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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants' submission filed on May 21, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed with the RCE have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the §112(b) rejection, the claim is descriptive of what the power modification is “based on”. The claims do not explicitly recite that the power controller includes the structure to communicate using one of the listed protocols or the method step of communicating. It is unclear if the Applicants are seeking patent protection over the communication or not. The indefiniteness rejection is maintained.
Regarding the art rejection, it is unclear which limitation the Applicants contend overcomes the prior art. The Applicants’ summary of Doane indicates that they agree the reference discloses two DC sources, two batteries, a power controller and a “switcher” to selectively rout power between these various locations. The Applicants then state, “In sharp contrast to Doane, the currently amended independent claims recite that” followed by a quote of several limitations (Remarks, page 13). There is no additional analysis of which part of the quoted phrase overcomes the art or why. The Applicants present a conclusion without any analysis.
The Applicants state “Doane is merely selecting a single auxiliary load to charge” (Remarks, page 13). The Examiner responds that one load charging would receive power from another source/input that is discharging/providing power. In other words, any load selection is really a selection of two items (one source, one destination). Amended claim 1 recites, “selectively control a selector to modify power transmission between two or more” of the two DC sources and two batteries (emphasis added). The claim only requires that two (of the four) elements be active at any one time – one to provide power, the second to receive it. This is exactly what the Applicants contend Doane is doing (the Examiner notes that Doane is not limited to two sources/batteries/load being active at any one time – it could be three or more; thus, correcting this “two or more” language would not be sufficient to overcome the prior art). The other independent claims recite the same “two or more” language and are unpatentable for the same reason.
Furthermore, there is no requirement in this “two or more” limitation that both batteries must be selected. The claim covers the embodiment in which no or one battery is selected. With zero or one battery, there cannot be any “simultaneous” charging or discharging, which requires the direct and purposeful selection of the two batteries.
Doane discloses two DC sources and two batteries and the power controller’s ability to select two or more (through a “selector”) to rout power between them, as necessary, depending on their level of power production or power needs. Doane is maintained as a primary reference in the obviousness rejection and modified by Tomlinson (US 9,142,967) to have power ports with portions that extend out of the housing.
Regarding claim 20, the Applicants should note that this claim was also rejected as anticipated by Doane (not just under §103 citing Cirillo in view of Johnson). The amendments to claim 20 do not overcome the prior art.
The Applicants do not separately argue against the art rejections of the dependent claims.
A §112(a) written description rejection is added, as it does not appear that the originally filed specification provides support for the amendment that the battery monitoring is “for a charge capacity falling below a minimal charge capacity”. This language (and derivations of it) cannot be found in the specification. Additional §112(b) indefiniteness rejections are added due to the lack of clarity in the amended language mentioning the housing and selector.
The Applicants should also note that Cirillo and Johnson are still materially relevant to the claims. Just because they are not cited against claim 1 does not mean that their disclosures are forgotten. Johnson, for example, discloses the power controller, with a selector (i.e. converters, switches – see claim 23) to selectively monitor and control power flow between at least eight locations (sources, batteries, loads). Johnson’s power controller is similar to Doane’s and the two references could be combined.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amended limitation of “monitor a condition of at least one of the two batteries for a charge capacity falling below a minimal charge capacity” does not have written description support in the originally filed application.
The term “charge capacity” does not appear in the specification. The term “monitor” appears three times. The first is related to the alternator (par 34), the second is about current and/or voltage rating from the solar panel (par 51), and the third is a generic statement that the sources are monitored based on their priority of use (par 70).
Paragraph 68 summarizes the disclosure by stating that the various sources charge the batteries and states, “based on availability of the sources and conditions of the battery banks” (par 68). There is no support in this broad statement that the battery is monitored “for a charge capacity falling below a minimal charge capacity”.
In the remarks, the Applicants generally refer to the entire specification for support of amendments (see page 10). No specific citations have been provided to assist the Office in finding written description support for the quoted language.
The evidence demonstrates that, at the time of filing, the Applicants did not have possession of a system for power control comprising a controller configured to monitor a condition of the batteries for a charge capacity falling below a minimum.
It appears that the Applicants have taken this language from Doane (see par 31), not from their own specification.
Claim 12 recites the same language that lacks written description support, except that it is written as a method step (“monitoring a condition …”)
Claims 2-8, 10-11, 13-17 and 20 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claims 1 and 12.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the following limitations are unclear:
“at least two ports”. The claim clearly defines two DC sources and two batteries. Thus, the controller should require “at least four ports” to successfully interact with these four components. The claim does not indicate how, in a two-port embodiment, some of the DC sources and/or batteries can be left without a corresponding port, yet still be selected by the controller.
“the power controller being disposed within a housing”, “portions of the [] power ports extending out of the housing”, and “the housing positioned with the [] vehicle”. It is unclear if the Applicants are seeking patent protection over the housing or not. The language in the claim is descriptive of the controller and power ports. This suggests that the housing is not actually required. The repeated descriptions of the housing, however, suggests that the Applicants intend for it to be of importance. Different readers would draw different conclusions as to the scope of the claim, thereby making it indefinite.
The Applicants are directed to the rest of the claim, where specific limitations are clearly introduced with their own indentation. The housing should be recited in a similar manner.
“selectively control a selector”. It is unclear if the Applicants are seeking patent protection over the selector or not. The selector is under the heading of how the controller is configured – the selector is not given its own proper introduction as a distinct claimed limitation. Being configured to control a selector (switch) is not the same as positively claiming the selector (switch). Different readers would draw different conclusions as to the scope of the claim, thereby making it indefinite.
“selectively control a selector”. The claim previously recited that the power ports “are configured to be selectively activated”. It is unclear if the modified power transmission is controlled through the power ports or the selector.
“to provide for simultaneous charging [] or simultaneous discharging”. The claim recites that the controller is configured to “selectively [] modify power transmission between two or more” of the DC sources and batteries. This includes all permutations of the four components, including where there are zero or one battery. With zero or one battery, there can be no simultaneous actions on two batteries. The application and prosecution history do not provide any explanation for how the batteries can be unselected and simultaneously controlled.
Claim 8 recites that the modification of power transmission is “based on a communication protocol”. It is unclear if the Applicants are actually using one of named protocols or just a derived protocol.
Specification paragraph 35 recites “include a communication protocol”. Here is direct language to state how two devices use communication to interact with each other.
Claim 8, however, is defining the “modifying power transmission” – not the power controller. And the claim recites that this is “based on” a communication protocol – not that the power controller is using/includes the communication protocol. Describing an action (modifying power transmission) as based on a communication protocol is ineffective to clearly point out or distinctly claim how the power controller is configured.
Claim 12 is indefinite for the same five reasons as claim 1.
Claim 16 is indefinite for the same reason as claim 8.
Claims 2-8, 10-11, 13-17, 20 and 22-23 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claims 1 and 12.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because there is no “selector” disclosed in the specification. The power controller is disclosed as including converters and switches to, under direction from the power controller, route power between the DC sources, loads and batteries. The Applicants are free to rename this collection of components as a “selector” – but it appears that the Applicants have taken this term from the prior art (Doane) – and not from their disclosure. The Applicants should either replace “selector” with a term that is supported by their specification or amend the specification to clarify that this term is the name for the collection of other components. As this is just a name, it is not treated as new matter (§112(b)) or indefiniteness (§112(b)).
Claim 23 is objected to because the converters and switches appear to be narrowing structure of the selector (or the power ports?) mentioned in claim 1. As such, claim 23 should clarify that the selector (or power ports) comprises these components - not just the power controller.
Appropriate correction 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 1-5, 10-13, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doane (US 2021/0218268) in view of Tomlinson (US 9,142,967).
With respect to claim 1, Doane discloses a system for power control (fig 1-5; par 21, 25-37; the Examiner notes that Doane incorrectly refers to figure 5 as figure 6), comprising:
a combustion powered mobile vehicle (100);
at least two batteries comprising:
a first battery (fig 5, the unlabeled battery in the tractor, electrically in between alternator 130-4 and selector 120) that is directly electrically connected to the combustion powered mobile vehicle, and
a second battery (140-6 or 50) that is indirectly electrically connected to the combustion powered mobile vehicle,
wherein at least one of the first battery or the second battery provides a power source for ignition of an engine of the combustion powered mobile vehicle (par 6, 28);
DC power sources (130-4 and 130-1) connected to the combustion powered mobile vehicle, comprising:
a first power source (130-4) comprising a motor driven alternator; and
a second power source (130-1) comprising one or more of:
a solar powered renewable energy source (par 27),
a hydro powered renewable energy source, or
a wind powered renewable energy source;
a power controller (120) having one or more processors (par 44) and being electrically connected to the combustion powered mobile vehicle, the power controller configured to control power transmission of the system when the mobile vehicle is in motion (par 20, 28, 30-33, 42; namely par 28 discusses the availability of more power when the engine is on and its alternator is providing power to the tractor [and its starter battery] to be shared with the rest of the vehicle; par 30 mentions “on an open road” indicating the path over which the vehicle will travel; par 42 discloses the kinetic harvesting of a rotating axle while the vehicle is in motion);
at least two power ports (the boundaries of 120 through which the wires [510, 520, and the unlabeled wire to 152] pass) that are communicatively coupled between the power controller, the two batteries, and the first/second power sources that are configured to be selectively activated to transmit power therethrough (par 25-28; Doane repeatedly refers to the successful routing of power between the various sources, loads and batteries. Thus, its power ports are configured to be activated to let this power transfer take place);
wherein the power controller being disposed within a housing (see the figures and the boundaries of the controller 120), the housing positioned within the combustion powered mobile vehicle (see fig 5), the power controller is configured to:
monitor a condition of one or more of the first power source or the second power source (par 28, 32) , and
monitor a condition of at least one of the two batteries for a charge capacity falling below a minimal charge capacity (par 30-31); and
selectively control a selector (within 120) to modify power transmission (par 20, 28, 30-33) between two or more of the first power source, second power source, or at least one battery of the at least two batteries when the monitored condition for one or more of the first/second power source occurs or when the charge capacity is below the minimum (par 30-31) to provide for simultaneous charging of the at least two batteries based on the modified power transmission of the circuit board (not claimed), or simultaneous discharging of the at least two batteries based on the modified power transmission of the circuit board (not claimed).
Doane discloses a tractor trailer with a directly connected battery (the tractor starter 12V battery) and an indirectly connected battery (any of the batteries in the trailer). Doane also discloses first (alternator) and second (solar) DC power sources.
The Doane selector (i.e. power controller with its selector) monitors the sources and batteries to determine when and how to route excess power. This includes moving power into and out of the selector through “ports” that complete the current paths shown in figure 5.
The Examiner notes that the claim defines the power controller as “configured to [] selectively control a selector to modify power transmission”, but omits any recitation of the converters and switches that is required to do so (see claim 22).
Doane does not prevent any simultaneous charge or discharge of its batteries. Therefore, its modified power transmission is “to provide for” such an ability. The claim does not give either the power controller or its selector the configuration or specific programming required to purposefully create simultaneous battery (dis)charge. Claim 1 recites that the controller is configured to “modify power transmission between two or more” of the DC power sources and batteries. The claim does not recite that the power controller is configured to control the selector to simultaneously charge/discharge the batteries. Rather, the “to provide for” language indicates an intended result – not a direct control strategy. Further, as noted above, the “two or more” language includes embodiments in which zero or one battery is selected – thus, there can be no “simultaneous” battery control.
Doane discloses the power ports, but does not expressly disclose that portions of them extend out of the housing. Tomlinson discloses a combustion powered vehicle (fig 1-4; all text) comprising first and second DC power sources (shown as items 10 and 46), a direct battery (32), an indirect battery (48) and a power controller (64) to modify power transmission between these components, wherein the power controller is positioned within a housing (see boundary of 64) and comprises power ports (fig 4, item 22) that extend out of the housing (see figure).
Doane and Tomlinson are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely power controllers for routing power between sources, loads and batteries in a vehicle. At the time of the Applicants’ filing date, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Doane’s ports to extend out of the housing, as taught by Tomlinson. The motivation for doing so would have been for aesthetics or ease of use. It is irrelevant to the functionality of the system if the ports are internal or external to the housing, as long as the user can access them to insert/remove cables for the sources, loads and batteries.
With respect to claim 2, Doane discloses the solar powered renewable energy source is a solar photovoltaic panel or array of panels (par 27).
With respect to claim 3, Doane discloses a dumb alternator (130-4).
With respect to claim 4, claim 1 recites that the second DC power source comprises one or more of the three listed sources (solar, hydro, or wind). In claim 1, Doane is cited as disclosing solar power and the alternative language means that the reference is not required to disclose any of the other two. Claim 4 effectively further narrows an unselected option. The narrow structure of the wind turbine is irrelevant to Doane’s anticipation of a solar source.
With respect to claim 5, Doane discloses the first battery (par 22, 28) and the second battery (par 31) both supply 12v DC power.
With respect to claim 10, Doane discloses the first and second battery differ in voltage (par 30). Doane suggests that in one embodiment, all of the batteries are 12v (par 31). This indicates that the batteries can also be different voltages. Meanwhile, paragraph 30 more explicitly discusses that different sources would be monitored to have different voltages (thereby affecting the priority of charging/discharging). Thus, the Doane batteries would be expected to have a different voltage at least one during the lifetime of the system. The claim only broadly recites the batteries “differ in voltage” and makes no mention of their capacity or rating. The claim does not recite that the maximum voltage of the batteries are different – just that, at some point during use, their voltages differ.
With respect to claim 11, Doane discloses the power controller is mounted in a delivery vehicle or trailer therefore, a transport vehicle or trailer thereof, or a work vehicle or trailer thereof.
With respect to claims 12-13 and 17, Doane and Tomlinson combine to disclose the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claims 1-2 and 11, respectively.
With respect to claim 20, Doane and Tomlinson combine to disclose the system for power control, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 1. Doane clearly discloses that its “solar powered renewable energy source” is a solar PV panel or array of panels.
Claims 6-8, 14-16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doane in view of Tomlinson and Richardson (US 2018/0037178).
With respect to claims 6-7 and 14-15, Doane and Tomlinson disclose the first and second batteries, but do not expressly disclose their type. Richardson discloses that vehicle batteries are known to be selected from one or more of a GEL battery, a AGM battery, a flooded battery bank or a combination (i.e. different types, as in claim 7) (par 10).
The combination (Doane and Tomlinson) and Richardson are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely vehicle batteries. At the time of the Applicants’ filing date, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select the Doane batteries to be one or more of the types listed by Richardson. The motivation for doing so would have been to fill in the gaps missing in the Doane disclosure. Doane discloses that batteries are necessary, but does not explicitly disclose the types. Thus, the skilled artisan would look to the prior art to understand which battery types are known and accepted in vehicular use.
While the claim uses the plural “banks”, the Applicants’ specification defines them as including a singular battery.
With respect to claims 8 and 16, Doane discloses the modified power transmission and monitoring of sources and batteries, but does not expressly disclose a communication bus or protocol. Richardson discloses its vehicle uses CANBUS (par 67, 158).
Doane and Richardson are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely vehicles with alternators. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Doane to include the communication bus, as taught by Richardson. The motivation for doing so would have been to control the alternator to produce power (as opposed to just waiting for it to do so).
As discussed above, the claim only broadly defines the modified power transmission as being based on communication – the claim does not actually recite that the power controller has communication structure or functionality.
With respect to claim 22, Doane discloses the alternator, but not that it is smart. Richardson discloses a smart alternator (par 66-67). The references are analogous, as discussed above. The claim simply lists that it is “smart” without defining any use for this ability.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doane in view of Tomlinson and Johnson (US 2013/0147272).
Doane discloses the power controller further comprises a circuit board (par 44), but does not expressly disclose the internal construction of the selector. Johnson discloses a system for power control (fig 1-2; par 11-83), comprising:
a first DC power source (any of 112n)
a second DC power source (any other of 112n);
a first and second battery (112e – the sources can be duplicated, see par 30, so Johnson is interpreted as using two batteries); and
a power controller (102) comprising a circuit board (the base of 102) and power ports (item 202 within 106n; see fig 2) and configured to modify power transmission between the sources/loads/batteries to provide for the simultaneous charge/discharge of the batteries.
Johnson further discloses the selector or the power ports (unclear to which limitation the Applicants intend claim 23 to be further narrowing) comprises one or more converters (204) and one or more switches (114) positioned on the circuit board and the converter/switches configured to utilize one or more of the power ports to provide for the simultaneous (dis)charging of the batteries.
Johnson discloses a power controller with “self-adjusting” ports. Each port includes the necessary converter and switch to route power from a source or to a load, as required by the power controller. The claim simply lists the converters and switches without defining how or where they are connected. The “to provide for” simultaneous charge/discharge language is interpreted as one intended benefit – not the only manner of controller, as addressed above.
Doane and Johnson are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely power controllers for modifying power transmission from and between a plurality of sources and batteries through a DC bus. At the time of the Applicants’ filing date, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Doane to include converters and switches, as taught by Johnson. The motivation for doing so would have been to fill in the gaps in the Doane disclosure. Doane teaches a selector to selectively route power between various locations, but does not disclose how to construct the selector. Thus, the skilled artisan would have considered Johnson to understand how to successfully control the selective routing of power between various locations. Johnson’s converters also give the power controller adaptability to be able to be used with various sources/loads without having to be reprogrammed or the ports retrofitted.
Conclusion
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, Taelor Kim 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
