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
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-18 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,540,632 B2 to Carnevail. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claim 1 Carnevail teaches A hydraulic system for a vehicle, the hydraulic system comprising - a first electric motor, - a second electric motor, - a gearbox arranged to be driven by the first and second electric motors, - a hydraulic pump arranged to be driven by the gearbox, and - a control arrangement configured to - individually control the first and second electric motors to either run at a reference speed or to deliver a reference torque and - during operation control at least one of the first and second electric motors to deliver a reference torque, wherein the control arrangement is configured to simultaneously control the first motor to run at a reference speed and control the second motor to deliver a reference torque (Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 2 Carnevail teaches wherein the control arrangement is configured to simultaneously control the first motor to run at a reference speed and control the second motor to deliver a reference torque (Claim 2).
Regarding Claim 3 Carnevail teaches wherein the control arrangement is adapted to control the first and second motors in response to a hydraulic supply request and is configured, based on said hydraulic supply request, to selectively control the first motor to run at a reference speed and the second motor to deliver a reference torque, or control the first motor to deliver a reference torque and the second motor to deliver a reference torque (Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 4 Carnevail teaches wherein the control arrangement is configured to control the first motor to run at a reference speed and the second motor to deliver a reference torque in case the hydraulic supply request involves adjusting the hydraulic pump speed, and control the first motor to deliver a reference torque and the second motor to deliver a reference torque in case the hydraulic supply request involves adjusting the hydraulic pump torque (Claim 3).
Regarding Claim 5 Carnevail teaches wherein the control arrangement is configured to control the first motor to deliver a reference torque and the second motor to deliver a reference torque in case the desired hydraulic pump speed has remained unchanged for a predetermined duration of time (Claim 4)
Regarding Claim 6 Carnevail teaches wherein the control arrangement is connected to an operator input interface and configured to control the first motor to deliver a reference torque and the second motor to deliver a reference torque in case the operator input interface
is maneuvered in a manner that is predicted to involve an increase in the desired hydraulic pump torque (Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 7 Carnevail teaches wherein the control arrangement comprises a first electronic control unit connected to the first motor and a second electronic control unit connected to the second motor (Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 8 Carnevail teaches wherein the first electronic control unit has a
faster response time than the second electronic control unit (Claim 7).
Regarding Claim 9 Carnevail teaches wherein the first electronic control unit is configured to control the first motor to deliver a reference speed and the second electronic control unit is configured to control the second motor to deliver a reference torque (Claim 8).
Regarding Claim 10 Carnevail teaches wherein the first electronic control unit comprises a first direct current voltage input and a first alternating current voltage output connected to the first motor, and the second electronic control unit comprises a second direct current voltage input and a second alternating current voltage output connected to the second motor (Claim 9).
Regarding Claim 11 Carnevail teaches when the first motor is controlled to deliver a reference torque and the second motor is controlled to deliver a reference torque, control the first and second motors to deliver essentially equal magnitudes of torques (Claim 10).
Regarding Claim 12 Carnevail teaches wherein housings of the first and second motors are attached to a housing of the gearbox and, optionally, a housing of the hydraulic pump is attached to the housing of the gearbox (claim 11).
Regarding Claim 13 Carnevail teaches wherein the first and second motors are arranged to drive the gearbox in parallel (Claim 12).
Regarding Claim 14 Carnevail teaches wherein the gearbox is a reduction gearbox (Claim 13).
Regarding Claim 15 Carnevail teaches wherein the first and second motors are
dimensioned such that operation of both motors is required during nominal operation of the hydraulic system (claim 14).
Regarding Claim 16 Carnevail teaches the vehicle optionally being a construction machine or an on-road vehicle (Claim 15).
Regarding Claim 17 Carnevail teaches a vehicle electric control unit connected to a first electronic control unit adapted to
control the first motor and connected to a second electronic control unit adapted to
control the second motor,
a battery connected to the first and second electronic control units, an
an operator input interface (Claim 16).
Regarding Claim 18 Carnevail teaches the method comprising individually controlling the first and second electric motors to either run at a reference speed or to deliver a reference torque wherein, during operation, at least one of the first and second electric motors is controlled to deliver a reference torque (Claim 17).
Regarding Claim 19 Carnevail teaches A computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by a processor device, the computer-implemented method of claim 18 (Claim 18).
Regarding Claim 20 Carnevail teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processor device, cause the processing circuitry to perform the computer-implemented method of claim 18 (Claim 18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected but would be allowable if rewritten to 0vercome the above stated double patenting rection. Regarding Claims 1-20 Kuittinen et al.(US 2013/0228377 A1) hereinafter Kuittinen teaches a hydraulic system for a vehicle, the hydraulic system comprising - a first electric motor (M1), a second electric motor (M2), a gearbox (23) arranged to be driven by the first (M1) and second electric motors (M2), - a hydraulic pump (21a-c) arranged to be driven by the gearbox (23), and a control arrangement configured to - individually control the first and second electric motors (M1, M2) to deliver a reference torque (load) and during operation control at least one of the first and second electric motors to deliver a reference torque (load) (par.0011, 0038). Kuitunen remains silent regarding the control arrangement being configured to simultaneously control the first motor to run at a refence speed and control the second motor to deliver a reference torque.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record not relied up on are pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Long et al. (US 2021/0309099 A1) and Rosinski (US 2017/0343098 A1) both teach a housing for an electrical motor having cooling flow passages,
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIY TEKA whose telephone number is (571)272-9804. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-9 PM.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/ABIY TEKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights