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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 01/11/2023, 09/06/2023,04/16/2024, 08/26/2024,11/08/2024 and 12/16/2024 are acknowledged by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “The control method of claim 17” in line 1. Claim 17 is not a method claim and the method claim , in this case claim 21, cannot be dependent upon claim 17. It appears this is a typographical error and claim 21 should be dependent upon claim 20. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 recites “The control method of claim 17” in line 1. Claim 17 is not a method claim and the method claim, in this case claim 22, cannot be dependent upon claim 17. It appears this is a typographical error and claim 22 should be dependent upon claim 20. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1.3, 5-7, 12 -17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machine Translation of DE102014202504A1, hereinafter 504’, in view of Lim et al. ( US 2012/0086390), hereinafter Lim.
As to claims 1 and 12, 504’ discloses in figure 1 (reproduced below):-
PNG
media_image1.png
741
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a main switch [switch 7; see figure above] configured to supply or cut off a voltage of a battery [battery 3] to a load [load 21];
and a semiconductor pre-charger module [element 12] comprising a semiconductor switch [switch 12] configured to supply or cut off the voltage of the battery to the load , and
a semiconductor switch driver [driver 16] configured to output a pulse signal for driving the semiconductor switch to turn on and off the semiconductor switch and is connected in parallel with the main switch, and; a controller [controller 15] configured to generate a control signal for controlling the main switch and the semiconductor pre-charger module [the controller controls the both switches, see figure above],
504’ does not disclose exility, wherein the semiconductor switch driver of the semiconductor pre-charger module comprises an isolation element configured to electrically isolate the controller and the voltage of the battery.
Lim discloses in figure 3, wherein the semiconductor switch [switch S2] driver of the semiconductor pre-charger module comprises an isolation element [Optocoupler , see ¶0081] configured to electrically isolate the controller and the voltage of the battery [battery Bm is isolated from the controller by the Optocoupler ; see figure 3 and ¶0081].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use isolation element in 504’s apparatus as taught by Lim in order to protect the switching circuits from high voltage.
As to claims 3 and 14. 504’ discloses in figure 1, wherein the semiconductor switch of the semiconductor pre-charger comprises a metal-oxide semiconductor (MOS) controlled thyristor (MCT) [see ¶0021 and ¶0046].
As to claims 5 and 15 504’ discloses in figure above, a voltage/current sensing unit [detection modules (29) comprises current sensor (5) and voltage measurement unit (18); see ¶0036] configured to sense a voltage and a current to diagnose a failure of at least one of the semiconductor pre-charger module and the battery system [see ¶0016, ¶0022, ¶0029 and ¶0046].
As to claims 6 and 16, Lim discloses in figure 3, wherein the isolation element of the semiconductor switch driver is an optocoupler ¶0081].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use isolation element such as optocoupler in 504’s apparatus as taught by Lim in order to protect the switching circuits from voltage spikes.
As to claims 7 and 17, Lim discloses in figure 3, wherein: a light-emitting unit of the optocoupler is connected to the controller; and a light receiving unit of the optocoupler is connected to a gate of a semiconductor switch [see ¶0081].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use isolation element such as optocoupler in 504’s apparatus as taught by Lim in order to protect the switching circuits from voltage spikes.
7. Claims 4, 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 504’in view of Lim , and in view of Saito (US 2020/0274385 ).
As to claim 4, 504’ does not disclose explicitly, a direct current (DC)/DC converter configured to supply a voltage generated by lowering the voltage of the battery to the controller.
Kimoto discloses in figure 1, a direct current (DC)/DC converter [converter 12] configured to supply a voltage generated by lowering the voltage of the battery to the controller [see Col. 2, lines 22-29].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use DC/DC converter in 504’s apparatus as taught by Kimoto in order to provide regulated power to the controller.
As to claims 9 and 19, 504’ discloses all of the claim limitations except ,wherein the controller turns on the semiconductor switch of the semiconductor pre-charger module when the battery system starts, and turns on the main switch and then turns off the semiconductor switch when the voltage of the battery satisfies a system specification through voltage sensing.
Saito discloses in figure 2, wherein the controller turns on the semiconductor switch of the semiconductor pre-charger module [pre charger module is switched on at S110] when the battery system starts, and turns on the main switch and then turns off the semiconductor switch when the voltage of the battery satisfies a system specification through voltage sensing [when the battery voltage satisfies the predetermined voltage value at S140 the recharge process is completed and the main switch is turned on; see also ¶0031-0033].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to monitor the battery voltage and control the precharger switch of 504’ based on the monitored battery voltage as taught by Saito in order to prevent inrush current.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 504’ in view of Lim , and in view of Kumagai (US 2012/0056595 ).
As to claims 8 and 18, 504’ discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the isolation element of the semiconductor switch driver is a transformer in which a primary side and a secondary side are electrically isolated and signal transmission is performed by an electromagnetic induction action.
Kumagai discloses in figure 1. wherein the isolation element of the semiconductor switch driver is a transformer [Isolation devices 23-1 and 23-2] in which a primary side and a secondary side are electrically isolated and signal transmission is performed by an electromagnetic induction action [the isolation devices receive enable and disable signals from a controller and controller the gate of the semiconductor switches 21-1 and 21-2].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use isolation element in 504’s apparatus as taught by Kumagai in order to protect the switching circuits from high voltage.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 504 in view of Lim , and in view of Saito, and in view of Kimoto (US 11.342,772 )
As to claim 10, 504’ discloses all of the claim limitations except, wherein the controller is further configured to check that no current flows first by sensing the current to diagnose a failure of the semiconductor pre-charger module before turning on the semiconductor switch of the semiconductor pre-charger module.
Kimoto discloses in figure 1, wherein the controller [figure 1, ECU] is further configured to check that no current flows first by sensing the current to diagnose a failure of the semiconductor pre-charger module before turning on the semiconductor switch of the semiconductor pre-charger module [see figure 2, and also Col. 3, lines 54-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-19].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to monitor the charging current and control the precharger switch of 504’ based on the monitored current as taught by Kimoto in order to prevent the main contactor from large current.
As to claim 11, Kimoto discloses in figures 1-2, configured to check whether the semiconductor pre-charger module is failed by sensing a current of the semiconductor pre-charger module after turning on the semiconductor switch of the semiconductor pre-charger module[see figure 2, and also Col. 3, lines 54-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-19].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to monitor the charging current and control the precharger switch of 504’ based on the monitored current as taught by Kimoto in order to prevent the main contactor from large current.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102014202504A1, hereinafter 504’, in view of Saito (US 2020/0274385).
As to claim 20, 504’ discloses in figure 1 (reproduced below):-
a main switch [switch 7; see figure above]
PNG
media_image1.png
741
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
configured to supply or cut off a voltage of a battery [battery 3] to a load [load 21];
and a semiconductor pre-charger module [element 12] comprising a semiconductor switch [switch 12] configured to supply or cut off the voltage of the battery to the load , and
a semiconductor switch driver [driver 16] configured to output a pulse signal for driving the semiconductor switch to turn on and off the semiconductor switch and is connected in parallel with the main switch, and; the controller method comprising [controller 15].
504’ does not disclose exility, turning on the semiconductor switch of the semiconductor pre-charger module when the battery system starts, and turning on the main switch and then turning off the semiconductor switch when the voltage of the battery satisfies a system specification through voltage sensing.
Saito discloses in figure 2, turning on the semiconductor switch of the semiconductor pre-charger module [pre charger module is switched on at S110] when the battery system starts, and turning on the main switch and then turning off the semiconductor switch when the voltage of the battery satisfies a system specification through voltage sensing [when the battery voltage satisfies the predetermined voltage value at S140 the recharge process is completed and the main switch is turned on; see also ¶0031-0033].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to monitor the charging current and control the precharger switch of 504’ based on the monitored current as taught by Saito in order to prevent the main contactor from large current.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 504’, in view in view of Saito, and in view of Kimoto (US 11.342,772 )
As to claim 21, 504’ discloses all of the claim limitations except, checking that no current flows first by sensing the current to diagnose a failure of the semiconductor pre-charger module before turning on the semiconductor switch of the semiconductor pre-charger module.
Kimoto discloses in figure 1, wherein the controller [figure 1, ECU] checking that no current flows first by sensing the current to diagnose a failure of the semiconductor pre-charger module before turning on the semiconductor switch of the semiconductor pre-charger module [see figure 2, and also Col. 3, lines 54-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-19].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to monitor the charging current and control the precharger switch of 504’ based on the monitored current as taught by Kimoto in order to prevent the main contactor from large current.
As to claim 22, Kimoto discloses in figures 1-2, checking whether the semiconductor pre-charger module is failed by sensing a current of the semiconductor pre-charger module after turning on the semiconductor switch of the semiconductor pre-charger module[see figure 2, and also Col. 3, lines 54-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-19].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to monitor the charging current and control the precharger switch of 504’ based on the monitored current as taught by Kimoto in order to prevent the main contactor from large current.
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