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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/02/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1,3-4,6,8-9,12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namou et al. (US 2017/0256972), hereinafter Namou, in view of Clayton et al. (US 2002/0191418), hereinafter Clayton.
As to claims 1, 6 and 12, Namou discloses in figure 1, a control method of discharging at least one high voltage (HV) [high voltage battery (12); see ¶006] component, the method comprising:
providing a discharge circuit [discharging resistor (24) and ¶0011] configured to connect the at least one HV component to a passive resistance load [load 10] and a control circuit [noted that controller (55) trigger signal (56) and ¶0011 -0012] controller the controller circuit ;
an isolated power supply [flyback transformer(30) is energized and deenergized]] , wherein the control circuit comprises a junction-gate field-effect transistor (JFET) [JFET device, ¶0011]. between a first state in which the control circuit opens the discharge circuit and a second state in which the control circuit closes the discharge circuit [the switches on by the signal (56) and when it is on the battery is connected to the load and the switch off the battery is discounted]
wherein the isolated power supply [flyback transformer (30)] pulls a gate of the JFET negative to control the control circuit to open the discharge circuit
; the control circuit closing the discharge circuit, thereby allowing the at least one HV component to discharge through the passive resistance load [see ¶0011-0013; noted the discharging switch is controlled by the control gate (28) and the switching is turned on and off to allow charge and discharge the battery to the high—voltage bus (14); see ¶0011-0014] .
Namou does not disclose explicitly, wherein the isolated power supply includes a high voltage flyback power supply and wherein the control circuits connected to an additional flyback resistance load,
Clayton discloses in figure 2, wherein the isolated power supply includes a high voltage flyback power supply flyback power supply T1] and wherein the control circuits connected to an additional flyback resistance load [flyback load transformer T2].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Namou’s circuit and use flyback power and flyback loads as taught by Clayton in order to provide efficiency power supply device with low cost design and also to safely dissipate stored energy.
As to claims 3, 8 and 14, Namou discloses in figure 1, wherein a first one of a drain and a source of the JFET [see ¶0011] is operably coupled to the at least one HV [battery 14] component, a second one of the drain and the source of the JFET is operably coupled to the passive resistance load [24], and a gate [transistor gate] of the JFET is operably coupled to the isolated power supply [see ¶00 12 and ¶0034; all the components are operably electrically connected].
As to claims 4, 9 and 15, Namou discloses in figure 1, wherein the isolated power supply comprises an integrated circuit [the circuit is integrated].
Claims 5, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namou in view of Clayton, and in view of Melton et al. (US 2004/0095096), hereinafter Melton.
As to claims 5, 10 and 16, Namou discloses a load resistor [load resistor (24)].
Namon does not disclose explicitly, wherein the passive resistive load has a resistance value within a range of about 60,000.00 ohms to 50,000.00 ohms.
Melton discloses resistive load [the load resistor is in Kill-ohms; see ¶0034]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a resistor values in Kill-ohms in Namou’s apparatus as taught by Melton in order to effectively recondition the battery.
Neither Namou nor Melton discloses the claimed invention except the resistance value within a range of about 60,000.00 ohms to 50,000.00 ohms.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose appropriate resistance values to effectively recondition the battery , since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine s-kill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namon in view of Clayton, and in view of Meyer , III et al. (US 2013/0285581), hereinafter Meyer
As to claim 11, Namon discloses a vehicle [noted that element 20 is mounted on the vehicle].
However, Namon does not disclose explicitly, the vehicle comprising: a chassis; a plurality of wheels; a transmission operably coupled to the plurality of wheels; an electric motor operably coupled to the transmission; and a battery electrically coupled to the electric motor; wherein the electric motor comprises the HV system according to claim 6.
Meyer discloses in figure 1. the vehicle comprising: a chassis [see ¶0022]; a plurality of wheels [vehicle (10) wheels are shown in figure 1] [transmission (14) see ¶0018 and figure 1] ; a transmission operably coupled to the plurality of wheels; an electric motor operably coupled to the transmission [see figure 1] [see figure 1, element 12] ; and a battery electrically coupled to the electric motor; wherein the electric motor comprises the HV system according to claim 6 [see figure 1].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the battery discharging control means of Namon with Meyer’s vehicle apparatus in order to provide electrical stability and also drive the vehicle loads effectively.
It is also noted that all the claimed elements of applicant' s inventions were known in the prior art (e.g. battery, wheels, vehicle, transmission, etc.,) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, proper motivation/rationale to combine is as given in the office action. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground of rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)272-8430. The examiner can normally be reached M_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, Julian A. Huffman can be reached at Julian.Huffman@uspto.gov. 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.
/SAMUEL BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859