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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-11 remain pending in the application, and claim 4 has been canceled. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome every claim objection and 103 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/22/2025. The examiner notes that 112 rejections were not addressed by the amendments for claims 8 and 9. The new grounds of rejection presented below are necessitated by the amendments. Accordingly, this Office Action is made Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 18 recites “set-up ratio” instead of “step-up ratio,” and line 20 recites “electronic unit” instead of “electronic control unit.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 describes increasing the step-up ratio when the temperature of the step-up device exceeds a reference temperature. The specification and Fig. 5 seem to describe the opposite. The exception is in Paragraphs 23 and 125 where it describes increasing step-up ratio. However, the concept seems out of place when compared with paragraphs 24-26 and 127 describing reducing step-up ratio when the step-up device exceeds a reference temperature.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites,
“when a user operation has been performed to equalize the step-up ratio in a case where the temperature of the step-up device is low with the step-up ratio in a case where the temperature of the step-up device is high and the loss reduction process is executed, the electronic control unit is configured to set the step-up ratio in accordance with a result of the user operation without executing the output power increasing process.”
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the above phrase as “when a user operation has been performed to equalize the step-up ratio in a case where the temperature of the step-up device is low or in a case where the temperature of the step-up device is high and the loss reduction process is executed, the electronic control unit is configured to set the step-up ratio in accordance with a result of the user operation without executing the output power increasing process.”
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroe (US 20190241085 A1) in view of Sachimori et al. (US 20180302020 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sachimori.
Regarding independent claim 1, Hiroe teaches a charge controller that controls external charging for charging an electrical storage device (Fig. 1 and ¶[28]: power storage device 10) of a vehicle (1) with electric power from a power installation outside the vehicle (Fig. 1 and ¶[7, 28]: DC charger 300, which is external to vehicle 1, charges power storage device 10 in the vehicle 1),
the vehicle including:
a power receiving unit configured to receive electric power from the power installation (¶[31] and Fig. 1: vehicle inlet 90 receives power from DC charger 300), and
a step-up device (¶[32] and Fig. 1: step up/down converter 50) provided between the power receiving unit (vehicle inlet 90) and the electrical storage device (power storage device 10), the step-up device being configured to
step up an input voltage that is a voltage of electric power input to the step- up device through the power receiving unit from the power installation and output a step-up voltage that is the stepped-up voltage to the electrical storage device (¶[33, 68] and Fig. 1: step up/down converter 50 supplies stepped-down of stepped-up voltage to the power storage device 10), and
charge the electrical storage device by supplying output electric power that is electric power at the step-up voltage to the electrical storage device (¶[32, 68] and Fig. 1);
the charge controller (Fig. 1: ECU 100) comprising:
an electronic control unit including a memory (¶[46]: ECU 100 includes a memory), the electronic control unit being configured to;
execute drive control over the step-up device (¶[68]: ECU 100 controls and steps up the charging voltage by operation of the step-up/down converter 50.), and
set a step-up ratio that is a first ratio between the input voltage and the step-up voltage in accordance with a temperature of the vehicle inlet (¶[68]: ECU 100 sets target voltage VB based on the temperature T1 of the vehicle inlet 90).
transmit, to the power installation (Fig. 1: DC charger 300), a first command value of a current supplied from the power installation to the power receiving unit (¶[29, 45-46] and Fig. 1: DC charger 300 includes a communication unit 310 which performs communication with the motor-driven vehicle 1 via a communication signal lines L1 and L2. ECU 100 controls inputting and outputting of control signals to devices and is connected to DC charger 300 via communication device 150).
Hiroe does not explicitly teach setting a step-up ratio that is a first ratio between the input voltage and the step-up voltage in accordance with a temperature of the step-up device, and set the step-up ratio to a second ratio that is lower than the first ratio; and
the electronic control unit is further configured to:
reduce the first command value when the temperature of the step-up device is equal to or higher than a threshold temperature after executing a loss reduction process, and
set the command value to a second value lower than the first command value when the temperature is higher than or equal to an allowable upper limit temperature.
Sachimori teaches setting a first step-up ratio (¶[18-19, 23-24] and Fig. 2, steps S170 or 180: limiting factor kout set at value 1) that is a ratio between the input voltage and the step-up voltage in accordance with a temperature of the step-up device, and set the step-up ratio to a second ratio that is lower than the first ratio (¶[3, 18, 23-24] and Fig. 2: When the temperature of the boost converter is equal to or higher than the allowable temperature, a value smaller than 1, from a range of 0 to 1, is set to the limiting factor to limit discharge and suppress overheating. In steps S160-S180, the limiting factor is modified based on whether Tcj is greater than or equal to the reference value Tref); and
the electronic control unit is further configured to:
reduce the first command value when the temperature of the step-up device is equal to or higher than a threshold temperature after executing a loss reduction process, and
set the command value to a second value lower than the first command value when the temperature is higher than or equal to an allowable upper limit temperature (¶[24]: limiting factor kout, generated by the CPU 52, is valued from 0 to 1 such that the higher temperature provides a smaller limiting factor kout. The examiner interprets “reducing the first command value” as controlling the limiting factor kout to be reduced, and the examiner interprets the “loss reduction process” as the overall process to reduce the loss of power in the form of heat).
Sachimori and Hiroe both teach systems for safely charging batteries. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate modifying the output voltage of the converter in the system of Sachimori into the system of Hiroe to suppress the overheating of the boost converter (¶[3]).
Regarding independent claim 11, Hiroe in view of Sachimori teaches a vehicle (Hiroe - Fig. 1: 1 ; Sachimori - Fig. 1: 20) comprising the charge controller (Hiroe - 100 ; Sachimori - 20) according to claim 1 (See rejection for claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, Hiroe in view of Sachimori teaches the charge controller according to claim 1, wherein Sachimori further teaches the electronic control unit is configured to execute the loss reduction process of setting the step-up ratio such that the power loss in the step-up device is reduced when the temperature of the step-up device is high as compared to the power loss when the temperature of the step-up device is low (¶[3, 18, 23-24] and Fig. 2: When the temperature of the boost converter is equal to or higher than the allowable temperature, a value smaller than 100% is set to the limiting factor to limit discharge and suppress overheating. The examiner interprets power loss as heat).
Regarding claim 3, Hiroe in view of Sachimori teaches the charge controller according to claim 2, wherein Sachimori further teaches in the loss reduction process, the electronic control unit is configured to set the step-up ratio such that the power loss is reduced when the temperature of the step-up device is higher than or equal to a threshold temperature as compared to the power loss when the temperature of the step-up device is lower than the threshold temperature (¶[3, 18, 23-24] and Fig. 2: When the temperature of the boost converter is equal to or higher than the allowable temperature, a value smaller than 100% is set to the limiting factor to limit discharge and suppress overheating. The examiner interprets power loss as heat).
Regarding claim 5, Sachimori teaches the charge controller according to claim 2, wherein in the loss reduction process, the electronic control unit is configured to set the step-up ratio such that the power loss is reduced as the temperature of the step-up device increases (¶[24]: Note the examiner interprets power loss as heat.).
Regarding claim 6, Sachimori teaches the charge controller according to claim 2, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to execute an output power increasing process of setting the step-up ratio such that the output electric power increases when the temperature of the step-up device is low as compared to the electric power when the temperature of the step-up device is high (¶[3, 24] and Fig. 2: When temperature is lower than reference value Tref, the CPU 52 sets value 1 to the limiting factor kout whereas if temperature is not greater than Tref, the limiting factor may be as low as 0.).
Regarding claim 7, Hiroe teaches the charge controller according to claim 6, wherein in the output power increasing process, the electronic control unit is configured to maximize the output electric power within a range of electric power that the step-up device is allowed to output to the electrical storage device (¶[27]: DC charger 300 has maximum output power according to an allowable range of up to 1000 V and 400 A).
Regarding claim 10, Hiroe teaches the charge controller according to claim 1, wherein:
the step-up device includes a second element connected to a negative electrode of the electrical storage device (Fig. 1: converter 50 connected to battery 10 via NL1), and
the electronic control unit is configured to decrease the step-up ratio when a temperature of the second element, that is, the temperature of the step-up device, exceeds a second reference temperature.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroe in view of Sachimori, and further in view of Kotani et al. (US 20050259450 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Hiroe in view of Sachimori teaches the charge controller according to claim 6, wherein when the step-up ratio has been equalized
in a case where the temperature of the step-up device is low with the step-up ratio
in a case where the temperature of the step-up device is high and the loss reduction process is executed,
the electronic control unit is configured to set the step-up ratio (Sachimori - ¶[24, 27]: Limiting factor kout is valued from 0 to 1 such that the higher temperature provides a smaller limiting factor kout. When temperature is lower than reference value Tref, the CPU 52 sets value 1 to the limiting factor kout whereas if temperature is not greater than Tref, the limiting factor may be as low as 0.).
Hiroe does not teach that the step-up ratio is balanced as a result of user operation.
Kotani teaches a power output is adjusted as a result of user operation (¶[147]: an output power value is set by keyboard input).
Hiroe and Kotani teach systems for controlling power output. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the keyboard input in Kotani into the system of Hiroe to allow a user to prioritize either power output or health of converter.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroe in view of Sachimori, and further in view of Kawahara (US 20220016993 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hiroe teaches the charge controller according to claim 1, wherein
the step-up device includes a first element connected to a positive electrode of the electrical storage device (Fig. 1: converter 50 connected to battery 10 via PL1).
Hiroe does not teach the electronic control unit is configured to increase the step-up ratio when a temperature of the first element, that is, the temperature of the step-up device, exceeds a first reference temperature.
Kawahara teaches an electronic control unit configured to increase a step-up ratio when a temperature of a step-up device exceeds a first reference temperature (Fig. 3: When Tp is greater than T1, the current profile is increased).
Hiroe and Kawahara teach systems for controlling the temperature for power systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to incorporate the increase of current when temperature is above a threshold in the system of Hiroe into the system of Kawahara to shorten charging time (¶[56]).
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 Ryu-Sung Peter Weinmann whose telephone number is (703)756-5964. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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 Huffman, can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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.
/Ryu-Sung P. Weinmann/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 January 8, 2026
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859