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 .
Drawings
Figures 4, 7, 9 and 11 are objected to because they show empty boxes that cannot be easily identified without consulting the specification. The flowcharts of these figures would be easier to understand with text labels for each step.
Figure 8 is objected to because it is unclear which switch (811, 812) is connected to which auxiliary bus (214a, 214b). The specification (par 85) indicates that each switch is routed to different buses. Therefore, the Applicants are requested to add darkened circles (or similar) to indicate connections between the vertical lines (switch outputs) and horizontal lines (auxiliary buses).
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 2021/0343993). The apparatus claims are treated first.
With respect to claim 13, Yang discloses a system (fig 1-2; par 22-44) for power sharing for multiple auxiliary low voltage buses of a vehicle (the “for” indicates an intended use of the system – the vehicle is not explicitly claimed), the system comprising:
a battery (2) providing electric power at a first voltage level for a first auxiliary low voltage bus (11a) and providing electric power at a second voltage level for a second auxiliary low voltage bus (11b), the first voltage level differing from the second voltage level (par 23, 26, “converters are configured to convert one or more input voltages [] into one or more output voltages”); and
a controller (12) configured to balance the first voltage level and the second voltage level based at least in part on a voltage offset (par 34, 36, 38).
The limitations in the preamble of “for a vehicle” is an intended use limitation that does not breathe life into the claim. MPEP §2111.02.
Yang discloses a battery power distribution system that includes multiple switchable paths. The Yang converters provide different output voltages to the different auxiliary low voltage buses (11n). The controller actively controls the switches and converters to achieve this voltage difference and, therefore, anticipates the limitation of doing so “based on a voltage offset”. The offset is interpreted as the difference between the two voltages.
With respect to claims 13-19, there inherently exists an equation using the stated parameters for which the Yang control can be “based on”. The claims only broadly recites that the balancing is “based at least in part on” different parameters (resistive load distribution in claims 14 and 19, square root function in claim 15, constant current load distribution in claim 16, linear functions in claims 17-18). There is no indication in the claims of the controller sensing/knowing these parameters and making any active/purposeful corrections to produce a specific result. Yang explicitly discloses creating a voltage offset and this offset is inherently “based on” an infinite number of possible equations, including those with the named parameters.
The claims only broadly recite “the balancing is based on” without reciting exactly how the controller is structured to actually achieve the balancing (i.e. an input to sense the current state in the system, an algorithm/equation to determine if the current state is acceptable or needs to be changed, and a control output). The Examiner also notes that the claim omits any controllable mechanism, like a switch or converter, in the pathway between the battery and auxiliary buses to give the controller the ability to actually regulate the offset.
For example, while claim 17 uses the words “constant current load ratios” – there is no clear indication in the claims of actually creating a constant current. As noted above, there are no regulating components (switches, converters, etc.) in the claim. That a linear function includes “constant current load ratios” in its name is not further limiting to the structure of the system. The balancing is only loosely “based on” this linear function without reciting that the controller is required to use it to achieve a distinct benefit.
In claim 18, there is no antecedent basis in the claim for charging the batteries. Using “charging currents” in the name of the linear function (that itself is not explicitly used by the controller) does not impart any narrowing structure into the claim.
With respect to claim 20, Yang discloses a system (fig 1-2; par 22-44) comprising:
a battery (2);
a plurality of auxiliary low voltage buses (11n) receiving power from the battery, wherein a common reference is applied to each of the plurality of auxiliary low voltage buses; and
a controller (12) to control the plurality of auxiliary low voltage buses based at least in part on:
the common reference, wherein the common reference is selected from the group consisting of a function of a desired average output voltage in the plurality of auxiliary low voltage buses (par 34, 36, 38 – Yang regulates the voltage of the buses to be specific unequal values), a desired average output current in the plurality of auxiliary low voltage buses, a desired average input current of the battery, and a function of an average state of charge or state of health of the battery, and
a differential command that is a function of a power difference between the plurality of auxiliary low voltage buses (par 34, 36, 38 – Yang successfully makes the voltages of 11n unequal – thereby doing so with a “differential command” – this command being the signals output to the various switches and converters to achieve the unequal voltages).
With respect to claims 1-8, Yang discloses the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 13-19. The Examiner notes that claim 1 only broadly refers to “balancing” without explaining how it is accomplished. The dependent claims repeat the broad language of the apparatus claims – that the balancing “is based at least in part on” – these claims do not actually recite any method steps for how the controller operates.
With respect to claim 9, Yang discloses adjusting, by the controller, at least one of the first voltage level and the second voltage level (par 38).
With respect to claim 10, Yang discloses the adjusting is based at least in part on a common reference (see art rejection of claim 20; alternatively, the common reference can be the event [fault, temperature, etc.] that causes the controller to make the voltage adjustment; see par 38).
With respect to claim 12, Yang discloses the balancing equalizes power drawn from the first auxiliary low voltage bus and the second auxiliary low voltage bus. Claim 12 simply recites the effect – it does not recite any steps for how this is achieved. Since Yang anticipates the claim 1 “balancing” with the same structure, it is interpreted as also achieving the same result/benefit. As noted above, the claims do not recite any sensing (to know what the power draw values are) or control mechanisms (to increase/decrease the level of power applied to each bus to make the power draw equal).
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 2-8 and 14-19 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang.
The “based on” language can alternatively be interpreted as an obvious modification. Given that Yang already controls the voltages on the two auxiliary buses, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this control “based at least in part on” a variety of electrical conditions (including those recited in these dependent claims). There is no requirement in the language of the claims of how much weight/importance these parameters must have on the overall control. Namely “based at least in part on” suggests that other factors are also considered.
If I get dressed in the morning “based at least in part on” precipitation. I can also base my clothing choice because of temperature, wind, etc. Even if it is raining, I may decide to not wear a jacket. Similarly, just because an electrical parameter is listed in each of these dependent claims does not require that it is a determining factor for how the controller completes its balancing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As indicated during prosecution of the Applicant’s copending application (18/170,220), the equation recited in claim 11 is not taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
The Applicant should consider the prosecution history of 18/170,220 when filing amendments. The office actions and cited references of the ‘220 application are materially relevant to this application.
The Applicant should also consider avoiding passive voice (“is based”) and recite active language. The dependent method claims should recite actual method steps to show how the controller functions. The apparatus claims can phrase this as what the controller is “configured to do”. The dependent claims should clearly and unambiguously recite how the electrical parameters are sensed/known and used to create a “balancing” control. The Applicant should also consider reciting what the controller is controller to achieve the balancing (converters, switches).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Rex Barnie can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836