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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities. The numberings in the claims should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The subject matter in claim 1 comprising “and is free of intervening components in a current path between the input terminal (13) and the first output terminal (11) within the charging circuit (1)” is not supported by the applicant’s disclosure because the applicant’s drawing shows an intervening element “V” “a voltage sensor” on the path of the first input and output path” in (see fig. 1). Voltage sensors usually include resistors and so forth
The subject matter in claim 10 comprising “wherein the input terminal (13) of the charging circuit (1) is electrically directly connected to a first output terminal (11) of the charging circuit (1) and is free of intervening components in a current path between the input terminal (13) and the first output terminal (11) within the charging circuit (1)” is not supported by the applicant’s disclosure because the applicant’s drawing shows an intervening element “V” “a voltage sensor” on the path of the first input and output path” in (see fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (US 2017/0155276) in view of Chen et al. (US 2009/0096399).
Regarding claim 1, Regarding claim 1, Harada et al. teaches a charging circuit in (see fig. 2) for charging an electrical energy store (12), the charging circuit comprising: an input terminal (11) set up to be connected to a DC electric power source (20); a first output terminal (see output of diode, D3)) set up to be connected to a first portion (122) of the energy store (12); a second output terminal (see path of D1 to be connected to, 121) set up to be connected to a second portion (121 of 12) of the energy store (121, 0015, 0016, 0046); and a DC-DC converter (13) electrically connected at an input of the DC-DC converter (14) to the input terminal of the charging circuit and electrically connected at an output of the DC-DC converter to the second output terminal of the charging circuit; wherein the input terminal of the charging circuit is electrically directly connected to the first output terminal of the charging circuit would be read as the DC/DC converter (13) has an output connected to the second portion of the battery (121) to charge the battery and the power from the DC external power source is connected directly without an intervening DC/DC converter or any conversion done to the first portion of the battery store (122) (see para 0015, 0016, 0034, 0046).
Harada teaches intervening (SW3, D3) components on the path connecting the input terminal to the first output terminal to a first portion of the energy store, argued by the applicant.
Therefore, Harada fails to teach wherein the input terminal of the charging circuit is electrically directly connected to the first output terminal of the charging circuit and is free of intervening components in a current path between the input terminal and the first output terminal within the charging circuit as the newly amended claim calls for.
Chen et al. teaches a charging system in (see fig. 1) wherein a battery or energy store with a plurality of sections (122, 123) can have one input coupled directly to a DC/DC converter and a second portion can bypass the DC/DC converter for instance in a charging mode with a sensor or sensors on its/both paths (quite similar to that of the applicant).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Chen et al. into that of the combination thus making it possible to regulate voltages of battery stores with less components and reduced cost.
Regarding claim 2, The combination including Harada teaches in (see fig. 2) wherein a connection point of the first output terminal (middle node point/bottom node on the battery path) and a connection point of the second output terminal (see upper node on the battery path) are electrically connected to each other. Furthermore, the combination including Chen teaches a battery store (122, 123) wherein the middle node/bottom node are connected to a first battery (123) in series and an upper node is connected to another battery on the battery series (122).
Regarding claim 9, The combination including Harada et al. teaches an electric vehicle in (see fig. 2) with: an electrical energy store (12) with a first connection point (see bottom node of battery), a second connection point (middle/upper node) and a center terminal (M, a space/connection/path between the first and second batteries, similar to what’s shown in applicant’s fig. 1), wherein a first portion (122) of the electrical energy store (12) is electrically connected to the first connection point and the center terminal (M), and a second portion (121) of the electrical energy store (12) is electrically connected to the second connection point (upper node) and the center terminal (M); and a charging circuit for charging an electrical energy store according to claim l. Furthermore, see the explanation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Harada in (see figs.) teaches a method of charging an electrical energy store ,comprising the steps of: directly electrically connecting (Si) an input terminal of a charging circuit to a first portion store (see output of diode, D3))
converting via a DC/DC converter (13) an electrical voltage at the input terminal of the charging circuit to a further electrical voltage; and providing the further electrical voltage at a second portion of the electrical energy store .
Therefore, Harada fails to teach wherein the input terminal of the charging circuit is electrically directly connected to the first output terminal of the charging circuit and is free of intervening components in a current path between the input terminal and the first output terminal within the charging circuit as the newly amended claim calls for.
