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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to a paper filed on 02/24/2026 in which claims 1-7, 16, 18, 21, 23-26, 29-30, 32 and 34-35 are pending and ready for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 16, 18, 21-26, 29-30 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rzadki (US 2004/0069251 A1) in view of Demizu et al (hereinafter Demizu) (US 2020/0079520 A1).
As to claims 1 and 29, Rzadki discloses an electrical power supply network for a set of power-consuming nodes (Fig 2, 13), comprising two or more zones (see Fig 2, 6, 7, 8, 9), wherein at least one zone comprises two or more electrical power consuming nodes (see Fig 2, 11, 12, 13), and at least one Power Switch (Fig 2, switches connected between 6, 7, 9 and bus 2) which controls the entry and exit of electrical power to the zone, and wherein, in the event of failure of the power supply network, power is redistributed between nodes of a zone and/or between zones (see parag [0027]).
Rzadki does not disclose wherein the power switch of each respective zone of the two or more zones are connected to one another in a ring topology. However, Demizu discloses the power switch of each respective zone of the two or more zones are connected to one another in a ring topology (see abstract, parag [0038]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Rzadki to include the teachings of Demizu in order to provide redundancy and improved reliability for the system.
As to claim 2, the combination of Rzadki and Demizu discloses the network of claim 1, wherein one type of failure is a failure in a power source supplying electrical power to the network (see parag [0027], fuel cell modules fail).
As to claim 16, the combination of Rzadki and Demizu does not disclose the network of claim 1, in which a central server, zones, Zone ECUs and/or standalone nodes are connected via an "Emergency Trigger" line. However, Rzadki discloses about emergency power generation (see parag [0020]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a central server, zones, Zone ECUs and/or standalone nodes are connected via an "Emergency Trigger" line in order to protect the network from damage.
As to claim 18, the combination of Rzadki and Demizu discloses the network of claim 16, wherein some or all components connected to the "Emergency trigger" line will execute the "Last Command" action or actions in case of an interrupted communication, an interrupted communication over the "Emergency Trigger" line, and/or an active "Emergency Trigger" (see parags [0025-0027], the control device will send a command to components when failure occurs).
As to claim 21, the combination of Rzadki and Demizu discloses the network of claim 1, in which at least one zone comprises a local buffer or local electricity store (Fig 1, 6, 7).
As to claim 23, the combination of Rzadki and Demizu discloses the network of claim 21 wherein a given zone, one zone, or more than one zone, or each zone, is configured to, in the event of failure, receive power from the local buffer or local electricity store of another zone (see parag [0027], Fig 1, 6, 7), and/or from recuperation energy from a drive or traction motor.
As to claim 24, Rzadki discloses the network of claim 21 in which the local buffer or local electricity store is configured to supply additional power for a zone which does not have a local buffer and/or does not have a local electricity store and/or has an insufficient local store (see Fig 1, 6, 7 will supply power to AC networks 4, 5).
As to claim 25, the combination of Rzadki and Demizu discloses the network of claim 21, wherein power is redistributed by supplying power from a local buffer and/or a local electricity store to one node or more nodes of the same zone as the local buffer and/or the local electricity store (see parag [0027], modules 6, 7 will supply power to DC 2, 3 and AC 4, 5).
As to claim 26, the combination of Rzadki and Demizu discloses the network of claim 21, wherein power is redistributed by supplying power from a local buffer and/or a local electricity store to one node of more nodes of a different zone as the local buffer and/or the local electricity store (see parag [0027], modules 6, 7 will supply power to DC 2, 3 and AC 4, 5).
As to claim 30, the combination of Rzadki and Demizu discloses the method of claim 29 wherein, in the event of a failure, the Zone ECU of a zone and/or nodes of a zone determine, or communicate amongst themselves and/or with each other to determine, which node or nodes receive power (see Fig 1, parags [0025-0027]).
As to claim 32, the combination of Rzadki and Demizu does not disclose the method of claim 29, wherein, in the event of failure, peak consumption of local consumers from the central power supply is reduced and/or the consumption from the central supply to closer to that of an average load is limited. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Rzadki have peak consumption of local consumers from the central power supply is reduced and/or the consumption from the central supply to closer to that of an average load is limited when failure occurs in order to help protecting the system from damage.
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rzadki (US 2004/0069251 A1) Demizu et al (hereinafter Demizu) (US 2020/0079520 A1) further in view of Aoki (US 10,442,376 B2).
As to claim 3, the combination of Rzadki and Demizu does not disclose the network of claim 1, wherein one type of failure is an interruption of an electrical connection forming the network and/or being part of the network. However, Aoki discloses one type of failure is an interruption of an electrical connection forming the network and/or being part of the network (see col 10, lines 2-5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the network of Rzadki and Demizu to include the teachings of Aoki in order to control the operation of the network.
As to claim 4, the combination of Rzadki, Demizu and Aoki discloses the network of claim 1, wherein one type of failure is an interruption in communication between nodes and/or between zones (Aoki, see col 10, line 4).
As to claim 5, the combination of Rzadki and Aoki discloses the network of claim 1, wherein power is redistributed by disconnecting one zone, or more than one zone, from the network (Aoki, see col 11, lines 31-43).
As to claim 6, the combination of Rzadki, Demizu and Aoki discloses the network claim 1, wherein power is redistributed depending on the type of failure (Aoki, see col 9, line 59 to col 10, line 49).
As to claim 7, the combination of Rzadki, Demizu and Aoki discloses the network claim 1, wherein one or more nodes are standalone nodes (Rzadki, see Fig 1, 20) not being part of a zone.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rzadki (US 2004/0069251 A1) Demizu et al (hereinafter Demizu) (US 2020/0079520 A1) further in view of CN111064195 A (hereinafter CN195).
As to claim 34, the combination of Rzadki and Demizu does not disclose the network of claim 1, wherein the ring topology is a closed ring topology. However, CN195 discloses wherein the ring topology is a closed ring topology (see page 4, last parag). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Rzadki and Demizu to include the teachings of CN195 in order to providing redundancy and improved reliability of the system.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rzadki (US 2004/0069251 A1) Demizu et al (hereinafter Demizu) (US 2020/0079520 A1) further in view of EP2448087 A1(hereinafter EP087).
As to claim 35, the combination of Rzadki and Demizu does not disclose the network of claim 1, wherein two or more zones are three or more zones and the ring topology is an open ring topology. However, EP087 discloses wherein two or more zones are three or more zones and the ring topology is an open ring topology (see parag [0038]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Rzadki and Demizu to include the teachings of EP087 in order to improve the performance of the system in term or reliability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed on 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 29 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rzadki, Demizu, EP087 and CN195.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DUC M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5026. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am - 6:00 pm, Monday to Friday.
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, Youssef, Menna can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/DUC M PHAM/
Examiner, Art Unit 2849 April 7, 2026
/Menatoallah Youssef/SPE, Art Unit 2849