DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12-15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Canadian document CA2897708C.
Re claims 1 and 15, the document discloses a start-up power supply having, inter alia, a battery 1; a supercapacitor module 6; an output configured to be coupled to terminals of a vehicle battery; a switch module coupling an output of the supercapacitor module to the output; a charging circuit 4 coupled between the battery and the supercapacitor module (para 14), the charging circuit further being coupled to the output; and a control module 20 coupled to the charging circuit, the switching module 17, the battery, and the supercapacitor module, the control module configured to: detect a voltage of a supercapacitor module; determine, that the voltage of the supercapacitor module is above a voltage of the battery; and charge the supercapacitor module 6 until the voltage of the supercapacitor module reaches a voltage between a minimum voltage to allow a vehicle to start and a voltage of a full threshold of the supercapacitor module (para 17). Method steps of claim 15 performed by the structures of claim 1.
Re claims 4 and 18, the document further discloses the battery is rechargeable.
Re claims 5 and 19, the document further discloses the input port (IN) to receive input voltage 1 and the charging circuit 4 coupled to the input (front figure).
Re claim 7, the document further discloses a discharging circuit 7 coupled between the battery 1 and the supercapacitor module 6; the discharging circuit 7 coupled to the output (OUT) (fig 3).
Re claim 8, the document further discloses charging circuit 4 has a boost circuit (BOOST CIRCUIT).
Re claim 12, the document further discloses a switch module 17 coupled to the output of the capacitor modules 6 (fig 4).
Re claims 13 and 14, the document further discloses the switch can be a relay or solid state (FET) (para 16).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canadian document CA2897708C in view of German document DE102012019607A1.
Re claims 2 and 16, the Canadian document further discloses determining the voltage of the supercapacitors is higher than the pre-charge voltage of the supercapacitors and connect the battery and the supercapacitor module in parallel for the battery to charge the supercapacitors (para 17). Bolded text is not disclosed in the Canadian document. The German document teaches jumpstarting a vehicle battery while protecting the supercapacitors when its voltage is below the predetermined value. The system would pre-charge the supercapacitors to ensure the voltage is sufficient to open the relay. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the teachings of the German document into the device of the Canadian document to ensure the supercapacitors are above a threshold voltage before initiating charge.
Re claims 3 and 17, the German document further discloses charging the supercapacitors above the pre-charge voltage.
Claims 6, 9-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canadian document CA2897708C
Re claim 6, the document is silent on having the supercapacitors being double-layer capacitors. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected any appropriate capacitors since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Re claims 9 and 10, the document is silent on the layout of the supercapacitors (in series or parallel). It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have connected the supercapacitors in either layout (i.e. it has to in at least one or the other layout) since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known materiale on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Re claim 11, the document does not disclose an equalizing circuit for the super caacpitors. Official notice is taken of the fact that equalization circuit is known to balance the charge among all capacitors/batteries to ensure proper state of charge is achieved. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included an equalization circuit to ensure proper state of charge is achieved across all capacitors.
Re claim 20, the document does not disclose the discharge is performed while the battery and the supercapacitors are connected in parallel. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have connected the supercapacitors in parallel with the power supply since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known materiale on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Drew Dunn and he can be reached at 571.272.2312. The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800.786.9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571.272.1000.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087
Prosecution Insights