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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae (US 20190362922).
PNG
media_image1.png
648
901
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1, Bae discloses a switch control device (see abstract line 1 “A switch control circuit and a battery pack…”), comprising: a retention circuit (18 or 18a or 18b) configured to receive a control signal (CS) and a safety signal (SS1 or SS2) and to operate in one of a transfer mode (See [0067], “The buffer circuit 18 may directly transfer the safety signals SS1 and SS2 received from the SBC 17 to the driver 15”); and a retention mode (See [0067], “or may control a control signal that is input into the driver 15 to be held in a previous state”) according to the safety signal (SS1) a retention control circuit (201) configured to (18 or 18a or 18b) to operate only in the transfer mode regardless of the safety signal (See[0068], “In this disclosure, the case where a control signal to be transferred from the SBC 17 to the buffer circuit 18 when the fault of the controller 16 is detected is the safety signal SS1 or SS2 is described as an example, but the described technology is not limited thereto. According to another exemplary embodiment, the control signal transmitted from the SBC 17 to the buffer circuit 18 when the fault of the controller 16 is detected may be a reset signal configured to reset the controller 16.” ) if a disable signal (enable off, is interpreted as disable signal ) is received; a first controller (16) configured to output the control signal (CS) to control a switch (301) and to output the disable signal (from302) according to (disable signal activated when enable signal not asserted) an operation state of a device (201) in which the switch control device is mounted; and a second controller (17) configured to output the safety signal (SS1) according to the operation state of the first controller (16) wherein the retention circuit (18, 18a or 18b) is further configured to output a switch control signal (301; 202) having a level varying according to the control signal (CS) in the transfer mode, and to retain the switch control signal in a previous state for a predetermined time in the retention mode. (Note: according to is interpreted as “in a manner corresponding or conforming to” or “in conformity with” (see Meriam webster).)
With respect to claim 2, Bae (US 20190362922) discloses the switch control device as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the retention control circuit (18 or 18a or 18b) allows the retention circuit to operate in the retention mode if a reset signal is received [see [0068]], and the first controller (16) outputs the reset signal according to the operation state of the device (fault detected).
With respect to claim 18, Bae (US 20190362922) discloses a battery pack (fig. 1), comprising: a battery module (claim 11) including a plurality of cells connected in series or parallel to each other (see paragraph [0057]); a switch (in 12 or 13, the load is the external device) controlling an electrical connection between the battery module and a load; a driver (15) controlling opening and closing of the switch (12 or 13); and the switch control device (19 without 15) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the driver controls opening and closing of the switch according to a switch control signal (at “coil” in 12 and 13) output from the switch control device (19 without 15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument that amended claim 1 discloses a disable signal that is different from the safety signal, the Examiner points out the SS1 signal is not necessarily a safety signal but may be a reset signal according to embodiments (“see[0068]).
With respect to applicant’s argument Bae fails to disclose “generated by a first controller according to an operation state of a device in which the switch control device is mounted”, the Examiner points out “according to” has the definition of in conformity with. Here, because the entire device is mounted together, see fig. 1 and 2 …etc.) the operation state is according to the/a device which the switch control device is mounted.
With respect to “when the disable signal is received, the retention control circuit forces a retention circuit to operate only in a transfer mode, regardless of the safety signal”, the reference states in [0067], what is interpreted as transfer mode allows the bypass of the circuitry such that the driver 15 receives the safety signal directly regardless of the value of the safety signal (See [0067], “The buffer circuit 18 may directly transfer the safety signals SS1 and SS2 received from the SBC 17 to the driver 15”).
With respect to applicant’s argument, Bae does not disclose or suggest the disable signal of the present invention, the examiner points out the disable signal is interpreted as the lack of assertion of the enable signal. With respect to according to an operation sate of a device in which a switch control signal is mounted”, the entire device is in according to the operation state of a device in which a switch control device is mounted. Here, according to is merely interpreted as in conformity with as opposed to in dependence on. To clarify the BRI, if the applicant interprets “according to “ to mean “depending on” it must be clearly stated in the claim language.
With respect to behaving purely in a pass through function, according to [0067], the safety signal regardless of value can function “during transfer mode” to pass through the signal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-17 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 3, the prior art of record fails to suggest or disclose wherein the retention circuit includes: a latch circuit operating in one of the transfer mode and the retention mode and outputting the switch control signal according to a logical product result of the control signal and the safety signal while operating in the transfer mode and retaining the switch control signal in a previous state while operating in the retention mode; and a timer circuit operating the latch circuit in the transfer mode if a predetermined time elapses after the latch circuit operates in the retention mode.
Here, the retention circuit does not include the latch as disclosed.
Claims 4-17 are objected to based on dependence on base claim 3.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 KHAREEM E ALMO whose telephone number is (571)272-5524. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8:00am-4:00pm).
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at M-F (8:00am-4:00pm). 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.
/KHAREEM E ALMO/Examiner, Art Unit 2849 /Menatoallah Youssef/SPE, Art Unit 2849