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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 05/06/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been rejected as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed solely to the amended subject matter which have been considered and addressed as detailed below under Claim Rejections.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ye (US 12034332 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Ye teaches a method for powering a component of a vehicle (column 9 line 29, "Embodiments of this application provide a power source switching control system and a power source switching control method, to optimize power source arrangement in a scenario in which a plurality of power sources supply power") connectable to a first power source (Fig. 1, working power source 100) and a second power source (Fig. 1, backup power source 110), the method comprising:
receiving a request to change from power the component via the first power source to via the second power source (column 5 line 15, “The monitor may generate or obtain a manually input power source switching instruction in a plurality of manners, where the power source switching instruction is used to indicate that in the plurality of power sources, the working power source needs to be turned off and the backup power source needs to be turned on”; Fig. 4 step 402, power source switching instruction);
opening a first switch (Fig. 1 first circuit breaker 120 with first on/off apparatus 1202) to decouple the component from the first power source after receiving the request (Fig. 4 step 404, send a working circuit breaker switch-off command);
determining, via a sensor electrically coupled thereto (Fig. 6, sensor 160), whether a first side of a first switch (Fig. 6, first side is downstream the switch where sensor 160 is located) is receiving power from the first power source (Fig. 4 step 405, determine whether a switch-off success feedback is received; column 4 line 31, “the sensor is configured to: collect the power supply parameter of the working power source and the power supply parameter of the backup power source…the power supply parameter may include a voltage value, a current value, a curve in which a voltage or a current changes with time, or another power supply parameter. In some embodiments, the monitor may also respectively determine the on/off state of the working power source and the on/off state of the backup power source based on the power supply parameter of the working power source and the power supply parameter of the backup power source”);
and preventing, via a controller, a second switch (Fig. 1 second circuit breaker 130 with second on/off apparatus 1302) from closing to electrically couple the component to the second power source when any power from the first power source is present on the first side of the first switch (Fig. 4, when step 405 it is determined that a switch-off success feedback was not received (which is based on sensor readings), then step 408 it is determined there is a system fault and the second switch is not closed).
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.
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) 1-2, 4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen (US 20050278075 A1) in view of Ye (US 12034332 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Rasmussen teaches a system for selecting between powering a component of a vehicle via a first power source (Fig. 1, generator 150) and a second power source (utility main 158; abstract, “Aspects of the invention are directed to power distribution systems and methods for distributing power from a primary power source and a backup power source to a load”), the system comprising:
a first line configured to be electrically coupled to the first power source (Fig. 1, line going from generator 150 to transfer switch 104) and a second line configured to be electrically coupled to the second power source (line going from utility main 158 to transfer switch 104);
a first switch that selectively electrically couples the first line to the component (Fig. 3, generator switch 180A) and a second switch that selectively electrically couples the second line to the component (utility switch 180B);
a first sensor configured to detect whether the first line is receiving power from the first power source (Fig. 1, "Sensor 112 is coupled to the power line from the generator 150 and is used to monitor output voltage from the generator") and a second sensor configured to detect whether the second line is receiving power from the second power source ("Sensor 114 is coupled to the power line from the utility main 158 and is used to monitor output voltage from the utility main");
a controller configured to receive a request to change from powering the component via the first power source to via the second power source, to open the first switch after receiving the request (par. 52, “Each of the switches may be actuated in one of four ways, through the use of the motor, manual mode by a user, electromechanical trip when the current exceeds a threshold, and shunt trip via a stored energy device in the system”; par. 59, "the use of switches 180A and 180B, under the control of the controller 102 and/or through manual intervention by a user provides increased flexibility in power options using two sources of input power"), (par. 59, "In at least one embodiment of the invention, an interlock scheme is used that allows for both an open transfer and a closed transfer from one input source to another. In the discussion that follows, an open transfer refers to a transfer in which power from the first source is switched off before power from the second source is switched on").
Rasmussen fails to explicitly teach to confirm via the first sensor that the first line is not receiving the power from the first power source after opening the first switch, and to close the second switch only after confirming that the first line is not when the first line is receiving the power from the first power source so as to prevent the component from receiving power from the first power source and the second power source simultaneously. It is only stated that the sensors are used to sense characteristics of the output voltage of the generator and utility main, but not explicitly that these sensors are used to prevent the component receiving power from both of the power sources at the same time.
Ye explicitly teaches to confirm via the first sensor that the first line is not receiving the power from the first power source after opening the first switch (Fig. 4 step 405, determine whether a switch-off success feedback is received; column 4 line 31, “the sensor is configured to: collect the power supply parameter of the working power source and the power supply parameter of the backup power source…the power supply parameter may include a voltage value, a current value, a curve in which a voltage or a current changes with time, or another power supply parameter. In some embodiments, the monitor may also respectively determine the on/off state of the working power source and the on/off state of the backup power source based on the power supply parameter of the working power source and the power supply parameter of the backup power source”), and to close the second switch only after confirming that the first line is not receiving the power from the first power source (Fig. 4 step 406, send a backup circuit breaker switch-on command) so as to prevent the component from receiving power from the first power source and the second power source simultaneously (column 6 line 20, “the monitor can be prevented from sending the switch-on signal to the second controller before the on/off state of the working power source is adjusted from an on state to an off state, to avoid a grid-connection accident occurring when the working power source and the backup power source are simultaneously turned on”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Rasmussen to use the sensors in the same way as Ye does in order to prevent an accident from occurring if both power sources were to simultaneously be turned on (column 1 line 34, “If the two power sources are simultaneously turned on, the two different power sources are short-circuited, and a grid-connection accident may occur during cable entry of the dual power sources”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Rasmussen in view of Ye teaches the system according to claim 1. Rasmussen further teaches the first sensor is a voltage sensor (par. 51, “voltage potential transformers”). Furthermore, Ye also teaches the first sensor is a voltage sensor (column 4 line 39, “The sensor may be a voltage sensor, a current sensor, or the like”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rasmussen in view of Ye teaches the system according to claim 1. Rasmussen further teaches the first sensor is electrically coupled between the first line and the first switch (Fig. 1, sensor 112 between generator 150 and transfer switch 104).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rasmussen in view of Ye teaches the system according to claim 1. Rasmussen further teaches the component is a heater (claim 25, "at least one of the plurality of devices is an air conditioning unit, and wherein the facility controller is configured to detect a temperature in the facility and control the air conditioning unit based on the temperature detected and an operational state of the utility power and the backup power source"), and wherein the controller is configured to control operation of the heater based on whether the heater is receiving the power from the first power source or the second power source (claim 23, "the facility controller is configured to receive operational data related to status of the utility power source, the backup power source, and the uninterruptible power supply, and to control distribution of power to the plurality of devices based on the operational data received").
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen in view of Ye, and further in view of Jeannard (US 20220126696).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rasmussen in view of Ye teaches the system according to claim 1. Both Rasmussen and Ye fail to explicitly teach a third line configured to be electrically coupled to a ground associated with the first power source and a fourth line configure to be electrically coupled to a ground associated with the second power source, and further comprising a third switch that selectively electrically couples the component to the third line and a fourth switch that selectively electrically couples the component to the fourth line, wherein the controller is configured to control the first switch in conjunction with the third switch and to control the second switch in conjunction with the fourth switch.
However, Jeannard teaches a third line configured to be electrically coupled to a ground associated with the first power source (par. 35 Fig. 1, “The first power supply control arrangement 2 incorporates a switching arrangement which includes a first switch 28 that is connected in series between the first voltage input 3 and the first voltage output 5 and a second switch 29 which is connected in series between the first ground input 4 and the first ground output 6”) and a fourth line configure to be electrically coupled to a ground associated with the second power source (par. 36 Fig. 1, “The second power control arrangement 7 incorporates a switching arrangement which includes a first switch 30 that is connected in series between the second voltage input 8 and the second voltage output 10 and a second switch 31 which is connected in series between the second ground input 9 and the second ground output 11”), and further comprising a third switch that selectively electrically couples the component to the third line (Fig. 1, switch 29) and a fourth switch that selectively electrically couples the component to the fourth line (Fig. 1, switch 31), wherein the controller is configured to control the first switch in conjunction with the third switch and to control the second switch in conjunction with the fourth switch (par. 40 Fig. 1, “The first power control arrangement 2 is configured to operate in the active mode when the switches 28, 29 are closed”; par. 41, “The second power control arrangement 7 is configured to operate in the active mode when the switches 30, 31 are closed”; par. 43, “The control signal controls the selector arrangement 37 to select which of the power control arrangements 2, 7 is to operate in the active mode and which is to operate in the isolated mode”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Rasmussen in view of Ye to incorporate the teachings of Jeannard. Doing so would allow the system to use one power source at a time (abstract) and so that there is no interruption when switching between power sources (par. 3).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen in view of Ye, and further in view of Owen (US 20170302085 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Rasmussen in view of Ye teaches the system according to claim 1. Rasmussen further teaches the first sensor and the second sensor are electrically coupled upstream of the first switch and the second switch, respectively (Fig. 1, sensors 112 and 114),
Rasmussen fails to teach a third sensor configured to detect whether the first line is receiving power from the first power source downstream of the first switch, and a fourth sensor configured to detect whether the second line is receiving power from the second power source downstream of the second switch. Instead, Rasmussen only teaches a singular sensor (sensor 116) used to monitor output from the transfer switch, which would be unable to detect which power source the power is coming from. However, Rasmussen does teach possibly adding additional redundant sensors (par. 51, “additional redundant sensors may be used to increase reliability of readings from the sensors and to reduce the likelihood of a sensor error resulting in a false indication of a power outage. Further, the use of sensors on both the input and the output of the transfer switch adds redundancy”).
Ye teaches a third sensor configured to detect whether the first line is receiving power from the first power source downstream of the first switch (Fig. 6 sensor 160), but does not teach a fourth sensor configured to detect whether the second line is receiving power from the second power source downstream of the second switch. Ye’s singular sensor only detects if either the first or second power source is providing power.
Owen teaches a third sensor configured to detect whether the first line is receiving power from the first power source downstream of the first switch (Fig. 1A, current sensor 1 placed downstream switch 1), and a fourth sensor configured to detect whether the second line is receiving power from the second power source downstream of the second switch (current sensor 2 placed downstream switch 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rasmussen in view of Ye to incorporate the teachings of Owen to provide redundancy, as taught by Rasmussen.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen in view of Ye, and further in view of Piyabongkarn (US 20240239200).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rasmussen and Ye teach the system according to claim 6. Both Rasmussen and Ye fail to explicitly teach the first power source is DC power and the second power source is AC power.
However, Piyabongkarn teaches the first power source is DC power (par. 37 Fig. 4, “DC power generated by the power source(s) 204”) and the second power source is AC power (par. 37 Fig. 4, “120 volt AC power source (from the second port 302)”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rasmussen in view of Thurk to incorporate the teachings of Piyabongkarn. Doing so would allow Rasmussen in view of Thurk to wider range of charging methods (Piyabongkarn par. 23-24).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen in view of Ye, and further in view of Cook (US 20040232137).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rasmussen in view of Ye teach the system according to claim 6. Both Rasmussen and Ye fail to teach the heater comprises a first resistive heating element and a second resistive heating element operable simultaneously to generate heat.
