Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 1208/2025, claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending. Claims 1-2, 4-18, and 20 are amended. No claims are new. Claim 3 is presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The prior objections to the claims are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The prior rejections under U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The applicant’s arguments (pages 8-10) regarding independent claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that claim 1 (amended to incorporate original claim 3) is not taught by the combination of Weaver et al. (US 5,227,259) and Guen (US 2018/0358648 A1).
The applicant specifically argues (page 9, first paragraph): “Because Guen is directed only to disconnecting a terminal, it is not relevant to the claimed mechanism that isolates a cell while simultaneously forming a bypass to maintain continuity.” The examiner asserts Guen is analogous to Weaver because each reference discloses mechanisms for disconnecting a terminal of a battery cell.
The applicant further specifically argues (page 9, second paragraph): “Weaver does not disclose two bypass conductors separated by a gap, does not place the meltable conductor opposite such a gap, and does not describe molten material flowing into the gap to create a conductive bridge between two distinct conductors. Weaver's operation is fundamentally different from the claimed configuration in which the meltable conductor is positioned within the bypass chamber so that melting inherently forms the bypass connection.” The examiner asserts the argued claim limitations are taught by Weaver. The prior action (page 8) includes an annotated version of Weaver’s Fig. 10 to illustrate the configuration of the two bypass conductors (14B, 44) that are separated by a gap, along with the conductor made of meltable material (“27”) being placed in the bypass chamber (space within “29”), and being configured to transfer in a liquid state (Fig. 10 shows “27” before transfer; Fig. 12 shows “32A” after transfer; col. 6, lines 2-4: “the liquid metal will be drawn to the more narrow end of the wetting tube”; in Fig. 12, the melted material has formed a short-circuit connection between “44”/“35” and the internal portion of “14B”) to the bypass device (“38” with internal portion of “14B”). The examiner further asserts the argued subject matter “the meltable conductor opposite such a gap” is not currently claimed. Additional limitation(s) may be incorporated to claim a more detailed structural arrangement of the device as disclosed by the instant application.
The applicant further specifically argues (page 10, second paragraph): “Weaver teaches away from using a fuse that melts under current” and “one of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not modify Weaver to incorporate Guen’s fuse structure”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The following is relevant case law:
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed.Cir.2008) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The examiner finds Weaver to not teach against using a fuse that melts in response to conducting a magnitude of current that exceeds a predetermined threshold value. Rather, Weaver teaches a device with additional functionalities (heating the fuse in response to identifying a failed cell) that does not necessarily rely upon a current-limit-based melting mechanism being inherently part of the fuse. Weaver (col 1, lines 64-65) reads “to isolate failed cells without reliance on a fuse”. This does not state the heating mechanism of Weaver is to be used instead of relying on a current-limit-based melting mechanism. Further, Weaver frequently refers to the conductor made of meltable material as being a “fusible link”. Weaver further discloses (col. 6, lines 38-43) that “fusible link” may be made from the same materials as is commonly used in electrical fuses.
Weaver’s smart-based fuse capability and heater circuit is solving a different problem (other failure modes) than would be addressed by the current-limited fuse. Weaver might inherently include the function of the calibrated fuse that melts at a current level, but does not explicitly state this. Weaver’s fuse may also be calibrated to melt at a current level, but Weaver is silent as to this detail of the fusible material’s design. Because Weaver is silent as to this aspect of its device, the examiner sought out another reference (Guen) to teach details of how fuses are designed.
Thus, Guen’s teachings are applicable as a potential improvement to modify the “fusible link” to also be meltable in response to conducting a magnitude of current that exceeds a predetermined threshold value. This modification further does not render the device disclosed by Weaver as unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, but rather incorporates an additional, redundant current-limit functionality. Weaver's control provides a feedback/smart-based fuse capability, while Guen's fuse provides a materials-based fuse capability. The redundancy provides improved safety to the components, especially if the materials-based fuse ability/threshold is higher than the controlled value. The materials-based fuse capability of Guen would also conceivably be quicker than the smart-based fuse capability of Weaver. Thus, the improvement to the “fusible link” taught by Guen is not taught away by Weaver.
Thus, the applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 are respectfully refuted.
NOTE: The prior art rejections included infra are copied from the prior action, with changes only to incorporate the original claim 3 rejection into the amended claim 1 rejection. The arguments supra are merely clarifications of the prior rejection, not new grounds. The same prior art references, claim mapping therein, and motivations are relied upon as in the prior action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver et al. (US 5,227,259 A) in view of Guen (US 2018/0358648 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Weaver discloses an electrical-accumulator-isolating device (“switch 15” within “battery 10”; Figs. 6, 8, 10, 12) configured to isolate an electrical accumulator (“cell 12A” within “battery 10”; Figs. 6, 8) of an electrical circuit (“apparatus for locating and isolating failed cells in a battery”, including “battery 10” and “cells 12”; Fig. 3; col. 2 lines 34-36) while ensuring continuity of the electrical circuit (electrical continuity maintained through “bypass 35” when “12A” is isolated by “15”; Fig. 6), comprising the following features.
Weaver further discloses a first terminal (“14A”; see annotated Figs. 6, 10, 12) configured to connect the electrical-accumulator-isolating device (“15”) to the electrical accumulator (“12A”)
Weaver further discloses a second terminal (“bypass 35”; Figs. 6, 10, 12) configured to connect the electrical-accumulator-isolating device (“15”) to the electrical accumulator (“12A”) and to the electrical circuit (apparatus; Fig. 6).
Weaver further discloses a third terminal (“14B”; see annotated Figs. 6, 10, 12) configured to connect the electrical-accumulator-isolating device (“15”) to the electrical circuit (“apparatus” of Fig. 3, including “12B” of Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
966
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Weaver further discloses a bypass chamber (space within “housing 29”; Figs. 10, 12) in which is placed a bypass device (“wetting tube 38” with internal portion of “14B”; Figs. 10, 12) that comprises two bypass conductors (#1 = “chamber 44”; #2 = portion of “14B” within “15A”; Figs. 10, 12; “44” is metal per col. 5, lines 38-40 and col. 6, lines 10-12) that are separated by a gap (see annotated Fig. 10, included infra).
Weaver further discloses one of the bypass conductors (“44”) being connected (shown as connected in Figs. 10, 12) to the second terminal (“35”).
Weaver further discloses a second one of the bypass conductors (internal portion of “14B”) being connected (both portions of “14B” connected through “electrical feed-through 21”; Fig. 4) to the third terminal (“14B”).
Weaver further discloses a fuse (“fusible link 27”; Figs. 10, 12) comprising a conductor made of meltable material (col. 6, lines 52-57: “fusible link must be made of metal whose melting point …”) connected between the first terminal (“14A”) and the third terminal (“14B”).
PNG
media_image2.png
933
1072
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Weaver further discloses the conductor made of meltable material (“27”) being placed in the bypass chamber (space within “29”), and being configured to transfer in a liquid state (Fig. 10 shows “27” before transfer; Fig. 12 shows “32A” after transfer; col. 6, lines 2-4: “the liquid metal will be drawn to the more narrow end of the wetting tube”; in Fig. 12, the melted material has formed a short-circuit connection between “44”/“35” and the internal portion of “14B”) to the bypass device (“38” with internal portion of “14B”).
Weaver does not disclose “the fuse is calibrated to ensure the conductor made of meltable material melts when a magnitude of current flowing through the fuse exceeds a predetermined threshold value”.
Guen teaches the fuse (“fuse 136”; Figs. 3-7) is calibrated (¶ [61]: “designed to have a smaller sectional area than …”) to ensure the conductor made of meltable material melts when a magnitude of current (¶ [69]: “when the short-circuit current (i.e., the overcurrent) is in a higher level than the reference current, the fuse 136 … is melted”) flowing through the fuse (“136”) exceeds a predetermined threshold value (“reference current”; ¶ [69]).
Guen further teaches the calibration of the fuse to protect the secondary battery from getting into a dangerous state from excessive current (¶ [69]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fuse in the electrical-accumulator-isolating device disclosed by Weaver to calibrate the fuse to melt when the current exceeds a predetermined threshold, as taught by Guen, to protect the electrical accumulator from excessive currents.
Regarding Claim 2, Weaver discloses wherein the conductor made of meltable material (“27”) is placed facing the bypass conductors (see note and annotated zoom view of Fig. 10).
NOTE: The term “placed facing” is a broad description of the structural arrangement. Each surface of the “conductor made of meltable material” is facing a direction. If the two bypass conductors are located in that direction on that side of the face, the limitation is met. In the case of Weaver Fig. 10, the two bypass conductors are in the direction (downward/below) faced by a surface (lower surface of “27” which is bonded to “14B”) of the conductor made of meltable material (“27”).
PNG
media_image3.png
710
1803
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Weaver discloses the bypass conductors (#1 = “chamber 44”; #2 = portion of “14B” within “15A”; Figs. 10, 12) are arranged below (see annotated Fig. 10, included supra) the fuse (“27”).
Weaver further discloses the conductor made of meltable material (“27”, becomes “32” after melting and flowing; col. 6, lines 52-57: “fusible link must be made of metal whose melting point …”) being configured, when in the liquid state, to flow under gravity (col. 4, lines 19-26: “27 will melt and flow toward the bottom … closest to the gravitational center of the earth”) onto the bypass conductors (“44” and internal portion of “14B” are covered by “32A” in Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 5, Weaver discloses the bypass conductors (“44” and internal portion of “14B”) are arranged all the way around the fuse (“27”; Fig. 10 shows “27” in a vertical arrangement and surrounded by the conductive “wetting tube 38”, of which the bypass conductor “44” is part of).
Weaver further discloses the conductor made of meltable material (“27”, becomes “32” after melting and flowing; col. 6, lines 52-57: “fusible link must be made of metal whose melting point …”) being configured, when in the liquid state, to flow under gravity (col. 4, lines 19-26: “27 will melt and flow toward the bottom … closest to the gravitational center of the earth”) onto the bypass conductors (“44” and internal portion of “14B” are covered by “32A” in Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 6, Weaver discloses it (“switch 15”) comprises a buffer (“non-wettable coating 39”; Figs. 10, 12) that forces the conductor made of meltable material (“27”, becomes “32” after melting and flowing) in the direction col. 6, lines 5-12: “this behavior is further encouraged by the addition to the surface of the wetting tube of a non-wettable coating 39 in the larger-diameter, cylindrical, portion of the tube 38”) of the bypass conductors (“44” and internal portion of “14B”; Figs. 10, 12).
Regarding Claim 7, Weaver discloses an electrical insulator (“dry and inert gas” within “housing 29” per col. 6, lines 23-25) placed between the fuse (“27”) and the bypass conductors (“44” and internal portion of “14B”; Figs. 10, 12).
Weaver further discloses the electrical insulator (“dry and inert gas”) being configured to let the meltable material of the conductor (“27”) pass when in the liquid state (“27” in Fig. 10, becomes “32” in Fig. 12 after melting and flowing through the “dry and inert gas” within “29”).
Regarding Claim 8, Weaver discloses the conductor made of meltable material (“27”) has a melting point below 400° C (col. 6, lines 44-51: “27 may be made of … fusible alloys having melting points ranging from 50 to 200 degrees centigrade”).
Regarding Claim 10, Weaver discloses the bypass conductors (“44” and internal portion of “14B”; Figs. 10, 12) have a surface finish configured to be soldered (“44” is part of “38”, which “is preferably constructed of a metal such that its surface is wetted by the molten link metal” per col. 5, lies 38-40; internal portion of “14B” is shown to have a solderable surface finish by the bonding to “32A” shown in Fig. 12) by the meltable material of the conductor (“27”, becomes “32” after melting and flowing) when in the liquid state (col. 5, line 42: “wetted by a liquid”; col. 6, lines 5-12: “fused metal will flow … makes an electrical contact”).
Regarding Claim 17, Weaver discloses the conductor made of meltable material (“27”, becomes “32” after melting and flowing) is configured to transfer in the liquid state to the bypass device (“38” with internal portion of “14B”) under gravity (col. 4, lines 19-26: “27 will melt and flow toward the bottom … closest to the gravitational center of the earth”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver et al. (US 5,227,259 A) in view of Guen (US 2018/0358648 A1) and Takashi (JP 2009038247).
Regarding Claim 9, Weaver discloses the bypass conductors (“44” and internal portion of “14B”; Figs. 10, 12) that are separated by the gap (see annotated Fig. 10, included supra).
Weaver does not disclose “wherein the bypass conductors have interdigitated complementary geometric shapes, the gap being placed along the geometric shapes”.
Takashi teaches the bypass conductors (two bypass conductors shown as a bypass device to “3a”; bypass conductor #1 = contact portions “81” + “84”; bypass conductor #2 = contact portions “82” + “83”; see annotated Figs. 8-1 and 11, included infra) have interdigitated complementary geometric shapes (see annotated Figs. 8-1 and 11), the gap being placed along the geometric shapes (see annotated Figs. 8-1 and 11).
PNG
media_image4.png
867
1178
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
815
1141
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Takashi teaches this the arrangement of bypass conductors with interdigitated complementary geometric shapes for the advantage of performing the short circuit between the bypass conductors with a soldered connection more reliably (¶ [62]: “solder melted … flows downward … and the short circuit between the contact part 81 and the contact part 83 and the short circuit between the contact part 82 and the contact part 84 can be formed more reliably”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bypass conductors disclosed by Weaver to have interdigitated complementary geometric shapes, as taught by Takashi, to improve the reliability of the soldered connection between the bypass conductors.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver et al. (US 5,227,259 A) in view of Guen (US 2018/0358648 A1) and Perelle et al. (US 6,295,189 B1).
Regarding Claim 11, Weaver discloses the second terminal (“bypass 35”; Figs. 6, 10, 12), the third terminal (“14B”; Figs. 6, 10, 12), and the bypass device (“wetting tube 38” with internal portion of “14B”; Figs. 10, 12).
Weaver does not disclose “at least one control branch placed between the second terminal and the third terminal, in parallel with the bypass device, the control branch comprising at least one controlled switch”.
Perelle teaches at least one control branch (combo of switches “51-56” and diode “6”; see annotated Fig. 1, included infra) placed between the second terminal (connects the isolating device to the electrical accumulator “11-16” and the electrical circuit; Fig. 1) and the third terminal (connects the isolating device to the electrical circuit; Fig. 1), in parallel with the bypass device (“parallel transistors “121-123” also connect between the second terminal and the third terminal; Fig. 1).
Perelle further teaches the control branch (“51-56” + “6”) comprising at least one controlled switch (switches “51-56”; Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image6.png
903
1585
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Perelle teaches the control branch for the advantage of protecting the cells against excessive pressure (col. 2, lines 56-65) and/or temperature (col. 5, lines 60-63).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrical-accumulator-isolating device disclosed by Weaver to incorporate the control branch in parallel with the bypass device, as taught by Perelle, for the advantages of protecting against excessive pressure and/or temperature.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Weaver and Perelle (as set forth prior) discloses wherein the at least one controlled switch (switches “51-56”; Fig. 1) of the control branch (“51-56” + “6”) comprises a switch (switches “51-56”; col. 1 lines 17-8 provide examples of switches including “transistors, thyristors, IGBT and MOS”) switched by a signal (IGBTs are inherently switched by a signal).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Weaver and Perelle (as set forth prior) discloses wherein the at least one controlled switch (switches “51-56”; Fig. 1) of the control branch (“51-56” + “6”) comprises a switch (switches “51-56”; col. 1 lines 17-8 provide examples of switches including “transistors, thyristors, IGBT and MOS”) switched by a temperature threshold being crossed (col. 5, lines 60-62: “also applies to … temperature”; thus, can replace “pressure” with “temperature” in the following excerpt of col., 2, lines 56-65: “each switch 51 to 56 closes if the pressure … rises above the safe pressure”).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Weaver and Perelle (as set forth prior) discloses wherein the at least one controlled switch (switches “51-56”; Fig. 1) of the control branch (“51-56” + “6”) comprises a switch (switches “51-56”; col. 1 lines 17-8 provide examples of switches including “transistors, thyristors, IGBT and MOS”) switched by a pressure threshold being crossed (col. 2, lines 56-65: “each switch 51 to 56 closes if the pressure … rises above the safe pressure”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver et al. (US 5,227,259 A) in view of Guen (US 2018/0358648 A1) and Signer et al. (US 2019/0019641 A1), as evidenced by the Axsom article (Tessa Axsom, The Bimetallic Strip Explained, 03/30/2023, fictiv.com), and as further evidenced by the AEM Metal article (AEM Metal, From Liquid to Solid: Understanding the Melting Points of Different Metals, aemmetal.com, 07/05/2023)
NOTE: As of the current date, the evidentiary references are available at the following hyperlinks:
Axsom article: https://www.fictiv.com/articles/the-bimetallic-strip-explained
AEM Metal article: https://www.aemmetal.com/news/melting-point-of-metals.html
Regarding Claim 15, Weaver does not disclose “wherein the fuse comprises two conductors made of meltable material mounted in parallel, one of the two conductors having a melting point above a melting point of the other conductor”.
Signer teaches the fuse (“thermal fuse 10” with internal “thermally sensitive member 5”; Figs. 2a-d) comprises two conductors (“5” comprises two metals per ¶ [27]: “thermally sensitive member comprises a bimetal strip or a bimetal disc”) made of meltable material (metals are inherently meltable) mounted in parallel (inherent for a bimetal strip, as evidenced by Axsom).
NOTE: Axsom provides evidence that the two metals in a “bimetallic strip” are inherently mounted in parallel. See the figure on page 2, which shows “Metal A” and “Metal B” connected in parallel between the two terminals. Axsom further notes that bimetallic strips are used in thermal fuses (“Common Applications for a Bimetallic Strip”; pages 4-5).
Signer further teaches one of the two conductors (one of the two metals in the “bimetal strip” of the “thermally sensitive member 5”) having a melting point above a melting point of the other conductor (different metals inherently have different melting points, as evidenced by AEM Metal).
NOTE: AEM Metal provides evidence that two different metals inherently have different melting temperatures due to differences in atomic structure and bonding.
Signer further teaches this fuse structure including two differing conductors for the advantage of protecting against damages from excessive temperatures (¶ [2]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fuse disclosed by Weaver to incorporate the parallel, bi-metal conductor structure, as taught by Signer, to protect against damages from excessive temperatures.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver et al. (US 5,227,259 A) in view of Guen (US 2018/0358648 A1) and Takahashi et al. (US 2014/0170450 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Weaver does not disclose “a discharge resistor mounted in parallel with the fuse”.
Takahashi teaches a discharge resistor (“resistor 71”; Fig. 8A; ¶ [78]: “mechanism for safely releasing remaining energy in a lithium ion secondary battery in an overcharge condition”) mounted in parallel (¶ [80]: “resistor 71 is connected in parallel with the fuse body 27”; Fig. 8A) with the fuse (“fuse body 27”; Fig. 8A).
Takashi further teaches the arrangement of the parallel discharge resistor to improve the safety of the battery by safely releasing energy in an overcharge condition (¶ [7, 77-78, 84).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrical-accumulator-isolating device disclosed by Weaver to incorporate a discharge resistor mounted in parallel with the fuse, as taught by Takahashi, to improve the safety of the electrical accumulator.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver et al. (US 5,227,259 A) in view of Guen (US 2018/0358648 A1) and Tada et al. (US 2019/0393696 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Weaver discloses an electrical circuit (“apparatus for locating and isolating failed cells in a battery”, including “battery 10” and “cells 12”; Fig. 3; col. 2 lines 34-36) comprising a first electrical accumulator (“cell 12A” within “battery 10”; Figs. 6, 8), and at least one second electrical accumulator (“cell 12B” within “battery 10”; Figs. 6, 8).
Weaver further teaches the electrical circuit (“1”) further comprising an electrical-accumulator-isolating device (“switch 15” within “battery 10”; Figs. 6, 8, 10, 12) according to claim 1.
Weaver further teaches the first terminal (“14A”; see annotated Fig. 6, included supra) is connected to a terminal (“14A” connects to one terminal of “12A”, as shown in annotated Fig. 6) of the first electrical accumulator (“12A”).
Weaver does not explicitly disclose “a load supplied with power by the electric accumulators” and “the second terminal is connected to another terminal of the first electrical accumulator and to a terminal of the load; a third terminal of which is connected to another terminal of the load; and the electrical-accumulator-isolating device is configured to isolate the first electrical accumulator from the second electrical accumulator and from the load, while ensuring continuity of supply of power to the load by the second electrical accumulator”.
Tada teaches an electrical circuit (“electrical system 1”; Figs. 6A, 6B; embodiment without “2a”, “2b”, and “2e” per ¶ [46]: “any suitable number of cells may be used”) comprising a first electrical accumulator (“cell 2c”; Figs. 6A, 6B), at least one second electrical accumulator (“cell 2d”; Figs. 6A, 6B), and a load (“load L”; Figs. 6A, 6B) supplied with power by the electric accumulators (“2c”, “2d”).
Tada further teaches the electrical circuit (“1”) further comprising an electrical-accumulator-isolating device (“breaker 3”; Figs. 6A, 6B), with the following terminal connections (see annotated Fig. 6B, included infra).
PNG
media_image7.png
846
1719
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Tada further teaches the first terminal (“T2”; see annotated Fig. 6B) is connected to a terminal (positive side of “2c”, identified by longer bar) of the first electrical accumulator (“2c”).
Tada further teaches second terminal (“T3”; see annotated Fig. 6B) is connected (through “bypass circuit 6”) to another terminal (negative side of “2c”, identified by shorter bar) of the first electrical accumulator (“2c”) and to a terminal (negative side of “L”) of the load (“L”).
Tada further teaches a third terminal (“T1”; see annotated Fig. 6B) of which is connected (through second electrical accumulator “2d”, as addressed supra) to another terminal (positive side of “L”) of the load (“L”).
Tada further teaches the electrical-accumulator-isolating device (“3”) is configured to isolate (“fault condition” shown in Fig. 6B; ¶ [63]: “diverts current around the cell 2c”) the first electrical accumulator (“2c”) from the second electrical accumulator (“2d”) and from the load (“L”), while ensuring continuity of supply of power (¶ [63]: “bypass current around a particular battery cell 2c”) to the load (“L”) by the second electrical accumulator (“2d”).
Tada teaches this arrangement of terminals and the load for the advantage of providing a bypass electrical connection so the other electrical accumulator(s) can provide current to the load in a fault condition (¶ [8, 50]), which improves the reliability of the electric circuit (¶ [3])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrical-accumulator-isolating device disclosed by Weaver to incorporate the circuit arrangement of the load in series with the electrical accumulators and isolating device, as taught by Tada, for the advantage of providing current to the load during a fault condition to improve the reliability of the electric circuit.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Weaver and Tada (as set forth prior) discloses the first electrical accumulator (Weaver: “12A”; see annotated Fig. 6, included supra) and the at least one second electrical accumulator (Weaver: “12B”; Fig. 6) are mounted in series with the load (“load L” incorporated from Tada in series with the electrical accumulators, as described supra) via the fuse (Weaver: “27” within “15” is in series between the electrical accumulators “12A” and “12B” as shown in Figs. 6 and 10; Tada’s “load L” is incorporated in series with the accumulators, and thus is in series with the fuse).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver et al. (US 5,227,259 A) in view of Guen (US 2018/0358648 A1) and Perelle et al. (US 6,295,189 B1).
Regarding Claim 20, Weaver discloses a method (title excerpt: “method for locating and isolating failed cells”) for isolating an electrical accumulator (“cell 12A” within “battery 10”; Figs. 6, 8) with respect to an electrical circuit (“apparatus for locating and isolating failed cells in a battery”, including “battery 10” and “cells 12”; Fig. 3; col. 2 lines 34-36) using the electrical-accumulator-isolating device (“switch 15” within “battery 10”; Figs. 6, 8, 10, 12) according to claim 1, comprising the following.
Weaver further discloses transferring at least one portion of the conductor made of meltable material (“27”, becomes “32” after melting and flowing) in the liquid state to the gap (Fig. 12 shows “32A” filling the gap between “44” and internal portion of “14B”) separating the bypass conductors (#1 = “chamber 44”; #2 = portion of “14B” within “15A”; Figs. 10, 12).
Weaver does not disclose “subjecting the fuse to an overcurrent that heats the conductor made of meltable material to above its melting point”.
Perelle teaches subjecting the fuse (“fuse 3”; Fig. 1) to an overcurrent (col. 4, lines 1-5: “the power transistors 121 to 12n are turned on. The module is short-circuited …”) that heats the conductor made of meltable material (inherent for a fuse) to above its melting point (col. 4, lines 1-5: “and the fuse 3 therefore blows and isolates the cells”).
Perelle further teaches this method of melting the conductor in the fuse for the advantage of isolating the electrical accumulator to protect against malfunctions such as overvoltage conditions (col. 1, lines 7-9; col. 2, lines 14-24, 45-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and electrical-accumulator-isolating device disclosed by Weaver to incorporate subjecting the fuse to an overcurrent to melt the conductor, as taught by Perelle, to protect the electrical accumulator against malfunctions such as overvoltage conditions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel P McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Eastern.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/DANIEL P MCFARLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859