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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains abbreviations without explaining them (GBPS). Also, Fig. 1 has this term as OBPS not GBPS. Provide the full name of the term. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant uses GBPS instead of OBPS in the specification, but uses OBPS in the drawings. In addition, the term is “on-board power supply”. Fix the consistency issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 OBPS 18 is not clearly labeled to demonstrate its purpose. Examiner recommends applicant show arrows for direction of current vis-à-vis the battery and the grid. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1’s processing steps do not appear to be described in a linear fashion in terms of a coherent process of steps happening one after another. If the applicant meant them to be read in a linear fashion, then the examiner recommends the applicant look at rewriting the functional limitations of the processing circuitry.
Appropriate correction is required.
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]);
detect welding of the contactor to determine whether or not the contactor is welded (¶’s [101-139, 101-124], Figs. [4, 5, 7, esp. 5]);
detect the welding of the contactor 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).
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 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 of ordinary skill in the art 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 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, detect the welding of the contactor after a predetermined time has elapsed 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 further teaches inhibiting of charging/discharging of battery when contactor is determined to be welded (416 of Fig. 4, ¶[50]). 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 of ordinary skill in the art 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, 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]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art most relating to a delay period between relay/contactor detection and the switching state change:
US-20180188677-A1
US-20060114635-A1
US-20180272870-A1
US-20200317076-A1
US-20210097785-A1
US-20200384866-A
US-10146164-B2
US-7522400-B2
US-10476262-B2
US-11130420-B2
US-12374173-B2
US-11485234-B2
Art most relating to relay/contactor welding detection and V2G
US-20110121779-A1
US-20120206104-A1
US-20140001854-A1
US-20150291111-A1
US-20140217972-A1
US-20140327408-A1
US-20150042288-A1
US-8368352-B2
US-9368969-B2
US-9669782-B2
US-9216655-B2
US-9387767-B2
US-9466999-B2
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