Chen et al. teaches a charging system in (see fig. 1) wherein a battery or energy store with a plurality of sections (122, 123) can have one input coupled directly to a DC/DC converter and a second portion can bypass the DC/DC converter for instance in a charging mode with a sensor or sensors on its/both paths (quite similar to that of the applicant).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Chen et al. into that of the combination thus making it possible to regulate voltages of battery stores with less components and reduced cost.
Regarding claim 13, The combination including Harada teaches a possibility wherein in (see para 0037) that the input voltage could be 54V and the output voltage including that of the energy store with the DC/DC could be a total of 60 V which reads on wherein the charging circuit is configured such that a sum of an electrical voltage at the first output terminal “coupled to first portion of energy store” and an electrical voltage at the output of the DC-DC converter “coupled to the second portion of the energy store” is greater than the voltage supplied by the DC power source to the input terminal.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (US 2017/0155276) in Chen et al. and further in view of Yamasaki (EP 3 675 339).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 7, The combination teaches a control unit in (see 16 of fig. 2 of Harada) but fails to teach the subject matter as follows:
wherein the DC-DC converter is set up to galvanically isolate the input of the DC-DC converter from the output of the DC-DC converter as claimed in claim 3.
wherein, with a control device set up to control an output voltage and/or an output current of the DC-DC converter as claimed in claim 4.
wherein the control device is set up to adjust the output voltage of the DC-DC converter using an electrical voltage “voltage sensor” at the first output terminal as claimed in claim 5.
wherein the control device is set up to adjust the output current of the DC-DC converter using an electrical output current and/or an electrical voltage “voltage and/or current sensor” at the first output terminal as claimed in claim 7, (which would be read “output wise” as the output connected to the DC/DC converter of Yamasaki or in that of Harada, the output connected to the DC/DC converter).
Yamasaki teaches a conversion system comprising of a converter namely; a DC/DC in (see 40 of figs. 1-3) which is connected to an energy storage in (see battery, 50) set up to galvanically isolate the input from an output essentially a transformer in (see 43)
Yamasaki teaches further in (see figs @ 80) a controller in communication with current and voltage sensor which would be used in controlling the output of a converter (DC/DC converter, 40, para 0015-21, 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Yamasaki into that of the combination thus making it possible to regulate current and/or voltage needed to charge a battery without either overcharging and/or undercharging to prolong the lifetime of the battery and also, to reduce harmonics.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (US 2017/0155276) in view of Chen and Yamasaki (EP 3 675 339) and further in view of Wortham (US 2014/0145669).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, The combination fails to teach wherein the control device is set up to adjust an electrical output current at the output of the DC-DC converter such that a ratio of the output current of the DC-DC converter to a target output current for the second portion of the energy store corresponds to a ratio of output current at the first output terminal to a target output current for the first portion of the energy store.
Wortham teaches a simple balancing circuit for two batteries of possibly different types or capacities in (see para 0018) wherein two batteries in series are balanced via a DC/DC converter coupled to one of the batteries and the other with a DC/DC converter (36, 38) in (see fig. 1 and disclosure). It’s known to use a control unit to control a DC/DC converter to output a desired current or voltage as taught in (see para 0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Wortham into the combination thus making it possible to uniformly connect batteries in series increase voltage while keeping capacity (Ah) the same, requiring balancing to ensure all batteries charge and discharge uniformly. Other advantages include higher voltage for high-power devices, reduced wiring, and better efficiency.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada et al. (US 2017/0155276) in view of Chen et al. (US 2009/0096399) and further in view of Eriksson (US 2019/0283625).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, The combination fails to teach the claimed limitations :
wherein a rated voltage of the energy store is greater than a voltage supplied by the DC power source to the input terminal as claimed in claim 11.
wherein the first output terminal is configured to supply an entirety of a voltage supplied by the DC power source to the first portion of the energy store as claimed in claim 12.
Eriksson teaches a battery charging system in (see fig. 1) wherein a DC charging port (8) can have a voltage of about 800V while the battery store can have batteries with respective voltages of 400V and 600V in (see para 0020 and 0035). Furthermore, note that via a switch, an entire charging voltage can be directed to one of the battery stores in (see fig. 1 @8,9) in one direction based on the switch connectivity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Eriksson into that of the combination thus making it possible to power more loads with a battery store with a bigger capacity.
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 Rex Barnie whose telephone number is (571)272-7492. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM
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.
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.
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights