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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 12/02/2025. Claims 1-2,4-7 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to arguments
Applicant amended claims 1 which changes the scope of the claims and as such a new grounds of rejection is issued.
In regards to the drawing objection Applicant asserts:
With respect to the text for reference elements 22, 40, and 60 applicant submits that a box is sufficient to describe these elements. For instance, reference number 22 refers to a vehicle control unit, 40 refers to a low-voltage battery, 60 refers to a single cell.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree. Specifically, the applicant filed an amendment to the drawings on 12/2/2025 in effort to overcome the drawing objection filed in the office action mailed 9/4/2025. However, the drawing amendments filed 12/2/2025 does not overcome the drawing objection and therefore the drawing amendment was not entered. Therefore, Examiner maintains the drawing the drawing objection as described below.
In regards to the rejection of Claim(s) 1 Applicant asserts:
Yano nor Lee disclose a main relay having a first relay connected to a positive side of the power line and a second relay connected to a negative side of the power line wherein the first control unit transmits a control signal for disconnecting the active fuse through the first driving/control wiring when the abnormality detection unit detects an abnormality of the power line via the first driving/control wiring, and the second control unit transmits a signal to disconnect the main relay the active fuse is disconnected so as to disconnect the main relay from the battery prior to the main relay being turned off by the control unit.
And further asserts:
Yano and Lee disclose a fuse connected between a battery and a relay at a positive side of a power line, but fails to disclose a second relay disposed on a negative side of the power line.
In response:
Examiner respectfully disagree. As seen from the rejection of claim 1 as seen below, the Examiner uses Yano to teach the claim language “the main relay including a first relay connected to a positive side of the power line and a second relay connected to a negative side of the power line (Fig. 2 Yano)”.
In regards to applicants remaining remarks:
Applicant remarks have been considered but are moot base on new grounds of rejection.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/2/2025 and 12/28/2022 are objected to because:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to identify the elements as described in the specification.
Specifically figures 1-2 contain elements with no description (i.e. the generic box elements). For example elements 20,40,60,22, etc. Contain elements with no description (i.e. the generic box elements). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
• (a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
• (b) When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
• (c) Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof. Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d).
[31 FR 12923, Oct. 4, 1966; 43 FR 4015, Jan. 31, 1978; paras. (a) and (c) revised, 60 FR 20195, Apr. 25, 1995, effective June 8, 1995; para. (a) revised, 69 FR 56481, Sept. 21, 2004, effective Oct. 21, 2004; para. (a) revised, 78 FR 62368, Oct. 21, 2013, effective Dec. 18, 2013].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner notes on claim interpretation
As to claim 1, which recites “an abnormality detection unit configured to detect an abnormality of a current value of the power line” which is unclear.
The specification recites the following:
[0024] “a current sensor 26, which constitutes an abnormality detection unit, detects the current of the positive electrode power line 16a to detect abnormalities of the power lines 16”
[0036] In the normal state, when the current value of the current sensor 26 serving as the abnormality detection unit indicates an abnormal value (a current value exceeding a predetermined current value range, for example) and an abnormality of a power line 16 is detected,
[0037] When the current value of the current sensor 26, which is an abnormality detection unit, indicates an abnormal value and an abnormality of the power line 16 is detected,
[0043] an example was described where the current sensor 26 serves as an abnormality detection unit that detects abnormalities of the power lines 16, but the present disclosure is not limited to this, and the abnormality detection unit may be constituted by a voltage sensor of the like.
[0043] an example was described where the first control unit 38 and the second control unit 54 caused the pyro fuse 24, which is an active fuse, to operate when the current sensor 26 serving as the abnormality detection unit detects an abnormality of a power line 16.
The specification above states that the current sensor senses the current which indicates an abnormal value but does not sufficiently describe what actually determines the abnormality of the power line (i.e. the current sensor or another element) based on the current sensor reading. Therefore, detecting the abnormality of the power line is intended use of the current sensors.
The specification also states the current sensor detects the abnormality but does not describe how the current sensor determines the abnormality.
It is unclear if the abnormality detection unit (i.e. the current or voltage sensor) configured to detect the abnormality of a current value is detecting the abnormal reading and another element determines abnormality or the abnormality detection unit detects the abnormal reading and in response determines the abnormality of the power line.
Based on BRI in light of the specification, Examiner will interpret claim language “an abnormality detection unit configured to detect an abnormality of a current value of the power line” as a current sensor.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
686
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yano (JP 2013074707) in view of Lee (US 20110228436) evident by Nakazawa (US 20090021217) in view of Steil (US 20160332522). Note: Examiner uses Yano JP 2013074707 to make rejection but relies on machine translation to clarify position.
As to claim 1, Yano discloses a power distribution module (Fig. 2) comprising:
a power line connecting between a battery and a load (Power line above, battery 9 and load 90);
a main relay connected to the power line (relay unit 4); the main relay including a first relay connected to a positive side of the power line and a second relay connected to a negative side of the power line (Fig. 2 above);
a fuse connected to the positive side of the power line between the battery and the first relay (fuse 2);
a first voltage converter connected to the power line on the load side relative to the main relay (pg. 3 under “power supply device 100” “…a step-up / down converter connected to the input side of the DC / AC inverter”);
an abnormality detection unit configured to detect an abnormality of a current value of the power line (The current sensor 3 detects the current of the battery block 9. The output of the current sensor 3 is input to the current detection circuit 13, and the charge / discharge current is calculated, Fig. 2);
a first driving/control wiring connected to the fuse and the abnormality detection unit (wires from control unit 10 that is connected to the fuse 2 and current sensor 3); and
a case (case 70),
wherein the case houses the power line, the main relay, the fuse, the abnormality detection unit, and the first driving/control wiring (Fig. 2 above), and
a first control unit (Fig. 2 control unit 11)
a second control unit for controlling the main relay (relay control circuit 14 controls main relay), the second control unit transmits a signal to disconnect the main relay (Interpreted as “second control unit is configured to transmit a signal to disconnect the main relay”. Step S37, where the relay operation is permitted and the vehicle can be driven).
Yano does not disclose/teach active fuse.
Lee teaches active fuse (Fig. 2 and [0023] fuse 240)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fuse of Yano to be an active fuse in order to prevent explosion of the battery pack, permanent damage of the battery cell, or breakdown of a load connected to the battery pack ([0008]).
Yano does not disclose/teach wherein the first control unit transmits a control signal for disconnecting the active fuse through the first driving/control wiring when the abnormality detection unit detects an abnormality of the power line via the first driving/control wiring.
Lee teaches a first control unit (second protective circuit 270) transmits a control signal for disconnecting the active fuse through the first driving/control wiring (wiring from the diode 300 to the fuse control switch 230) when the abnormality detection unit detects an abnormality of the power line via the first driving/control wiring (lines between sense resistor to protective circuit 280. [0023] a voltage difference between both ends of the sense resistor 210 is abnormally increased. According to the present invention, in case the voltage difference is increased over a predetermined level as mentioned above, …, and as a result a gate voltage of the fuse control switch 230 is increased. Thus, the fuse control switch 230 turns on to melt and cut the fuse 240, and as a result an electric current is not flowed any more in the battery pack protecting apparatus)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first control unit of Yano to include wherein the first control unit transmits a control signal for disconnecting the active fuse through the first driving/control wiring when the abnormality detection unit detects an abnormality of the power line via the first driving/control wiring in order to prevent explosion of the battery pack, permanent damage of the battery cell, or breakdown of a load connected to the battery pack ([0008]).
Yano does not disclose/teach wherein the first control unit transmits the control signal to the active fuse so as to disconnect the main relay from the battery (Based on BRI, interpreted as “electrically disconnect the main relay from the battery”) prior to the main relay being turned off by the second control unit.
Steil teaches a fuse disconnects so as to disconnect the main relay from the battery prior to the main relay being turned off ([0018] If a contactor conducts such a strong current, for example a short-circuit current, that such arcs which result in the fusing of the contactor may occur when opening the contactor, the current conducted by the contactor is interrupted by the tripped fuse before the contactor opens as a result of supply voltage fluctuations or a supply voltage failure).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the power distribution module of Yano in view of Lee to disconnect the active fuse so as to disconnect the main relay from the battery prior to the main relay being turned off in order to avoid the main relay fusing on account of occurring arcs ([0018]).
Therefore since Yano in view of Lee teaches the active fuse and the main relay are disconnected by the first and second control units respectively as described above, and Steil teaches disconnecting the fuse prior to the main relay, then it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through the combined teachings of Yano, Lee and Steil for the first and second control units to disconnect the active fuse and main relay in the claimed order in order to avoid the main relay fusing on account of occurring arcs ([0018] of Steil).
Yano in view of Lee does not disclose/teach wherein the case houses the first voltage converter.
However, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the case of Yano to house the first voltage converter in order to reduce the weight from the vehicle side load making it easier to transport.
Yano in view of Lee does not disclose/teach the first control unit mounted on the first voltage converter nor teaches the first driving/control wiring extending from the first voltage converter.
However it would be obvious to combine elements of a system within a singular module (evident by Nakazawa Fig.16A and [0106] where a protection function unit 91a is within the power converter 91) in order to reduce time to assemble and allow for quicker use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first control unit to be mounted on the first voltage converter and the first driving/control wiring to extend from the first voltage converter in order to reduce time to assemble and allow for quicker use.
Claims 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013074707 in view of Lee (US 20110228436) in view of Steil (US 20160332522) evident by Nakazawa (US 20090021217) evident by Kadirvel (US 20160093921).
As to claim 2, Yano in view of Lee in view of Steil evident by Nakazawa teaches the power distribution module according to claim 1, further comprising: a second voltage converter connected to the power line on the load side relative to the main relay (DC/AC inverter 95, Fig. 2 of Yano).
Yano does not disclose, wherein a second control unit transmits a control signal for disconnecting the active fuse when the abnormality detection unit detects an abnormality of the power line, and the active fuse is disconnected.
Lee teaches a control unit (second protective circuit 270) transmits a control signal for disconnecting the active fuse when the abnormality detection unit detects an abnormality of the power line, and the active fuse is disconnected ([0023] a voltage difference between both ends of the sense resistor 210 is abnormally increased. According to the present invention, in case the voltage difference is increased over a predetermined level as mentioned above, …, and as a result a gate voltage of the fuse control switch 230 is increased. Thus, the fuse control switch 230 turns on to melt and cut the fuse 240, and as a result an electric current is not flowed any more in the battery pack protecting apparatus).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the power distribution module of Yano to include a second control unit transmitting a control signal for disconnecting the active fuse when the abnormality detection unit detects an abnormality of the power line, and the active fuse is disconnected in order to prevent explosion of the battery pack, permanent damage of the battery cell, or breakdown of a load connected to the battery pack ([0008]).
Yano in view of Lee does not disclose/teach the second control unit mounted on the second voltage converter nor teaches the second driving/control wiring extending from the second voltage converter and connected to the active fuse.
However it would be obvious to combine elements of a system within a singular module (evident by Nakazawa Fig.16A and [0106] where a protection function unit 91a is within the power converter 91) in order to reduce time to assemble and allow for quicker use.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second control unit mounted on the second voltage converter and the second driving/control wiring extending from the second voltage converter and connected to the active fuse in order to reduce time to assemble and allow for quicker use.
Although Yano in view of Lee teaches the first control unit mounted on the first voltage converter, transmitting a control signal for disconnecting the active fuse and further teaches the first driving/control wiring extending from the first voltage converter and connected to the active fuse as described above, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the second control unit and the second driving/control wiring to be mounted on and extend from the second voltage converter in order to provide redundancy if either of the control units were to fail.
This advantages of redundancy is evident in Kadirvel (Fig. 3 and [0027]-[0028]) where Kadirvel has a primary protection control circuit 8a and a secondary protection control circuit 8b each of which may have the same general functions as the protection circuit 8 but together serve as a redundant protection control circuit. … such that if the primary were to fail then the secondary would act to signal its associated power switch circuit 5b.
As to claim 4, Yano in view of Lee in view of Steil evident by Nakazawa evident by Kadirvel teaches the power distribution module according to claim 2.
Yano in view of Lee does not disclose/teach wherein the case further houses the second voltage converter and the second driving/control wiring.
However, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the case of Yano to house the second voltage converter and the second driving/control wiring in order to reduce the weight from the vehicle side load making it easier to transport.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013074707 in view of Lee (US 20110228436) in view of Steil (US 20160332522) evident by Nakazawa (US 20090021217) in view of Edson (US 5099397).
As to claim 5, Yano in view of Lee in view of Steil evident by Nakazawa teaches the power distribution module according to claim 1.
Yano in view of Lee does not disclose/teach wherein the active fuse is a pyro fuse.
Edson teaches a pyro fuse (Column 2 lines 63-68 Fuze 50 alternatively may be formed of a "Pyrofuse" material such as an alloy of aluminum and palladium whenever higher fuzing temperatures are required).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the active fuse of Yano in view of Lee to be a pyrofuse in order to use at higher temperatures (Column 2 lines 63-68).
Claims 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013074707 in view of Lee (US 20110228436) evident by Nakazawa (US 20090021217) evident by Kadirvel (US 20160093921) in view of Edson (US 5099397).
As to claim 6, Yano in view of Lee in view of Steil evident by Nakazawa teaches the power distribution module according to claim 2.
Yano in view of Lee does not disclose/teach wherein the active fuse is a pyro fuse.
Edson teaches a pyro fuse (Column 2 liens 63-68 Fuze 50 alternatively may be formed of a "Pyrofuse" material such as an alloy of aluminum and palladium whenever higher fuzing temperatures are required).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the active fuse of Yano in view of Lee to be a pyrofuse in order to use at higher temperatures (Column 2 lines 63-68).
As to claim 7, Yano in view of Lee in view of Steil evident by Nakazawa evident by Kadirvel teaches the power distribution module according to claim 4.
Yano in view of Lee does not disclose/teach wherein the active fuse is a pyro fuse.
Edson teaches a pyro fuse (Column 2 liens 63-68 Fuze 50 alternatively may be formed of a "Pyrofuse" material such as an alloy of aluminum and palladium whenever higher fuzing temperatures are required).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the active fuse of Yano in view of Lee to be a pyrofuse in order to use at higher temperatures (Column 2 lines 63-68).
Conclusion and related art
Kirk (US 20030080621, Abstract ) is cited for the fuse is sized and the opening of the high current relay is timed via a controller such that the fuse blows immediately after, and not before, the opening of the high current relay to provide a brief alternate path for high current flow.
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 TYNESE V MCDANIEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6579. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9am to 530pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached on 5712722312. The fax phone 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.
/TYNESE V MCDANIEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights