for the predictable result of allowing the motor of HIMMELMANN to be utilized in an electric vehicle environment as disclosed by SCHNEIDER et al..
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LUDOIS et al. (US 2022/0158529 A1) discloses an electric motor arrangement (see paragraph [0058]).
REDDY et al. (US 2018/0323664 A1) discloses a permanent magnet based electric machine (see Fig. 1).
LUDOIS et al. (US 2013/0043762 A1) discloses an electric motor arrangement (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