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 .
2. This action is in response to application filed on January 16, 2025.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on January 16, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Double Patenting
4. 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.
5. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,486. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both pertain to a system comprising a set of magnetic elements, a first coil module, a second coil module, and a controller.
6. Claims 2-13 and 15 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1, and therefore inherit the same deficiencies.
7. Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,486. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both pertain to a system comprising a set of magnetic elements, a first coil module, a second coil module, and a controller.
8. Claims 16-18 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 14, and therefore inherit the same deficiencies.
9. Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,486. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both pertain to a system comprising a set of magnetic elements, a set of coil modules, and a controller.
10. Claim 20 depends directly from claim 19, and therefore inherits the same deficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 1, 14, and 19 would be allowable upon timely and successful alleviation of the Double Patenting Rejection as set forth in this Office Action.
12. Claims 2-13, 15-18, and 20 are depend either directly or indirectly from claims 1, 14, or 19, and therefore inherit the same conditions for allowance.
13. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, and similarly with respect to claims 14 and 19, Hunstable et al (WO2016164818A1) discloses a system comprising:
a set of magnetic elements (Fig. 5, toroidal magnetic cylinder 430):
arranged about a motor axis (Fig. 5, axis 401); and
forming a first tunnel segment (See page 17, lines 12-22);
a first coil module arranged in a first independent phase configuration (See page 7, lines 1-28);
second coil module:
radially offset from the first coil module;
arranged in a second independent phase configuration different from the first independent phase configuration (See page 7, lines 1-28 and page 14, lines 21-22); and
a controller (See page 18, line 24 to page 19, line 2 and page 19, lines 19-25).
However, none of the prior art, listed above or in the attached PTO-892 form, alone or in combination of an obvious manner discloses a controller configured to, during a first time period: pass a first current in a first direction through the first coil module to induce magnetic coupling between the first coil module and the first tunnel segment; and pass a second current in the first direction through the second coil module to induce magnetic coupling between the second coil module and the first tunnel segment.
Therefore, regarding claims 1-13 and 15, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the emboldened and italicized features below:
A system comprising:
a set of magnetic elements:
arranged about a motor axis; and
forming a first tunnel segment;
a first coil module arranged in a first independent phase configuration;
a second coil module:
radially offset from the first coil module;
arranged in a second independent phase configuration different from the first independent phase configuration; and
a controller configured to, during a first time period:
pass a first current in a first direction through the first coil module to induce magnetic coupling between the first coil module and the first tunnel segment; and
pass a second current in the first direction through the second coil module to induce magnetic coupling between the second coil module and the first tunnel segment.
Regarding claims 14 and 16-18, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the emboldened and italicized features below:
A system comprising:
a set of magnetic elements radially arranged about a motor axis and within an annular body;
a first coil module:
arranged proximal the annular body; and
arranged in a first independent phase configuration;
a second coil module:
arranged proximal the annular body;
radially offset from the first coil module; and
arranged in a second independent phase configuration different from the first independent phase configuration; and
a controller configured to:
pass a first current in a first direction through the first coil module to induce magnetic coupling between the first coil module and the set of magnetic elements; and
pass a second current in the first direction through the second coil module to induce magnetic coupling between the second coil module and the set of magnetic elements.
Regarding claims 19-20, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the emboldened and italicized features below:
A system comprising:
a set of magnetic elements arranged radially about a motor axis;
a set of coil modules arranged adjacent the set of magnetic elements and comprising:
a first subset of coil modules arranged in a first independent phase configuration; and
a second subset of coil modules arranged in a second independent phase configuration different from the first independent phase configuration; and
a controller configured to:
pass a first current of a first amplitude through the first subset of coil modules to induce magnetic coupling between the first subset of coil modules and the set of magnetic elements; and
pass a second current of the first amplitude through the second subset of coil modules to induce magnetic coupling between the second subset of coil modules and the set of magnetic elements, the second coil module cooperating with the first coil module to output a target torque.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hunstable (WO 2016164818A1) deals with an improved multi-tunnel electric motor/generator, Hunstable (US 2017/0237325) deals with a brushless electric motor/generator, Hunstable (US 2016/0380496) deals with a multi-tunnel electric motor/generator, and Hunstable (US 2016/0020652) deals with a brushless electric motor/generator.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY NASH whose telephone number is (571) 270-3349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner‘s supervisor, Thienvu Tran can be reached on (571) 270-1276. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GARY A NASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights