DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings objection is withdrawn due to the amendments made to the drawings.
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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akuzawa (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0070753) in view of Gopalakrishnan (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0278936).
Regarding claim 1 and 8, Akuzawa discloses A high voltage traction system for a vehicle, the high voltage traction system having an operating voltage of 48 V (it is understood that all the systems shown can, for a time, operate at 48 V) or higher and comprising:
- two independently controllable power sub-systems being a powertrain power sub- system, PPS, (100, 21, 31, 411, 412, 413) including at least one powertrain component being a battery chargeable by the grid (31 is a battery which can be charged by any electrical power fed to it), and a vehicle power sub-system, VPS, (200, 300, 22, 421, 422, 423, 424, 42, 43, 431, 432) being an auxiliary power sub-system having the same operating voltage of 48 V or higher,
Akuzawa does not disclose prioritizing/limiting the consumers.
Gopalakrishnan, which deals in sub systems, teaches the PPS comprising a plurality of PPS secondary power consumers, and a PPS master controller (note: two controller mounted on the same system and in communication with each other is indistinguishable from one controller) being configured to arbitrate power limits among the PPS secondary power consumers by a first arbitration logic (this can describe any programming that allocates energy use), and
the VPS comprising a plurality of VPS secondary power consumers, for which at least one of the VPS secondary power consumers is an auxiliary equipment other than that of the powertrain (421), and a VPS master controller being configured to arbitrate power limits among the VPS secondary power consumers by a second arbitration logic, different to the first arbitration logic;
a master interface between the PPS master controller and the VPS master controller enabling communication exchange between the PPS and VPS, wherein the high voltage traction system is operable in a limited state in which the requested power of the PPS secondary power consumers and VPS secondary power consumers exceeds the available power transfer in the high voltage traction system and
wherein the communication exchange comprises system-shared instructions of prioritization of the PPS and VPS secondary power consumers limiting the first arbitration logic and/or the second arbitration logic in the limited state
wherein the prioritization of the PPS and VPS secondary power consumers allocates a higher priority to safety-critical secondary power consumers than non-safety-critical secondary power consumers, and the first and second arbitration logic allocates available power to the PPS and VPS secondary power consumers based on the prioritization, whereby the safety-critical secondary power consumers receive needed power.
Which is prioritizing/limiting the consumers (¶142 and also teaches any of the control can be done by one or many controllers in ¶214-216).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Akuzawa with the power limitations of Gopalakrishnan because some loads ensure safe driving (¶142).
Regarding claim 2 and 9 which depends from claim 1 and 8 respectively, Akuzawa discloses wherein the PPS and the VPS are independently controlled by the PPS master controller and the VPS master controller, respectively (shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 1, Akuzawa discloses wherein the PPS master controller and the VPS master controller are on the same hierarchy level in the high voltage traction system (shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 1, Akuzawa discloses wherein each one of the PPS master controller and the VPS master controller is configured to perform high level system functions of power monitoring and power scheduling (shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5 and 10 which depends from claim 1 and 8 respectively, Akuzawa discloses wherein the PPS master controller is configured to handle a change in the plurality of PPS secondary power consumers by changing the first arbitration logic, and the VPS master controller is configured to handle a change in the plurality of VPS secondary power consumers by changing the second arbitration logic, wherein the communication exchange via the master interface is remained unaffected (the disclosure is able to variable supply power to the electronics).
Regarding claim 6 which depends from claim 1, Akuzawa discloses wherein the master interface is configured to exchange information of intended power usage of the plurality of PPS secondary power consumers and VPS secondary power consumers, such that the PPS master controller is informed of the intended power usage of VPS secondary power consumers and the VPS master controller is informed of the intended power usage of the PPS secondary power consumers, and wherein the master interface is configured to use the exchanged information of intended power usage together with the system-shared instructions of prioritization to limit the first arbitration logic and/or the second arbitration logic and to decide when and which of the PPS and VPS secondary power consumers that is to be powered (controller 70 is able to communicate with itself).
Regarding claim 7 and 11 which depends from claim 1 and 8 respectively, Akuzawa discloses wherein the limited state comprises a state in which the high voltage traction system is connected to the grid (as per 112 rejection above the system is connected and distributing power).
Regarding claim 12 which depends from claim 8, Akuzawa discloses a vehicle comprising a high voltage traction system according to claim 1 (title).
Regarding claim 13 which depends from claim 8, Akuzawa discloses a control unit for operating a high voltage traction system of a vehicle, the control unit being configured to perform the method according to claim 8 (title).
Regarding claim 14 which depends from claim 1, Akuzawa discloses wherein the PPS master controller and/or the VPS master controller are configured to define and detect a safety-critical vehicle condition in which the system-shared instructions of prioritization of the PPS and VPS secondary power consumers includes giving safety-critical secondary power consumers a higher priority than non-safety-critical secondary power consumers (¶23 discloses the ability to provide a limp home ability).
Regarding claim 15 which depends from claim 14, Akuzawa does not disclose wherein the safety-critical secondary power consumers are chosen among the PPS secondary power consumers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place crtical power consumers under PPS instead of VPS, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 V C.
Regarding claim 16 which depends from claim 15, Akuzawa discloses wherein the safety-critical secondary power consumers are chosen among the VPS secondary power consumers (300 is part of VPS).
Regarding claim 17 which depends from claim 1, Akuzawa discloses wherein the PPS master controller and/or the VPS master controller is configured to define and detect a auxiliary action prioritized mode in which the system-shared instructions of prioritization of the PPS and VPS secondary power consumers includes giving the auxiliary equipment of the VPS secondary power consumers a higher priority than the PPS secondary power consumers (¶23 discloses providing a limp home mode).
Regarding claim 18 which depends from claim 1, Akuzawa discloses wherein the PPS master controller and/or the VPS master controller is configured to define and detect a battery charging mode in which the system-shared instructions of prioritization of the PPS and VPS secondary power consumers includes giving the battery of the PPS secondary power consumer a higher priority than the VPS secondary power consumers (¶17 and ¶21 and ¶25 and ¶34 discuss charging based on SOC and so when any other batteries are in full charge and PPS is not then it would get priority).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 that the claim amendments which explicitly state that the safety devices are the power priority are not addressed by the reference. In paragraph 142 the citation states “loads that are needed for safe vehicle operation may be prioritized at a higher level than other loads” which is construed as being equivalent language.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747