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 .
Status of Claims
Acknowledgement is made of application #18/512,312 filed on 11/17/2023 in which claims 1-11 have been presented for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/17/2023 has been considered and put on record. An initialed copy is attached herewith.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda US 2013/0181686 A1 in view of Hirose DE 112012005937 T5(Machine Translation)(all cited by Applicants)
Regarding claim 1: Ueda at least discloses and shows in Figs. 1, 3A-3B: A discharge device for discharging an electrical system(by discharging capacitors C1 and C2 of hybrid vehicle 2; see [0030]) or an electrically powered unit(hybrid vehicle 2)(see [0025]-[0026]), the discharge device comprising: a discharge circuit(20) having a discharge resistor(22) and a normally-off first semiconductor switch(24) connected in series with said discharge resistor(22)(see Fig. 1 and [0032]. Note-The trigger signal is normally a low level, and, when the host controller 32 issues a command to the discharge controller 30 to use the discharge device 20, the host controller 32 changes the signal level of the trigger signal to a high level); and a controller(30) for activating said first semiconductor switch(24)(see [0030],[0032],[0035] and [0036]);
However Ueda does not expressly said controller being commanded to deactivate said discharge circuit during normal operation of the electrical system or the unit, and to activate said discharge circuit in an event of an absence of commanding.
In the same field of endeavor, namely electric vehicle discharging system, Hirose discloses factual evidence of, said controller(6) being commanded to deactivate said discharge circuit(20) during normal operation of the electrical system or the unit(hybrid vehicle 2), and to activate said discharge circuit(20) in an event of an absence of commanding(see [0026],[0034])(note-The vehicle of the embodiment may also use a keep-alive signal. In the motor vehicle of the embodiment, the discharge controller determines that a communication failure has occurred when it has not received a keep alive signal after a predetermined period of time, and the discharge controller closes the semiconductor switch). Hirose further teaches that the semiconductor switch (21) is normally open while the power supply system is activated([0033]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ueda with Hirose by having, said controller being commanded to deactivate said discharge circuit during normal operation of the electrical system or the unit, and to activate said discharge circuit in an event of an absence of commanding, as recited, to provide safety and protection to the main battery of the vehicle from the high voltage side of the voltage converter, as per the teachings of Hirose ([0031]).
Accordingly, claim 1 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Ueda in view of Hirose discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Ueda further discloses(see Fig. 1), wherein: said controller(30) is configured as a commanding device and has a disable input(see gate of discharge switch 24 in Fig. 1) for receiving a disable signal(prohibition signal); and said controller(30) turns on said first semiconductor switch(24)(permission signal) when no disable signal is applied at said disable input(gate of switch 24)(see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Ueda in view of Hirose discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Ueda further discloses, wherein said first semiconductor switch(24) has a control input(base of the BJT switch 24), and a pulse width modulation driver is disposed between said controller(30) and said control input(base of BJT switch 24) of said first semiconductor switch(24) for a pulse-width-modulated activation of said first semiconductor switch(Note- controller 30 generates and supplies a driving signal (PWM signal) for each switching element, see [0028]).
Regarding claim 9, Ueda in view of Hirose discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Ueda does not expressly disclose, wherein said discharge circuit has a resistor connected in series with said discharge resistor and said first semiconductor switch, said controller monitoring an output voltage of said resistor in the event of the absence of the commanding.
However, Hirose discloses and shows in Fig. 4, wherein said discharge circuit(20) has a resistor(25)(see[0042]) connected in series with said discharge resistor(23) and said first semiconductor switch(21), said controller(6) monitoring an output voltage of said resistor(23) in the event of the absence of the commanding.
Ueda and Hirose are vehicle discharge system analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ueda with Hirose by having, wherein said discharge circuit has a resistor connected in series with said discharge resistor and said first semiconductor switch, said controller monitoring an output voltage of said resistor in the event of the absence of the commanding, as recited, for the advantages of , in the case where a larger amount of electric current than expected flows into the discharge circuit, the discharge circuit can be protected and discharge can be continued, as per the teachings of Hirose ([0042]).
Accordingly, claim 9 would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Ueda in view of Hirose discloses, an electrically powered unit or an electric refrigerant compressor of a motor vehicle(motor (8) of hybrid vehicle 2), the electrically powered unit or the electric refrigerant compressor comprising the discharge device(20) according to claim 1(note- The voltage converter circuit 12 steps up the voltage of the main battery 3 to a voltage (for example, 600 volts) appropriate for driving the motor. The inverter circuit 13 converts stepped-up direct-current power to alternating-current power. The output of the inverter circuit 13 corresponds to electric power supplied to the motor 8; see [0028]).
Regarding claim 11, Ueda in view of Hirose discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Ueda discloses a discharge method for discharging an electrical system(hybrid vehicle 2) or an electrically powered unit(motor 8), the method comprising: using the discharge device(20) according to claim 1 to discharge the electrical system(by discharging capacitors C1 and C2 of hybrid vehicle 2; see [0030]) or the electrically powered unit; and turning on said first semiconductor switch(24) if no disable signal is supplied to the disable input(base of BJT 24 from controller 30 as shown in Figs. 1 and 3A)(note-In the example of FIG. 3A, the status of the discharge device 20 is initially "permission", and, upon reception of the signal S2 having the prohibition duty ratio at time T1, the discharge controller 30 changes the stored status to "prohibition". Because the next signal S3 also has the prohibition duty ratio, the status remains in "prohibition"; see [0040]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 are 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.
Regarding claim 4, patentability exists at least in part with the claimed limitations of, further comprises an output stage having two complementary second semiconductor switches, said pulse width modulation driver having an emitter circuit connected to said controller and activating said output stage.
Claims 5-8 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 4 and thus are also allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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, DREW A DUNN can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights