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 .
Response to Amendment
The Applicant’s Amendment filed on 10/21/2025 in which claims 1 and 4-7 have been amended, claims 8-9 have been added and entered of record.
Claim 1 has been amended herein to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b). Based on the amended claim, the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for claim 1 and its dependent claims, are withdrawn.
Claims 1-9 are pending for examination.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/21/2025 with respect to the amended claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are not persuasive because the arguments are based substantially on the newly added limitations by the applicant to the independent claims. Please see the new ground of rejections below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/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.
Claim 1 lines 6-10 and lines 13-18 recite “a first detection device configured (i) to detect a first continuous state if a first physical quantity in the first system or a second physical quantity in the second system exceeds a first threshold value indicating a defect for a first period” and “a second detection device configured (i) to detect, after the detection of the first continuous state, a second continuous state if the first physical quantity in the first system or the second physical quantity in the second system exceeds a second threshold value indicating the defect for a second period shorter than the first period” respectively. The term “a first continuous state” and “a first period” are not in the specification. In the BACKGROUND ART section [0004]-[0006], Applicant uses the term “continuously” to indicate a voltage drop period, and “the voltage continues for the first detection time or longer” [0045]. The term “a first continuous state” is singular and seems to describe a time/period (a time/period is a continuous state). However, later in the claim the term “a first period” is also used, therefore, the term “a first continuous state” seems to direct to something else which is not described in the specification.
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above.
Claim 4 recites “a difference between the first threshold and a normal value of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity is smaller than a difference between the second threshold and the normal value of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity” and claim 5 recites “a difference between the first threshold and a normal value of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity is larger than a difference between the second threshold and the normal value of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity” respectively. The specification does not disclose theses limitation. On the contrary, the specification clearly discloses the first threshold and the second threshold are equal “For example, the second threshold is the same value as the first threshold” [0053].
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-9 are rejected due to the rejections of claim 1 and 7 above.
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(s) 1-9 is/are 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.
Claim 1 lines 6-10 and lines 13-18 recite “a first detection device configured (i) to detect a first continuous state if a first physical quantity in the first system or a second physical quantity in the second system exceeds a first threshold value indicating a defect for a first period” and “a second detection device configured (i) to detect, after the detection of the first continuous state, a second continuous state if the first physical quantity in the first system or the second physical quantity in the second system exceeds a second threshold value indicating the defect for a second period shorter than the first period” respectively. Both terms “a first continuous state”, “a first continuous state”, “a first period” and “a second period” are not in the specification, it is unclear what the system trying to detect. Does it detect the length of the time/period or condition of a first physical quantity or a second physical quantity? For examination purpose, the limitation will be construed as “a first detection device configured (i) to detect, in a first period if a first physical quantity in the first system or a second physical quantity in the second system exceeds a first threshold value in the first period” and “a second detection device configured (i) to detect, after the detection of the first period, in a second period if the first physical quantity in the first system or the second physical quantity in the second system exceeds a second threshold value in the second period shorter than the first period”.
Lines 10-11 limitation recite “an inter-system connection”. It is unclear whether the limitation is the same limitation as in line 2 “an inter-system connection unit” or a different limitation. For examination purpose, the limitation cited in lines 10-11 is the same limitation as in line 2.
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above.
Claim 9 recite “a switch driving device configured to prohibit automatic driving of a vehicle on which the power supply control device is mounted when a power storage amount of the second power supply is less than a third threshold”. The scope of the claim is unclear because according to the definition, the automatic driving including steering, braking and potential all by-wire controls such as throttling as discloses in par. [0025] of the specification, does it mean regardless the first supply (PbB battery) function without failure or not, all the loads for automatic driving are prohibit/disable?
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-9 are rejected due to the rejections of claim 1 and 7 above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KOZUKI, US Patent Publication 20200313457; hereinafter “KOZUKI”.
Regarding claim 1, KOZUKI discloses a power supply control device (Fig. 1 and associated Figs.) comprising:
an inter-system connection unit (4) capable of connecting between a first system (upper half of power supply system 100) that supplies electric power of a first power supply (21) to a first load (23) and a second system (bottom half of power supply system 100) that supplies electric power of a second power supply (31) to a second load (33);
a first detection device (1) configured (i) to detect a first continuous state (should be “in a first continuous state”) if a first physical quantity in the first system or a second physical quantity in the second system exceeds a first threshold value (Fig. 12 and 14, “YES” at S304 and S404) indicating a defect for a first period (Fig. 12 and 14, S305 and S405) and (ii) then to disconnect an inter-system connection between the first system and the second system (Fig. 12 and 14, S305 and S405); and
a second detection device (1) configured (i) to detect, after the detection of the first continuous state (Fig. 12 and 14, “NO” at S302 and S402 indicate the system has been continuous monitored in a case that “NO” in steps S304 and S308 in a previous loop which prior to current loop), a second continuous state if the first physical quantity in the first system or the second physical quantity in the second system exceeds a second threshold (Fig. 12 and 14, “YES” at S304 and S404) value indicating the defect for a second period shorter than the first period (Fig. 12 and 14, “NO” at S302 and S402 indicate the system has been continuous monitored for some time in the loop, in a case “YES” which indicate the system load has failed before in the prior loop and the current loop just to confirm the failure thus quicker than the previous loop that continuous looping until the failure), and (ii) then to specify a defective system from the first system and the second system (Fig. 12 and 14, “NO” at S302 and S402 “did first system load already failed” indicates the failure is specified).
Regarding claim 2, KOZUKI discloses the power supply control device according to claim 1 above, KOZUKI discloses
the first detection device is implemented by a microcomputer [0208], and
the second detection device is implemented by a hardware circuit ([0208] computer is a hardware circuit).
Regarding claim 3, KOZUKI discloses the power supply control device according to claim 1 above, KOZUKI discloses
the first detection device and the second detection device are implemented by a microcomputer [0208].
Regarding claim 7, KOZUKI discloses a method for controlling a power supply control device, comprising:
(i) detecting a first continuous state if a first physical quantity (Fig. 12 and 14, “YES” at S304 and S404) in a first system (upper half of power supply system 100) that supplies electric power of a first power supply to a first load (Fig. 1, 23) or a second physical quantity (Fig. 12 and 14, “YES” at S304 and S404) in a second system (bottom half of power supply system 100) that supplies electric power of a second power supply (31) to a second load (33) exceeds a first threshold value (Fig. 12 and 14, “YES” at S304 and S404) indicating a defect for a first period (Fig. 12 and 14, S305 and S405) and (ii) then disconnecting an inter-system connection between the first system and the second system (Fig. 12 and 14, S305 and S405); and
(i) detecting, after the detection of the first continuous state (Fig. 12 and 14, “NO” at S302 and S402 indicate the system has been continuous monitored in a case that “NO” in steps S304 and S308 in a previous loop which prior to current loop), a second continuous state if the first physical quantity in the first system or the second physical quantity in the second system exceeds a second threshold value (Fig. 12 and 14, “YES” at S304 and S404) indicating the defect for a second period shorter than the first period (Fig. 12 and 14, “NO” at S302 and S402 indicate the system has been continuous monitored for some time in the loop, in a case “YES” which indicate the system load has failed before in the prior loop and the current loop just to confirm the failure thus quicker than the previous loop that continuous looping until the failure) and (ii) then specifying a defective system from the first system and the second system (Fig. 12 and 14, “NO” at S302 and S402 “did first system load already failed” indicates the failure is specified).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOZUKI in view of MAZAKI et al., US Patent Publication 20200216002; hereinafter “MAZAKI”.
Regarding claim 4, KOZUKI discloses the power supply control device according to claim 1 above, KOZUKI discloses the first threshold and the second threshold ([0084] third threshold and fourth threshold). KOZUKI does not explicitly disclose the first threshold is smaller than the second threshold. MAZAKI discloses a power supply control device (Fig. 1) comprising an inter-system connection unit (100) capable of connecting between a first system (ES1) that supplies electric power of a first power supply (11) to a first load (21 and 31) and a second system (ES2) that supplies electric power of a second power supply (12) to a second load (32); and determine a first physical quantity and a second physical quantity exceeding a first threshold or a second threshold [0090]-[0091] (Fig. 4, Ith1 and Ith2), wherein a difference between the first threshold (Ith1) and a normal value (0) of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity is smaller than a difference between the second threshold (Ith2) and the normal value (0) of the first physical quantity (Ir1) or the second physical quantity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KOZUKI to incorporate the teaching of MAZAKI and have difference between the first threshold and a normal value of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity is smaller than a difference between the second threshold and the normal value of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity. Doing would allow affirming a fault based on a trend of the physical quantity.
Regarding claim 5, KOZUKI discloses the power supply control device according to claim 1 above, KOZUKI discloses the first threshold and the second threshold ([0084] third threshold and fourth threshold). KOZUKI does not explicitly disclose the first threshold is larger than the second threshold. MAZAKI discloses a power supply control device (Fig. 1) comprising an inter-system connection unit (100) capable of connecting between a first system (ES1) that supplies electric power of a first power supply (11) to a first load (21 and 31) and a second system (ES2) that supplies electric power of a second power supply (12) to a second load (32); and determine a first physical quantity and a second physical quantity exceeding a first threshold or a second threshold [0090]-[0091] (Fig. 4, Ith2 and Ith1), wherein a difference between the first threshold (Ith2) and a normal value (0) of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity is larger than a difference between the second threshold (Ith1) and the normal value (0) of the first physical quantity (Ir1) or the second physical quantity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KOZUKI to incorporate the teaching of MAZAKI and have difference between the first threshold and a normal value of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity is larger than a difference between the second threshold and the normal value of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity. Doing would allow affirming a fault based on a trend of the physical quantity.
Regarding claim 6, KOZUKI discloses the power supply control device according to claim 1 above, KOZUKI also discloses
the first detection device is configured to disconnect the inter-system connection between the first and second systems without waiting for elapse of the first period when the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity exceeds a third threshold before the first continuous state continues for the first period or longer ([0084] third threshold and fourth threshold) (Fig. 12 and 14, “YES” at 304, the system determine the first system failed then turn off the switch in the next step S306).
KOZUKI discloses the first threshold and the second threshold ([0084] third threshold and fourth threshold). KOZUKI does not explicitly disclose the first threshold is larger than the second threshold. MAZAKI discloses a power supply control device (Fig. 1) comprising an inter-system connection unit (100) capable of connecting between a first system (ES1) that supplies electric power of a first power supply (11) to a first load (21 and 31) and a second system (ES2) that supplies electric power of a second power supply (12) to a second load (32); and determine a first physical quantity and a second physical quantity exceeding a first threshold or a second threshold [0090]-[0091] (Fig. 4, Ith2 and Ith1), wherein a difference between the third threshold (Ith2) and a normal value (0) of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity is larger than a difference between the first threshold (Ith1) and the normal value (0) of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KOZUKI to incorporate the teaching of MAZAKI and have a difference between the third threshold and a normal value of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity is larger than a difference between the first threshold and the normal value of the first physical quantity or the second physical quantity. Doing would allow affirming a fault based on a trend of the physical quantity.
Regarding claim 8, KOZUKI discloses the power supply control device according to claim 1 above, KOZUKI does not disclose a battery switch configured to connect the electric power of the second power supply and the second load when the inter-system connection between the first and second systems is disconnected. MAZAKI discloses a power supply control device (Fig. 1) comprising an inter-system connection unit (100) capable of connecting between a first system (ES1) that supplies electric power of a first power supply (11) to a first load (21 and 31) and a second system (ES2) that supplies electric power of a second power supply (12) to a second load (32); and further comprising a battery switch (Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, 201) configured to connect the electric power of the second power supply and the second load when the inter-system connection between the first and second systems is disconnected (Fig 4, witch 201 turn off after the switch 100 turn off). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KOZUKI to incorporate the teaching of MAZAKI and provide a battery switch configured to connect the electric power of the second power supply and the second load when the inter-system connection between the first and second systems is disconnected. Doing so would allow using the second battery as a backup battery when the first battery or the first load failed; and disconnect the backup battery when the backup battery itself failed.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of KOZUKI and MAZAKI discloses the power supply control device according to claim 8 above, KOZUKI also discloses power supply control device further comprising a switch driving device (1) configured to prohibit automatic driving of a vehicle [0003] on which the power supply control device is mounted when a power storage amount of the second power supply [0072] –[0074] is less than a third threshold [0072]-[0087].
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 THAI H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0668. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Rexford Barney can be reached at 571-272-7492. 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.
/THAI H TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836