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 certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 4/27/23 has been considered and placed of record. The initialed copy is attached herewith.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification lacks the preferred layout. As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL
DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the two blank boxes 15 and 16 should have descriptive labels. Although the boxes in the figures are numbered which allow a correlation to each box as one reads the specification, the numbers by themselves do not allow one to quickly ascertain the concept of the invention. In addition, figures 1-3 are blurry. It is difficult to see the smaller characters. 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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 12, the limitation “a fault current controller” has already been defined in claim 1. The Examiner does not believe there is a second fault current controller. It should be “the fault current controller.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4-6, 9, 12, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neitz et al. (US 2021/0101501).
Re claim 1, the reference discloses a method for the treatment of fault currents in a high-voltage battery 3 connected to a charging station 4 via a charging circuit 1, in particular in a motor vehicle 2, having, inter alia, the steps: providing the high-voltage battery 3, with a nominal battery voltage (Ubat) present between a first high-voltage potential (HVP) on a battery side and a second high-voltage potential (HVN) on the battery side; providing the charging circuit 1; providing the charging station 4, with a nominal charging voltage(Uc), which is smaller than the nominal battery voltage (Ubat), present between a first high-voltage potential (HV+) on a charging station side and a second high-voltage potential (HV-) on the charging station side (para 2-3), establishing an electric protective-conductor connection (PE) between a protective conductor on the charging station side and a protective conductor on the battery side, which is electrically insulated, in a non- fault condition, with respect to the first high-voltage potential (HVP) on the battery side and the second high-voltage potential (HVN) on the battery side, in order to connect the protective conductor on the battery side via the protective conductor on the charging station side to a ground potential on the charging station side (fig 1); establishing one electric charging connection, respectively, of the first high-voltage potential (HV+) on the charging station side to the first high-voltage potential (HVP) on the battery side and of the second high-voltage potential (HV-) on the charging station side to a second high-voltage potential (HVN) on the battery side via the charging circuit 1, in order to apply to the high-voltage battery 3, in an optional charging step, a charging voltage(Uboost and Uc) , which is higher than the nominal charging voltage (Uc) of the charging station 4 and has been boost-converted by a boost converter 8 belonging to the charging circuit 1, in order to transmit electrical energy from the charging station 4 into the high-voltage battery 3 (para 68); occurrence of a fault condition, in which, by a low-resistance connection of the first high-voltage potential (HVP) on the battery side or of the second high-voltage potential (HVN) on the battery side to the protective conductor on the battery side, a fault current circuit forms via the charging station 4 and the protective-conductor connection (PE), with a fault current supplied from the high-voltage battery 3 (para 46 and 78); reducing the fault current during the fault condition, by a fault current controller (ISO guard) belonging to the charging circuit 1, to a reduced fault current (para 46 and 78).
Re claim 4, the reference further discloses the charging station 4 has a protective element (Riso+, Riso-) which is provided in the charging connection to which the fault current is applied in the fault condition, and across which a fault voltage, drops in the fault condition (para 83).
Re claim 5, the reference further discloses the fault current is reduced and/or limited by the fault current controller (ISO guard) such that a current-carrying capacity of the protective conductor on the charging station side and/or of the protective element is not exceeded by the fault current (para 46 and 78).
Re claim 6, the reference further discloses the fault current controller is integrated into the protective conductor on the battery side 1 (para 46; fig 1).
Re claim 9, the reference further discloses the fault condition is determined by an insulation monitoring device 11 for determining and monitoring an insulation resistance (RisoP, RisoN) of at least one of: between the first high-voltage potential (HVP) on the battery side and the protective conductor on the battery side and between the second high-voltage potential (HVN) on the battery side and the protective conductor on the battery side, and wherein the fault condition is positively detected (para 78-79).
Re claim 12, the reference further discloses at least a fault current controller (ISO guard), wherein the charging circuit 1 is configured to carry out, in cooperation with a high-voltage battery 3 having a nominal battery voltage and a charging station 4 with a nominal charging voltage lower than the nominal battery voltage, a treatment of fault currents according to claim 1 (para 80 discussed charging voltage 400V lower than battery voltage 800V for example).
Re claim 13, the reference further discloses reducing and/or limiting the fault current during the fault condition, by a fault current controller belonging to the charging circuit, to a reduced fault current after a positive detection of the fault condition (para 46).
Re claim 20, the reference further discloses the fault condition is determined based on the respective insulation resistance dropping below a respectively predetermined value. (end of para 46).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 3, 7, 8 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neitz et al. (US 2021/0101501).
Re claims 2 and 3, the reference is silent on the claimed no greater than 350 Volts and the claimed minimum cross section of 0.75mm2 or less. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any value within a range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claim 7, the reference is silent on the location of the fault current controller (i.e. being in the electric charging connection to which the fault current is applied). Official notice is taken of fact that having the fault current controller located where the fault current is applied would be a logical scenario. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have placed the controller in the connection where the fault is applied, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claim 8, the reference is silent on the claimed 20ms time frame. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected appropriate value since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claim 14, the reference is silent on the claimed 60V. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected appropriate value since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claim 15, the reference is silent on the type of protective element (i.e. claimed varistor). Official notice is taken of the fact that a varistor is usually a semiconductor device designed to protect electronic circuits from voltage spikes and transients. Therefore, it would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have replaced the existing fault protection element with a varistor since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known materiale on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Re claims 16-18, the reference is silent on the claimed fault voltage amount is no more than 50% and fault current having a time frame of max 15ms or max 10ms. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any value within a range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 10, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neitz et al. (US 2021/0101501) in view of Spesser et al. (US 2020/0036180)
Re claims 10 and 19, Neitz does not disclose the electric charging connection carrying the reduced fault current is interrupted by a protective device which is provided outside the charging station or battery side. Spesser teaches reducing leak current in a protective conductor PE and can be activated by fault current to turn off the electric network 10 (para 32). It would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Spesser into the device of Neitz to ensure undesired fault is removed timely.
Re claim 11, Neitz and Spesser are silent on the specific type of protective device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the claimed components since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Taelor Kim and he can be reached at 571.270.7166. The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800.786.9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571.272.1000.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087