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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed 6/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued the amendments are fully supported by the specification. The applicant has further argued that the intended use of the predetermined time is limiting over the prior art. Applicant is further arguing limitations which have not been claimed, and may also not have been disclosed (that there is an involuntary, erroneous, anomalous reason for the relay to stop during power feeding operation, rather than the controlled, voluntary reason given by the cited prior art; noted that the claims as currently formatted do not distinguish these different reasons for the stoppage, since if you stop during power feeding/discharging, you are still stopped, regardless of whether it was planned or not). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As for the new matter added to the claims, the examiner could find no support for the language added, namely “a predetermined time required for protection of the power feeding circuit.” The applicant’s disclosure does not support this language. Therefore, a 112[a] rejection will be applied to the claims.
As for the intended use language, it is noted: In response to applicant's argument that “a predetermined time required for protection of the power feeding circuit”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As a predetermined time described by the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed intended use, the applied prior art anticipates the claimed intended use.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that there is an involuntary, erroneous, anomalous reason for the relay to stop during power feeding operation, rather than the controlled, voluntary reason) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims simply state that when power feeding has stopped. When a relay is opened (either a controlled manner or for an uncontrolled involuntary manner) which lies in the only path of the power feeding circuit, an open-circuit is created (like for the applied prior art). This open-circuit serves to stop the power feeding operation when there previously was a power feeding operation. Figs. [4, 5, 7] of Ishii, in view of Zhang Fig. 4, teaches this feature as claimed. If the applicant claims an anomalous/uncontrolled/involuntary stoppage, then it may be able to overcome the applied prior art. However, it is unclear whether the applicant has support for such language.
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments have been respectfully refuted. The drawing objections and specification objections are withdrawn due to the applicant’s arguments and the discussion held in the interview held May 8 2026. The claim objections are withdrawn due to the applicant’s amendments and arguments.
The specification amendments are not accepted due to the originally filed specification already being correct (furthermore, even if they were necessary, the abstract is not properly filed as it is not on a separate sheet, and would therefore be non-compliant even if it were necessary). The drawing amendments are accepted.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al (USPGPN 20140217972) in view of Tarlau et al (USPGPN 20180097265) and Zhang et al (USPGPN 20210097785), as evidenced by Yashimoto (USPGPN 20180188677)
Independent Claim 1, Ishii teaches a power supply system in an electric vehicle, the power supply system (10, see Figs. [1-3, 6, 10, esp. 1-3 & 6]) comprising:
a charging and feeding port (112/212) to which a power source outside the electric vehicle or a load outside the electric vehicle is connected (600, Figs. 1 & 2);
a battery configured to store electric power (100);
a charging circuit provided between the battery and the charging and feeding port, and configured to supply electric power of the power source to the battery (110);
a power feeding circuit provided between the battery and the charging and feeding port, and configured to supply the electric power of the battery to the load (120);
a contactor provided between the power feeding circuit and the charging and feeding port (122), and configured to switch between a conduction state in which the power feeding circuit and the charging and feeding port are electrically connected to each other, and an interruption state in which the power feeding circuit and the charging and feeding port are electrically disconnected from each other (¶’s [66, 100], see further ¶’s [101-139]); and
one or more processing circuitry (130),
wherein the one or more processing circuitry (see Figs. [4, 5, 7-9]):
acquire an operation state of the power feeding circuit (¶’s [101-139, esp. 101-124], Figs. [4, 5, 7, esp. 5]);
perform detection of welding of the contactor to determine whether or not the contactor is welded (¶’s [101-139, 101-124], Figs. [4, 5, 7, esp. 5]);
the detection of welding of the contactor is performed in a case where the power feeding from the battery to the load is ended (Fig. 4 S40 before S50,
Fig. 7 S130/S230 before S140/S260),
in a case where an operation of the power feeding circuit is stopped during the power feeding, the detection of welding of the contractor is performed (Fig. 4 S40 before S50,
Fig. 7 S130/S230 before S140/S260).
Ishii is silent to prohibit charging of the battery and power feeding to the load in a case where the contactor is determined to be failed/malfunctioning/abnormal; in a case where an operation of the power feeding circuit is stopped, detect the welding of the contactor after a predetermined time required for protection of the power feeding circuit has elapsed from when the operation of the power feeding circuit is stopped. Ishii is silent to explicitly teaching a contactor [one of ordinary skill in the art understands that a contactor is a species of relay].
Tarlau teaches prohibit charging of the battery and power feeding to the load in a case where the contactor is determined to be failed/malfunctioning/abnormal (Fig. 12, ¶[70] describes that when contactor/relay relating to the operation of the battery is abnormal, a fusible element in the path of the battery is controlled [i.e. an active fuse] so as to provide an open-circuit, i.e. preventing both charging and discharging). Tarlau teaches this control method provides improve safety (¶‘s [70, 71]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishii with Tarlau to provide improved safety.
Ishii is silent to in a case where an operation of the power feeding circuit is stopped, detect the welding of the contactor after a predetermined time required for protection of the power feeding circuit has elapsed from when the operation of the power feeding circuit is stopped
Zhang teaches in a case where an operation of the power feeding circuit is stopped during the power feeding (402 of Fig. 4 represents this state, where if 420 is the result of the detection, the power feeding has truly stopped), detect the welding of the contactor after a predetermined time required for protection of the power feeding circuit has elapsed (one of ordinary skill in the art understands that waiting for power to dissipate [i.e. reducing chances of transients] can serve to improve protection of sensitive circuitry, thus Zhang teaches this intended use limitation) from when the operation of the power feeding circuit is stopped (¶’s [29, 33, 50, 54], Fig. 4, where structure shown in Figs. 1 & 2, with Fig. 3 showing expected result when contactor not welded).
Zhang teaches this method serves to improve the speed of a state of the contactor being welded (¶[33]). Yashimoto further provides evidence that by waiting the predetermined time after the relay has been turned off, it can help to ensure that the values on either side of the contactor/relay are stable (¶[38]), i.e. so one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the waiting period would improve accuracy.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishii in view of Tarlau with Zhang to provide improved accuracy and speed.
Dependent Claim 2, the combination of Ishii, Tarlau, and Zhang teaches in a case where the power feeding circuit is not restored after the predetermined time has elapsed from when the operation of the power feeding circuit is stopped during the power feeding, the one or more processing circuitry prohibit the charging of the battery and the power feeding to the load (as shown in Figs. [4, 5, 7] of Ishii, the contactor process does not start until the battery has already been instructed to stop discharging, so there would be no further discharging at that point, and no charging is described to continue;
it is noted that this claim is not well written, as “charging and discharging is prohibited” does not explain how long it may occur, i.e. for x amount of time, etc.;
for Ishii, the comparison can result in a detection of welding state, where Tarlau teaches that a predetermined period is used before the welding state is occurring, which means that the fuse is blown and charging/discharging is prohibited {Fig. 12, ¶[70]};
for Zhang, the detection of welding state results in the vehicle not being operated, i.e. charged/discharged (¶[50]).
The applicant has argued the amendments are fully supported by the specification. The applicant has further argued that the intended use of the predetermined time is limiting over the prior art. Applicant is further arguing limitations which have not been claimed, and may also not have been disclosed (that there is an involuntary, erroneous, anomalous reason for the relay to stop during power feeding operation, rather than the controlled, voluntary reason given by the cited prior art; noted that the claims as currently formatted do not distinguish these different reasons for the stoppage, since if you stop during power feeding/discharging, you are still stopped, regardless of whether it was planned or not). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As for the new matter added to the claims, the examiner could find no support for the language added, namely “a predetermined time required for protection of the power feeding circuit.” The applicant’s disclosure does not support this language. Therefore, a 112[a] rejection will be applied to the claims.
As for the intended use language, it is noted: In response to applicant's argument that “a predetermined time required for protection of the power feeding circuit”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As a predetermined time described by the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed intended use, the applied prior art anticipates the claimed intended use.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that there is an involuntary, erroneous, anomalous reason for the relay to stop during power feeding operation, rather than the controlled, voluntary reason) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims simply state that when power feeding has stopped. When a relay is opened (either a controlled manner or for an uncontrolled involuntary manner) which lies in the only path of the power feeding circuit, an open-circuit is created (like for the applied prior art). This open-circuit serves to stop the power feeding operation when there previously was a power feeding operation. Figs. [4, 5, 7] of Ishii, in view of Zhang Fig. 4, teaches this feature as claimed. If the applicant claims an anomalous/uncontrolled/involuntary stoppage, then it may be able to overcome the applied prior art. However, it is unclear whether the applicant has support for such language.
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments have been respectfully refuted.
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 JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights