ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT FOR A HIGH-VOLTAGE NETWORK OF A VEHICLE

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 Applicant’s response and amendment dated 9/8/26 are acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-8 are pending.1 Claim Interpretation The claims use “and/or” throughout. Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In accordance with this standard of interpretation, the Examiner will construe “and/or” to be “or”, i.e. all limitations are required only in the alternative. For clarity, the claims are listed below as listed by Applicant, but this interpretation is to be understood throughout this Office Action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conlon (US 2019/0283611, previously cited).2 Regarding claim 1,3 Conlon teaches an electrical circuit for a high-voltage network of a vehicle, wherein the high-voltage network comprises at least two electrical energy stores, the electrical circuit comprising: at least one first connection point and at least one second connection point which are configured for electrical connection to a load and/or4 a charging device (paragraph 0032: electrical connector sets), at least one first switching unit which is arranged between a first pole connector, configured for electrical contacting of a first pole of a first electrical energy store, and the at least one first connection point (paragraph 0041: switch SA-1), at least one second switching unit which is arranged between a second pole connector, configured for electrical contacting of a second pole of a second electrical energy store, and at least one second connection point (paragraph 0041: switch SA-2), at least one third switching unit which is arranged between the first pole connector and a third pole connector, configured for electrical contacting of a first pole of the second electrical energy store (paragraph 0041: switch SA-3), and at least one fourth switching unit which is arranged between the second pole connector and a fourth pole connector, configured for electrical contacting of a second pole of the first electrical energy store (paragraph 0041: switch SA-4), wherein the at least one switching units are switchable between an electrically connecting and an electrically separating state (paragraph 0041), wherein the first switching unit and/or the at least one second switching unit are configured so as to be electrically separating in the electrically separating state (paragraph 0041), and wherein the at least one third switching unit and/or the at least one fourth switching unit are configured as semiconductor components (paragraph 0041). Regarding claim 2, Conlon teaches the at least one third switching unit and/or the at least one fourth switching unit comprise one or more transistors (paragraph 0041: MOSFET). Regarding claim 3, Conlon teaches the at least one third switching unit and/or the at least one fourth switching unit each comprise two transistors, which are in each case arranged in such a way that the blocking directions thereof are opposing, wherein the transistors of the at least one third switching unit and/or of the at least one fourth switching unit are in each case electrically interconnected via their source side (paragraph 0041: MOSFET). Regarding claim 4, Conlon teaches at least one fifth switching unit which is arranged between the third pole connector and the fourth pole connector, wherein the at least one fifth switching unit is configured as a semiconductor component and can be switched between an electrically connecting and an electrically separating state (paragraph 0041: switch SB-1). Regarding claim 5, Conlon teaches the at least one fifth switching unit comprises two transistors, which are in each case arranged in such a way that the blocking directions thereof are opposing, wherein preferably the transistors of the at least one fifth switching unit are preferably electrically interconnected via their source side (paragraph 0041: MOSFET). Regarding claim 6, Conlon teaches a charging connection for connection to a charging unit for charging the electrical energy stores, the electrical circuit comprising: at least one sixth switching unit which is arranged between the charging connection and the first connection point (paragraph 0041: switch SB-2), and at least one seventh switching unit which is arranged between the charging connection and the second connection point (paragraph 0041: switch SB-3), wherein the at least one sixth switching unit and/or the seventh switching unit can be switched between an electrically connecting and an electrically separating state (paragraph 0041). Regarding claim 8, Conlon teaches at least one electrical load, in particular an electrical vehicle drive, which comprises two opposite poles, wherein a first pole of an electrical vehicle drive is electrically connected to the first connection point, and a second pole of an electrical vehicle drive is electrically connected to the at least one second connection point (paragraph 0032). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited art fails to disclose all limitations of the claims. Applicant’s Remarks dated 9/8/26, pages 6-8. However, Conlon discloses all limitations of the claims. In particular, Applicant argues that “a change in the internal interconnection of the cells is not disclosed” in Conlon.5 Id. at 7. As shown in Fig. 2 of Conlon, a change in the state of SA1 and SA3 would change the internal interconnection of the cell. Similar changes would occur for changes in state of SA2 and SA4, SB1 and SB3, and SB2 and SB4. Conlon discloses this feature. Applicant next argues that “the Office has presented a rejection based on hindsight without any hint from the prior art.” Applicant’s Remarks, page 6. Whether or not hindsight was used,6 hindsight analysis is irrelevant to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). See MPEP § 2142, discussing the legal concept of obviousness: “impermissible hindsight must be avoided and the legal conclusion must be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior art.” For anticipation, the standard is “only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Moreover, identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Such is the case here. As discussed in the rejection above, Conlon discloses all limitations and features of the claims, arranged as recited in the claims. Because the cited discloses each and every element, the claims are anticipated. See Verdegaal Bros. above. 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 MATTHEW MIKELS whose telephone number is (571)270-5470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7:30 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET, Friday 7:30 AM ET - 9:30 AM ET, the Examiner is on central time.7 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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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. /MATTHEW MIKELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876 1 Note that Applicant states that “Claim 1 has been amended to include limitations of intervening claims __, and allowable claim __, and is allowable for that reasons, as are claims __ depending therefrom.” Applicant’s Remarks, page 6. This appears to be a typographical error, as no claims have been cancelled, nor has any subject matter from objected-to claim 7 been incorporated into claim 1. As discussed herein, the amendments to the claims do not place them in condition for allowance. 2 In addition to the cited paragraphs, please see also the associated figures. 3 See also further discussion below. 4 Note the interpretation of “and/or” as discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above. 5 It should also be noted that “a change in the internal interconnection of the cells” is not recited in the claims, and Applicant has not argued regarding any particular language from the claims. 6 The Examiner takes no position on whether hindsight was used, as it does not factor into the anticipation rejection above. 7 The Examiner can also be reached at matthew.mikels@uspto.gov.