DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the remarks filed on 9/15/2025.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
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
The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
Please see the attached example of claim amendments that should be included with any response.
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) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maresh et al. (US 2020/0295589) in further view of Le et al. (US 10,320,202).
As to claim 1 Maresh discloses an isolated hybrid energy source system for engine start applications, comprising:
A hybrid energy source, said energy source incorporates at least two isolated energy sources (figure 2 #144 and 132) in a half closed or a fully closed housing (figure 1 #210), at least two positive output terminals (figure 2 not numbered) and one negative terminal (figure 2 not numbered) are located on the outer surface of the housing of the energy system, each positive output terminal is connected to the positive end of the at least two energy sources (figure 2 #220) and respectively; one output terminal is connected to the power supply terminal of the solenoid of an engine starter (figure 2 #120 is the electronics including the starter), and the negative ends of said two power sources are connected to the at least one negative terminal on the outer surface of the housing (shown but not numbered in figure 2);
Maresh discloses the hybrid energy source (battery) but does not disclose it being in connection to a starting circuit.
Le teaches a charging circuit (figure 4A), comprising at least one normal open switching device (figure 4A #52A) (a Bi stable device is an energy saving switch that is balanced to be normally open or closed) (column 9 lines 45-65), is configured to selectively electrically connect the two power sources (figure 4A # 28 and 30) in parallel when closed, and isolates said two power sources when is open (shown isolated in figure 4A); said switching device further comprises a control end being connected to trigger signal (from the BCU figure 4A#36) (column 10 lines 1-15); and
Means of controlling said switching device comprising the control end of the switching device being connected to a trigger signal (key on signal column 10 lines 1-15), include:
Being connected to a power supply line or relay of a device of the engine which is on when engine is running and is off when engine is shut (key switch is on when the engine is running and off when the engine is shut off), or
Being connected to a switching device, said switching device is generally opened and closed in response to one or more engine’s operating parameters (The relay 52A is a switching device which is generally opened and closed in response to one or more engine operating perimeter (such as voltage threshold Column 10 lines 35-40), or
Being connected to a programmable controller (figure 4A #46) located within or out of the housing of said hybrid energy source, the activation and deactivation of the charging circuit may be triggered on and off respectively by a signal sent to the control end (from the key switch column 10 lines 1-15), said controller (figure 4A #46) may selectively storing at least one predetermined value programmable by a user (the user being the factory that set the programing), wherein said controller further comprises at least one parameter sensor (voltage sensor), said sensor is configured to monitor one or more engine operating parameters (voltage shown monitored in figures 5-7), said operating parameter sensor of the controller may include:
A voltage sensor is configured to monitor the voltage of the electrical circuit of the system (the voltage sensor is not shown but is monitored in figure 5);
Any other sensor to be configured to detect the operating parameter of the vehicle (speed shown in figure 6).
Wherein before the engine is started, said electronic controller (figure 4A #46) opens said switching device (figure 4A #52A) of said charging circuit when said level of operating parameters is lower than a predetermined level, indicating the engine is shut; said electronic controller closes the switching device when said level of one or more monitored operating parameters equals or is higher than a predetermined level, indicating the engine is running.
(column 10 lines 20-40)
In another embodiment, when the vehicle transitions from a long key- off position (i.e., in which the second battery 30 has been switched off of the bus 26 by the bi-stable relay 52A) to a key-on position, the battery control unit 36 may determine whether the voltage of the second battery 30 is lower than the voltage of the first battery 28. If so, the bi-stable relay 52A may remain in an off position until the engine starts under power of the first battery 28 and until the alternator 18 is able to begin charging the second battery 30 (e.g., during regenerative braking). On the other hand, if the voltage of the second battery 30 is greater than the voltage of the first battery at the key-on position, the bi-stable relay 52A may immediately switch closed to couple the second battery 30 into the passive parallel configuration with the first battery 28 to assist in starting the internal combustion engine 24. Further, if the battery control unit 36 determines that the voltage of the first battery 28 is too low to start the internal combustion engine 24 (i.e., the voltage of the first battery 28 is below a threshold voltage), the battery control unit 36 may close the bi-stable relay 52A to allow the second battery 30 to provide the starting power for the ignition system 16 (i.e., allow the second battery 30 to “jump” the vehicle 10).
The off position disclosed in the prior art above is also when the switch is in the open position.
It would have been obvious to use the controller of Le with a dual post battery of Maresh as both are designed for a vehicle starting system.
As to claim 2 Maresh discloses an isolated hybrid energy source system for engine start applications as set forth in claim 1, further comprising:
Maresh discloses the said energy source (figure 2 #120) including at least two isolated energy sources (figure 2 #220) enclosed in at least two enclosures respectively (clearly shown in figure 2), the first energy source (shown in the attached modified drawing below) includes at least one positive output terminal, one negative terminal and one positive charging terminal on the outer surface of the enclosure (shown in attached modified drawing below), the output terminal is connected to the power supply terminal of the solenoid of an engine starter (120 includes a starter);
Le discloses the said charging circuit, comprising at least one normal open switching device (figure 4A #52A) (a Bi stable device is an energy saving switch that is balanced to be normally open or closed) (column 9 lines 45-65), located out of the enclosure of the energy source, one end of said charging circuit is connected to the positive charging terminal of the first energy source (figure 4A #28) and another end connected to the positive terminal of another energy source (figure 4A #28), said switching device further comprises a control end (figure 4A #46) being connected to trigger signal (key on signal column 10 lines 1-15); and
Means of controlling said switching device, which are similar to those as set forth in claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to use the controller of Le with a dual post battery of Maresh as both are designed for a vehicle starting system.
As to claim 3 Maresh discloses an isolated energy source, comprising
An energy source, comprising at least one positive output terminal (the first energy source shown in the attached modified drawing above), one positive charging terminal (shown in the attached modified drawing above) and at least one negative terminal (shown in the attached modified drawing above); the positive output terminal is connected to the power supply terminal of the solenoid of an engine starter (120 includes a starter);
A charging circuit, comprising at least one normal open switching device configured to selectively electrically connect and disconnect the charging terminal of said power source to another energy source (figure 4A #52A) (a Bi stable device is an energy saving switch that is balanced to be normally open or closed) (column 9 lines 45-65); said switching device further comprises a control end for external trigger signal and the means for triggering the switching device with said external trigger signal (figure 4A #46) being connected to trigger signal (key on signal column 10 lines 1-15), the activation and deactivation of the charging circuit may be triggered on and off respectively by a signal sent to the control end during normal operation of the engine (during Key on as discloses in column 10 lines 1-15); and
Means of controlling said switching device, which are similar to those as set forth in claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to use the controller of Le with a dual post battery of Maresh as both are designed for a vehicle starting system.
As to claims 4 and 5 Maresh discloses the energy systems according claim 3, the energy sources may comprise more than one of a plurality of serially connected energy storage cells (shown connected in series in figure 2), comprising various battery types like Pb-acid battery (paragraph 0020), and may be configured in serial or in parallel to meet any voltage and current requirement (shown in figure 2 in series).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner would like to thank the applicant for the explanation of the invention and notes that the arguments start of page 10. Please note that the examiner respects all the reasoning and explanation within the arguments. The examiner Respectfully suggests in the responses below that it may be in the interest of the applicant to further limit their claims as the limitation are broad as explained below.
Response to Arguments Against Rejection of claim 1
As to the argument that Maresh does not disclose two isolated energy sources, an energy source is a place where energy is sourced (obtained) those terminals (figure 2 #144 and 132) are places where energy are obtained one is obtained by the vehicle to chare (supply) the battery the other is obtained by to power the vehicle. It is suggested that the applicant narrow this limitation. Such as to separate or isolated batteries. Also note that in applicants claim 3 the energy source is not exclusively a battery but a positive output terminal.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (see the beginning arguments to the proposed combination on page 13), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As to the argument of incompatibility of function (see column 21 lines 60-70) which states one of the objectives of the invention is to;
One or more of the disclosed embodiments, alone or on combination, may provide one or more technical effects including coupling and decoupling the first battery 28 or the second battery 30 from the electrical system 46 based on operational situations of the vehicle 10. The technical effects and technical problems in the specification are exemplary and are not limiting. It should be noted that the embodiments described in the specification may have other technical effects and can solve other technical problems.
The two systems are compatible to simply connect and disconnect the separate batteries based on the operation situation of the vehicle, such as the voltage as disclosed in the argument against claim 1 above.
On page 15 the applicant states “My application claims a system where one energy source is connected exclusively to the power supply of the solenoid of a starter.” This may be true but the claim limitation is broad, it states “one output terminal is connected to the power supply terminal of the solenoid of an engine starter”. Respectfully, this limitation does not read “exclusively” and will cover the connection made in the prior art as well.
Response to Arguments Against Rejection of claim 2
This argument is addressed with claim 1 above as it is based on the validity of the arguments against claim 1.
Response to Arguments Against Rejection of claim 3
On page 15 the applicant states “My application claims a system where one energy source is connected exclusively to the power supply of the solenoid of a starter.” This may be true but the claim limitation is broad, it states “one output terminal is connected to the power supply terminal of the solenoid of an engine starter”. Respectfully, this limitation does not read “exclusively” and will cover the connection made in the prior art as well. Also note that though the application to Maresh does not show a starter the intent and title of the application is a starter battery. The starter is part of an automobile electronics system.
Response to Arguments Against Rejection of claim 4
Respectfully the examiner can only address what is claimed and not the concept intended by the claims. The examiner would suggest further including the structure that the applicant believes is unique within the claim limitations.
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 SHERMAN D MANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5539. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5:30 est.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
SHERMAN D. MANLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/SHERMAN D MANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747