However, Cook the heater comprises a first resistive heating element (par. 51 Fig. 1, first resistive heating element 110) and a second resistive heating element (par. 51 Fig. 1, second resistive heating element 120) operable simultaneously to generate heat (par. 51, “coupling the first and second resistive heating elements 110 and 120 in series or in parallel”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Rasmussen in view of Ye to incorporate the teachings of Cook. Cook states that “there is a need for an improved universal fuser heating apparatus capable of working over low and high AC line voltage ranges, which does not cause unacceptable flicker problems” (par. 3), and that using two resistive heating elements can help mitigate this problem.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Rasmussen in view of Ye and Cook teaches the system according to claim 8. Cook further teaches the heater comprises an additional one or more switches operable to select between the first resistive heating element and the second resistive heating element being electrically coupled in series or in parallel, wherein the controller is configured to operate the additional one or more switches based on whether the heater is receiving the power from the first power source or the second power source (par. 5, “structure for coupling the first and second resistive heating elements in series or in parallel in dependence upon whether the fuser heating apparatus will receive an input AC line voltage falling within the at least one low AC line voltage range or the high AC line voltage range”; par 21, switching device).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Rasmussen in view of Ye and Cook to further incorporate the teachings of Cook. Cook states that “there is a need for an improved universal fuser heating apparatus capable of working over low and high AC line voltage ranges, which does not cause unacceptable flicker problems” (par. 3), and that using two resistive heating elements can help mitigate this problem.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Rasmussen in view of Ye and Cook teaches the system according to claim 9. Both Rasmussen and Ye fail to teach the first resistive heating element and the second resistive heating element have different resistances from each other, and the different resistances are selected such that the power provided via the first power source when electrically coupled to the heater is within 20% of the power provided via the second power source when electrically coupled to the heater.
However, Cook teaches the first resistive heating element and the second resistive heating element have different resistances from each other (par 17, "The first resistive heating element generally has a resistance which is lower than that of the second resistive heating element"), and the different resistances are selected such that the power provided via the first power source when electrically coupled to the heater is within 20% of the power provided via the second power source when electrically coupled to the heater (par. 63, “the resistances of the first and second heating elements 110 and 120 are selected such they have a first, low effective resistance, when in parallel with one another, corresponding to the AC line voltage falling within one of the low AC line voltage ranges, see FIGS. 1G and 1H (phantom line), and a second, high effective resistance, when in series with one another, corresponding to the AC line voltage falling within the high AC line voltage range, see FIGS. 1 and 1H (solid line). Consequently, regardless of the AC line voltage provided, high current levels, which might create unacceptable flicker problems, are avoided”).
Although Cook does not explicitly teach the power of the first and second power sources are within 20%, the power levels would have to be similar in order to avoid flickering.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Rasmussen in view of Ye and Cook to further incorporate the teachings of Cook. Cook states that “there is a need for an improved universal fuser heating apparatus capable of working over low and high AC line voltage ranges, which does not cause unacceptable flicker problems” (par. 3), and that using two resistive heating elements can help mitigate this problem.
Claim(s) 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Piyabongkarn.
Regarding claim 12, Ye teaches the method according to claim 11. Ye further teaches closing the second switch when the first side of the first switch is determined to not be receiving the power from the first power source (Fig. 4, step 405 determine whether a switch-off success feedback is received and step 406 send a backup circuit breaker switch-on command).
Ye fails to explicitly teach the first power source is DC power and the second power source is AC power.
However, Piyabongkarn teaches the first power source is DC power (par. 37 Fig. 4, “DC power generated by the power source(s) 204”) and the second power source is AC power (par. 37 Fig. 4, “120 volt AC power source (from the second port 302)”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ye to incorporate the teachings of Piyabongkarn. Doing so would allow Rasmussen in view of Thurk to wider range of charging methods (Piyabongkarn par. 23-24).
Regarding claim 17, Ye teaches the method according to claim 11. Ye fails to teach the first power source is AC power and the second power source is a battery system, whereby a state of charge of the battery system is preserved by defaulting to the component receiving the power from the AC power. Ye does not specify what type of power sources the working and backup power sources are.
Piyabongkarn teaches the first power source is AC power (par. 37 Fig. 4, “120 volt AC power source (from the second port 302)”) and the second power source is a battery system (par. 18, “the power source includes one or more rechargeable batteries”), whereby a state of charge of the battery system is preserved by defaulting to the component receiving the power from the AC power (par. 42, “the switch assembly 324 includes two switches 326 that are normally closed such that the default charging mode is to receive power from the 120 volt chassis power source”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ye to incorporate the teachings of Piyabongkarn. Doing so would allow Ye to have a wider range of charging methods (Piyabongkarn par. 23-24).
Claim(s) 13-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Rasmussen.
Regarding claim 13, Ye teaches the method according to claim 11. Ye fails to teach determining whether a second side of the first switch is receiving power from the first power source, and determining whether a second side of the second switch is receiving power from the second power source; and preventing, via the controller, the first switch from closing when the second side of the second switch is receiving the power from the second power source, and preventing, via the controller, the second switch from closing when the second side of the first switch is receiving the power from the first power source.
However, Rasmussen teaches determining whether a second side of the first switch (Fig. 1, second side is upstream transfer switch 104 where sensor 112 is located) is receiving power from the first power source (Fig. 1, "Sensor 112 is coupled to the power line from the generator 150 and is used to monitor output voltage from the generator"), and determining whether a second side of the second switch (Fig. 1, second side is upstream transfer switch 104 where sensor 112 is located) is receiving power from the second power source ("Sensor 114 is coupled to the power line from the utility main 158 and is used to monitor output voltage from the utility main"); and preventing, via the controller, the first switch from closing when the second side of the second switch is receiving the power from the second power source, and preventing, via the controller, the second switch from closing when the second side of the first switch is receiving the power from the first power source (par. 59, “it is common to use a transfer switch having a mechanical interlock that prevents the output of the transfer switch from being simultaneously coupled to two input sources of power”; Fig. 2, automatic transfer switch).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ye to incorporate the teachings of Rasmussen in order to prevent two power sources from being connected to at the same time, which can lead to accidents. As Rasmussen states in par. 59, using an interlock to prevent simultaneous coupling is common in the field.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Rasmussen in view of Ye teaches the method according to claim 13. Ye further teaches closing the second switch when
Ye fails to teach closing the second switch when the second side of the first switch is determined to not be receiving the power from the first power source.
However, automatic transfer switches (ATS) that switch power sources when a fault is detected is common in the field. Rasmussen teaches an ATS (Fig. 2) which uses sensor data (par. 51, “Sensor 112 is coupled to the power line from the generator 150 and is used to monitor output voltage from the generator. The output of sensor 112 is coupled to the controller 102. In one embodiment, sensor 112 is implemented using voltage potential transformers. Sensor 114 is coupled to the power line from the utility main 158 and is used to monitor output voltage from the utility main and is also implemented using voltage potential transformers”). An ATS will switch power sources (close the second switch) when it is determined that there is a fault (sensor 112 or sensor 114 determines there is no power). Therefore, the combination of Ye in view of Rasmussen teaches closing the second switch when the second side of the first switch (second side is upstream of switch) is determined to not be receiving the power from the first power source (there is a fault, and the ATS will switch the power sources). ATS systems are well-known in the field and would have been an obvious addition to Ye.
Regarding claim 18, Ye teaches the system according to claim 11. Ye fails to teach the component is a heater, further comprising controlling operation of the heater based on whether the heater is receiving the power from the first power source or the second power source.
However, Rasmussen further teaches the component is a heater (claim 25, "at least one of the plurality of devices is an air conditioning unit, and wherein the facility controller is configured to detect a temperature in the facility and control the air conditioning unit based on the temperature detected and an operational state of the utility power and the backup power source"), further comprising controlling operation of the heater based on whether the heater is receiving the power from the first power source or the second power source (claim 23, "the facility controller is configured to receive operational data related to status of the utility power source, the backup power source, and the uninterruptible power supply, and to control distribution of power to the plurality of devices based on the operational data received").
Ye does not specify what devices it could be used with, but it is obvious that Ye’s methods could be applicable to a heater.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Thurk (US 9935495 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Ye teaches the method according to claim 11. Ye fails to teach receiving a default selection among the first power source and the second power source and, when the default selection is the first power source and the first side of the second switch is determined to not be receiving the power from the second power source, causing the first power source to provide the power to the first switch and electrically coupling the component to the first power source to be powered thereby.
However, Thurk teaches receiving a default selection among the first power source and the second power source and, when the default selection is the first power source and the first side of the second switch is determined to not be receiving the power from the second power source, causing the first power source to provide the power to the first switch and electrically coupling the component to the first power source to be powered thereby (column 6 line 25, “The automatic transfer switch 108 has a first state (for example, a non-transferred state, a normal state, a default state) and a second state (for example, a transferred state, an emergency state)”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ye to incorporate the teachings of Thurk. Having a default selection among multiple power sources is well-known in the art and can be found on many systems.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Thurk, and further in view of Rasmussen.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Ye in view of Thurk teaches the method according to claim 15. Both Ye and Thurk fails to explicitly teach the first power source comprises a battery system, further comprising monitoring a state of charge of the battery system and, when the state of charge is below a threshold value, causing the first power source to stop providing the power to the first switch and causing the second power source to provide the power to the second switch. Ye does not specify what type of power sources the working and backup power sources are.
However, Rasmussen teaches the first power source comprises a battery system (par. 9, “The backup power source may be a generator, and the power distribution system may be configured to receive a DC voltage from a battery of the generator”), further comprising monitoring a state of charge of the battery system and, when the state of charge is below a threshold value, causing the first power source to stop providing the power to the first switch and causing the second power source to provide the power to the second switch (par. 9, “The controller may be configured to receive data related to operational status of the generator and to control the first switch and the second switch based on the data. The data related to operational status of the generator may include a fuel level of the generator, and the controller may be configured to determine a run time of the generator based on the fuel level”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ye in view of Thurk to incorporate the teachings of Rasmussen in order to more efficiently decide when to switch powers sources.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Rasmussen, and further in view of Cook.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ye in view of Rasmussen teaches method according to claim 18. Both Rasmussen and Ye fail to teach the heater comprises a first resistive heating element and a second resistive heating element operable simultaneously to generate heat, and wherein the heater comprises an additional one or more switches operable to select between the first resistive heating element and the second resistive heating element being electrically coupled in series or in parallel, further comprising controlling the additional one or more switches based on whether the heater is receiving the power from the first power source or the second power source.
However, Cook teaches the heater comprises a first resistive heating element (par. 51 Fig. 1, first resistive heating element 110) and a second resistive heating element (par. 51 Fig. 1, second resistive heating element 120) operable simultaneously to generate heat, and wherein the heater comprises an additional one or more switches operable to select between the first resistive heating element and the second resistive heating element being electrically coupled in series or in parallel, further comprising controlling the additional one or more switches based on whether the heater is receiving the power from the first power source or the second power source (par. 5, “structure for coupling the first and second resistive heating elements in series or in parallel in dependence upon whether the fuser heating apparatus will receive an input AC line voltage falling within the at least one low AC line voltage range or the high AC line voltage range”; par 21, switching device).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Ye in view of Rasmussen to incorporate the teachings of Cook. Cook states that “there is a need for an improved universal fuser heating apparatus capable of working over low and high AC line voltage ranges, which does not cause unacceptable flicker problems” (par. 3), and that using two resistive heating elements can help mitigate this problem.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen in view of Cook and Owen.
Regarding claim 20, Rasmussen teaches a system for heating a vehicle via a first power source (Fig. 1, generator 150) and a second power source (utility main 158; abstract, “Aspects of the invention are directed to power distribution systems and methods for distributing power from a primary power source and a backup power source to a load”), the system comprising:
a first switch that selectively electrically couples the (Fig. 3, generator switch 180A) and a second switch that selectively electrically couples the heater to the second power source (utility switch 180B);
a first sensor configured to detect whether a first side of the first switch is receiving power from the first power source (Fig. 1, "Sensor 112 is coupled to the power line from the generator 150 and is used to monitor output voltage from the generator"), a second sensor configured to detect whether a first side of the second switch is receiving power from the second power source ("Sensor 114 is coupled to the power line from the utility main 158 and is used to monitor output voltage from the utility main");
a controller configured to receive a request to change from powering the heater via the first power source to via the second power source, (par. 52, “Each of the switches may be actuated in one of four ways, through the use of the motor, manual mode by a user, electromechanical trip when the current exceeds a threshold, and shunt trip via a stored energy device in the system”; par. 59, "the use of switches 180A and 180B, under the control of the controller 102 and/or through manual intervention by a user provides increased flexibility in power options using two sources of input power"), and to prevent the second switch from closing when the first side and/or the second side of the first switch is receiving power from the first power source, and to control the at least one additional switch based on which of the first power source and second power source is electrically coupled to the heater (par. 59, "In at least one embodiment of the invention, an interlock scheme is used that allows for both an open transfer and a closed transfer from one input source to another. In the discussion that follows, an open transfer refers to a transfer in which power from the first source is switched off before power from the second source is switched on").
Rasmussen fails to explicitly teach a heater, and fails to teach a first resistive heating element and a second resistive heating element having different resistances and being operable simultaneously to generate heat; at least one additional switch operable to select between the first resistive heating element and the second resistive heating element being in parallel or in series.
However, Cook teaches a heater (Fig. 1, heater 240) having a first resistive heating element (par. 51 Fig. 1, first resistive heating element 110) and a second resistive heating element (par. 51 Fig. 1, second resistive heating element 120) having different resistances (par. 63, “the first and second resistive heating elements 110 and 120 may have different resistances”) and being operable simultaneously to generate heat;
at least one additional switch operable to select between the first resistive heating element and the second resistive heating element being in parallel or in series. (par. 5, “structure for coupling the first and second resistive heating elements in series or in parallel in dependence upon whether the fuser heating apparatus will receive an input AC line voltage falling within the at least one low AC line voltage range or the high AC line voltage range”; par 21, switching device)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rasmussen to incorporate the teachings of Cook. Cook states that “there is a need for an improved universal fuser heating apparatus capable of working over low and high AC line voltage ranges, which does not cause unacceptable flicker problems” (par. 3), and that using two resistive heating elements can help mitigate this problem.
Both Rasmussen and Cook fail to teach a third sensor configured to detect whether a second side of the first switch is receiving power from the first power source, and a fourth sensor configured to detect whether a fourth side of the second switch is receiving power from the second power source separately than from the first power source. Instead, Rasmussen only teaches a singular sensor (sensor 116) used to monitor output from the transfer switch, which would be unable to detect which power source the power is coming from. However, Rasmussen does teach possibly adding additional redundant sensors (par. 51, “additional redundant sensors may be used to increase reliability of readings from the sensors and to reduce the likelihood of a sensor error resulting in a false indication of a power outage. Further, the use of sensors on both the input and the output of the transfer switch adds redundancy”).
However, Owen teaches a third sensor configured to detect whether a second side of the first switch is receiving power from the first power source (Fig. 1A, current sensor 1 placed downstream switch 1), and a fourth sensor configured to detect whether a fourth side of the second switch is receiving power from the second power source (Fig. 1A, current sensor 2 placed downstream switch 2);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rasmussen in view of Ye to incorporate the teachings of Owen to provide redundancy, as taught by Rasmussen.
Alternatively, Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasmussen in view of Ye, Cook, and Owen.
Regarding claim 20, Rasmussen teaches a system for heating a vehicle via a first power source (Fig. 1, generator 150) and a second power source (utility main 158; abstract, “Aspects of the invention are directed to power distribution systems and methods for distributing power from a primary power source and a backup power source to a load”), the system comprising:
a first switch that selectively electrically couples the (Fig. 3, generator switch 180A) and a second switch that selectively electrically couples the heater to the second power source (utility switch 180B);
a first sensor configured to detect whether a first side of the first switch is receiving power from the first power source (Fig. 1, "Sensor 112 is coupled to the power line from the generator 150 and is used to monitor output voltage from the generator"), a second sensor configured to detect whether a first side of the second switch is receiving power from the second power source ("Sensor 114 is coupled to the power line from the utility main 158 and is used to monitor output voltage from the utility main");
a controller configured to receive a request to change from powering the heater via the first power source to via the second power source, (par. 52, “Each of the switches may be actuated in one of four ways, through the use of the motor, manual mode by a user, electromechanical trip when the current exceeds a threshold, and shunt trip via a stored energy device in the system”; par. 59, "the use of switches 180A and 180B, under the control of the controller 102 and/or through manual intervention by a user provides increased flexibility in power options using two sources of input power"), and to prevent the second switch from closing when the first side and/or the second side of the first switch is receiving power from the first power source, and to control the at least one additional switch based on which of the first power source and second power source is electrically coupled to the heater (par. 59, "In at least one embodiment of the invention, an interlock scheme is used that allows for both an open transfer and a closed transfer from one input source to another. In the discussion that follows, an open transfer refers to a transfer in which power from the first source is switched off before power from the second source is switched on").
Ye more explicitly teaches to prevent the second switch from closing when the first side and/or the second side of the first switch is receiving power from the first power source, and to control the at least one additional switch based on which of the first power source and second power source is electrically coupled to the heater (Fig. 4, when step 405 it is determined that a switch-off success feedback was not received (which is based on sensor readings), then step 408 it is determined there is a system fault and the second switch is not closed).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Rasmussen to use the sensors in the same way as Ye does in order to prevent an accident from occurring if both power sources were to simultaneously be turned on (column 1 line 34, “If the two power sources are simultaneously turned on, the two different power sources are short-circuited, and a grid-connection accident may occur during cable entry of the dual power sources”).
Rasmussen fails to explicitly teach a heater, and fails to teach a first resistive heating element and a second resistive heating element having different resistances and being operable simultaneously to generate heat; at least one additional switch operable to select between the first resistive heating element and the second resistive heating element being in parallel or in series.
However, Cook teaches a heater (Fig. 1, heater 240) having a first resistive heating element (par. 51 Fig. 1, first resistive heating element 110) and a second resistive heating element (par. 51 Fig. 1, second resistive heating element 120) having different resistances (par. 63, “the first and second resistive heating elements 110 and 120 may have different resistances”) and being operable simultaneously to generate heat;
at least one additional switch operable to select between the first resistive heating element and the second resistive heating element being in parallel or in series. (par. 5, “structure for coupling the first and second resistive heating elements in series or in parallel in dependence upon whether the fuser heating apparatus will receive an input AC line voltage falling within the at least one low AC line voltage range or the high AC line voltage range”; par 21, switching device)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rasmussen to incorporate the teachings of Cook. Cook states that “there is a need for an improved universal fuser heating apparatus capable of working over low and high AC line voltage ranges, which does not cause unacceptable flicker problems” (par. 3), and that using two resistive heating elements can help mitigate this problem.
Both Rasmussen and Cook fail to teach a third sensor configured to detect whether a second side of the first switch is receiving power from the first power source, and a fourth sensor configured to detect whether a fourth side of the second switch is receiving power from the second power source separately than from the first power source. Instead, Rasmussen only teaches a singular sensor (sensor 116) used to monitor output from the transfer switch, which would be unable to detect which power source the power is coming from. However, Rasmussen does teach possibly adding additional redundant sensors (par. 51, “additional redundant sensors may be used to increase reliability of readings from the sensors and to reduce the likelihood of a sensor error resulting in a false indication of a power outage. Further, the use of sensors on both the input and the output of the transfer switch adds redundancy”).
However, Owen teaches a third sensor configured to detect whether a second side of the first switch is receiving power from the first power source (Fig. 1A, current sensor 1 placed downstream switch 1), and a fourth sensor configured to detect whether a fourth side of the second switch is receiving power from the second power source (Fig. 1A, current sensor 2 placed downstream switch 2);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rasmussen in view of Ye to incorporate the teachings of Owen to provide redundancy, as taught by Rasmussen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights