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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/01/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 3B needs to include units (i.e. “(Volts)”) for the vertical axis “battery voltage”.
Figs. 5A-5B need to include axis titles for each of the horizontal and vertical axes.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“the third power is a sum of the second power and the power difference” (claim 3) – The drawings do not support this relationship. Fig. 4 shows that the first power is 500 W, the second power is 3.33 kW, and the third power is 6.67 kW. Thus, Fig. 4 shows that the power difference between the second power and the first power is (3.33 kW – 500 W) = 2.83 kW. Thus, Fig. 4 does not show that the third power (6.67 kW) is a sum of the second power and the power difference (3.33 kW + 2.83 kW = 6.16 kW).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 6, 10, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the third power is a sum of the second power and the power difference”. This language appears to conflict with other claim language and is thus indefinite.
Claim 1 requires that “a power difference between the second power and the first power is greater than the first power is greater than the first power”. Claim 2 requires that the third rail circuit be activated when “a power greater than a sum of the second power and the power difference is to be provided”. Claim 3 requires that the third rail not be activated when “a power greater than the second power and less than a third power is to be provided”. These three limitations combine to require that claim 3 be greater than the sum of the second power and the power difference.
The disclosure appears to instead support that “the third power is at least a sum of the second power and the power difference”, which is the interpretation for examination.
Alternatively, the claim 3 may be revised to recite “the third power is a sum of the first power, the second power and the power difference”, which would be definite and properly supported by the disclosure.
Claims 6 and 10 each recite “to select a larger value of the first power range”.
The term “larger” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The claim does not define what the “larger value of the first power range” is larger in comparison to. For examination purposes, it is interpreted that the “larger value” is larger in comparison to the value zero (0).
Claims 6 and 10 each recite “to thereby set an increased corresponding number of the first operating points”.
The claim does not define what the “increased corresponding number” is increased in comparison to. For examination purposes, it is interpreted that the “increased corresponding number” is increased in comparison to the number zero (0).
Claim 13 recites “the first and second rail circuits provide the same powers when activated”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim language for the claim term “the same powers”.
Further, this language is indefinite as to which powers are being compared by “same”. One may interpret that each of the first and second rail circuits is concurrently providing a same power to each as each other. Alternatively, one may interpret that each of the first and second rail circuits is providing power that is the same over time (i.e., constant power), without necessarily comparing the first/second rail circuits to each other. Alternatively, one may interpret that each of the first and second rail circuits is providing power that is the same as provided when not activated.
For examination purposes, this language is interpreted as though written “when both the first rail circuit and the second rail circuit are concurrently activated, a power provided from the first rail circuit has a same magnitude as a power provided from the second rail circuit”.
Claim 15 recites “the controller is configured to activate the second rail circuit instead of the first rail circuit in accordance with the determination that the power greater than the first power and less than the second power is to be provided”.
This conflicts with claim 1, which recites “a controller configured to activate the first rail circuit without activating the second rail circuit in accordance with a determination that a power greater than a first power and less than a second power is to be provided”.
Thus, claim 15 is indefinite as to which rail circuit is activated “in accordance with the determination that the power greater than the first power and less than the second power is to be provided”. For examination purposes, it is interpreted that claim 15’s subject matter supersedes any conflicting subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 16 recites “to sequentially activate the rail circuits”. This language is indefinite as to which combination of the three rail circuits is being referenced. This language may be interpreted as referring to all three rail circuits. For examination purposes, it is interpreted this language is referring to at least two of the “first, second, and third rail circuits” because the language merely requires a plurality of “the rail circuits”.
Claim 18 recites “the first, second, and third rail circuits provide the same powers when activated”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim language for the claim term “the same powers”.
Further, this language is indefinite as to which powers are being compared by “same”. One may interpret that each of the first, second, and third rail circuits is concurrently providing a same power to each as each other. Alternatively, one may interpret that each of the first, second, and third rail circuits is providing power that is the same over time (i.e., constant power), without necessarily comparing the first, second, and third rail circuits to each other. Alternatively, one may interpret that each of the first, second, and third rail circuits is providing power that is the same as provided when not activated.
For examination purposes, this language is interpreted as though written “when all of the first rail circuit, the second rail circuit, and the third rail circuit are concurrently activated, a power provided from the first rail circuit has a same magnitude as a power provided from the second rail circuit and the same magnitude as a power provided from the third rail circuit”.
Claim 17 is further rejected for their dependency on other rejected claims.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Igari (US 2022/0289052 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Igari discloses a charger (“power supply apparatus 100”, on-board the “vehicle 1” to charge the “battery 2”; Fig. 1) comprising: first (a first “power supply circuitry 120” including “AC/DC conversion circuit 121” and “DC/DC conversion circuit 122”; Fig. 1) and second (a second “120”; Fig. 1) rail circuits.
Igari further discloses each of the first and second rail circuits (120) providing power when activated (¶ [25]: “The three power supply circuitries 120 are connected to the battery 2 in parallel and are configured to be capable of supplying power to the battery 2 separately. Each of the three power supply circuitries 120 has a uniform configuration and includes an AC/DC conversion circuit 121 and a DC/DC conversion circuit 122.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
918
1185
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Igari further discloses (see annotated Fig. 3, included infra, which shows rail activations based on output power) a controller (“controller 140”; Fig. 1; ¶ [28] describes how “140” controls the separate activations of each “120”) configured to activate the first rail circuit without activating the second rail circuit in accordance with a determination (Fig. 3 shows a “first operating state”, wherein for output power in the range from “P4” to “P3”, only a single rail circuit is activated) that a power greater than a first power (“P4”; Fig. 3) and less than a second power (“P3”; Fig. 3) is to be provided.
Igari further discloses the controller (140) is configured to activate the first and second rail circuits in accordance with a determination (Fig. 3 shows a “second operating state”, wherein for output power in the range from “P3” to “P5”, two rail circuits are activated) that a power greater than the second power (P3) is to be provided.
Igari further discloses a power difference (P5 – P3) between the second power (P3) and the first power (P4) is greater than the first power (P4).
PNG
media_image2.png
917
1189
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Igari discloses the charger of claim 1.
Igari further discloses a third rail circuit (a third “120”; Fig. 1), the third rail circuit providing power when activated.
Igari further discloses the controller (140) is configured to activate the first, second, and third rail circuits (all three “120”) in accordance with a determination (Fig. 3 shows a “third operating state”, wherein for output power in the range from “P5” to the “maximum output power”, all three rail circuits are activated) that a power greater than a sum (Fig. 3 shows P5 > P3 + (P3-P4)) of the second power (P3) and the power difference (P3 – P4) is to be provided.
Regarding Claim 3, Igari discloses the charger of claim 2.
Igari further discloses the controller (140) is configured to activate the first and second rail circuits without activating the third rail circuit in accordance with a determination that a power (Fig. 3 shows a “second operating state”, wherein for output power in the range from “P3” to “P5”, only two of the three rail circuits are activated) greater than the second power (P3) and less than a third power (P5) is to be provided,
Igari further discloses the third power (P5) is a sum of the second power (P3) and the power difference (P3 – P4).
Regarding Claim 4, Igari discloses the charger of claim 2.
Igari further discloses the second power (P3) is equal to a maximum power (“maximum output power”; Fig. 3) of the first, second, and third rail circuits (P3) divided by three (¶ [43, 46] describe “P3” as being “1/3” of the “maximum output power”).
Regarding Claim 11, Igari discloses the charger of claim 1.
Igari further discloses the first power (P4) is a minimum power that each of the first and second rail circuits (120) at least provide when activated (Fig. 3 shows the curve “L1” begins at the minimum output power of “P4”; thus, each single “120” is capable to output a minimum power of “P4”).
Regarding Claim 13, Igari discloses the charger of claim 1.
Igari further discloses the first and second rail circuits (120) provide the same powers when activated (¶ [33]: “Since the three power supply circuitries 120 have a uniform configuration, it is possible to supply the battery 2 with three times as much power as a maximum value of power output by only one power supply circuitry 120 (the first operating state) when all the three power supply circuitries 120 operate in parallel (the third operating state).”).
Regarding Claim 14, Igari discloses the charger of claim 1.
Igari further discloses the second power (P3) is equal to a maximum power of the first and second rail circuits (120) divided by two (“P5” is the max. power from two rail circuits; “P3” is one half of “P5”).
Regarding Claim 15, Igari discloses the charger of claim 1.
Igari further discloses the controller (140) is configured to activate the second rail circuit instead of the first rail circuit (¶ [51]: “when the number of the power supply circuitries 120 is equal to one, the controller 140 selects the least frequently used power supply circuitry 120 in the three power supply circuitries 120”; thus, any one of “120” may be activated to supply the power during the “first operating state”) in accordance with the determination (Fig. 3 shows a “first operating state”, wherein for output power in the range from “P4” to “P3”, only a single rail circuit is activated) that the power greater than the first power (P4) and less than the second power (P3) is to be provided.
Regarding Claim 16, Igari discloses an on-board battery charger (OBC) (“power supply apparatus 100”, on-board the “vehicle 1” to charge the “battery 2”; Fig. 1) comprising: first, second, and third rail circuits (three “power supply circuitries 120”, each including “AC/DC conversion circuit 121” and “DC/DC conversion circuit 122”; Fig. 1).
Igari further discloses each of the first, second, and third rail circuits (120) providing at least a minimum power (Fig. 3 shows the curve “L1” begins at the minimum output power of “P4”; thus, each single “120” is capable to output a minimum power of “P4”) when activated.
Igari further discloses a controller (“controller 140”; Fig. 1; ¶ [28] describes how “140” controls the separate activations of each “120”) configured to sequentially activate the rail circuits (120) in accordance with a determination that a power is to be provided as the power to be provided is increased in multiples of a power per rail circuit (Fig. 3 shows that the first “120” is activated at “P4”, the second “120” is activated at the maximum power per rail circuit of “P3”, and the third “120” is activated at “P5”; “P5” is double “P3”) greater than the minimum power (P4).
Regarding Claim 18, Igari discloses the OBC of claim 16.
Igari further discloses the first, second, and third rail circuits (120) provide the same powers when activated (¶ [33]: “Since the three power supply circuitries 120 have a uniform configuration, it is possible to supply the battery 2 with three times as much power as a maximum value of power output by only one power supply circuitry 120 (the first operating state) when all the three power supply circuitries 120 operate in parallel (the third operating state).”).
Regarding Claim 19, Igari discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (¶ [32]: “read only memory (ROM)”) comprising stored computer executable instructions (for the “central processing unit (CPU)”, per ¶ [32]) to cause a controller (“controller 140”; Fig. 1; ¶ [28] describes how “140” controls the separate activations of each “120”) to do the following.
Igari further discloses to activate a first rail circuit (a first “power supply circuitry 120”; Fig. 1) of a charger (“power supply apparatus 100”, on-board the “vehicle 1” to charge the “battery 2”; Fig. 1), without activating any other rail circuit of the charger (Fig. 3 shows a “first operating state”, wherein for output power in the range from “P4” to “P3”, only a single rail circuit is activated), in accordance with a determination that a power greater than a first power (“P4”; Fig. 3) and less than a second power (“P3”; Fig. 3) is to be provided.
Igari further discloses a power difference (P5 – P3) between the second power (P3) and the first power (P4) is greater than the first power (P4).
Igari further discloses to activate the first rail circuit and a second rail circuit of the charger in accordance with a determination (Fig. 3 shows a “second operating state”, wherein for output power in the range from “P3” to “P5”, two rail circuits are activated) that a power greater than the second power (P3) is to be provided.
Regarding Claim 20, Igari discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 19.
Igari further discloses stored computer executable instructions (instructions stored within the “ROM” to be executed by the “CPU”; ¶ [32]) to cause the controller (140) to activate the first rail circuit, the second rail circuit, and a third rail circuit (all three “120”) of the charger (100) in accordance with a determination (Fig. 3 shows a “third operating state”, wherein for output power in the range from “P5” to the “maximum output power”, all three rail circuits are activated) that a power greater than a sum (Fig. 3 shows P5 > P3 + (P3-P4)) of the second power (P3) and the power difference (P3 – P4) is to be provided.
Claims 1-4, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sruhan et al. (US 2023/0187931 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sruhan discloses a charger (“docking station 306”; Fig. 3) comprising: first (“power supply 302A”; Fig. 3) and second (“power supply 302C”; Fig. 3) rail circuits.
Sruhan further discloses each of the first (302a) and second (302c) rail circuits providing power when activated (¶ [50]: “Each power supply of the docking station 306 (e.g., power supplies 302A, 302B, 302C, 302D, 302E, ..., 302X) may generate a voltage and current”).
PNG
media_image3.png
848
1193
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sruhan further discloses a controller (“processors”, per ¶ [97], used to control “docking station 306”, which enables and disables each of the “power supplies 302A-302X” per ¶ [52-53]) configured to activate the first rail circuit (“302A”; Fig. 4 shows that from time “414” to “416”, only one rail circuit, i.e. “302A”, is activated) without activating the second rail circuit (302C) in accordance with a determination that a power greater than a first power (power corresponding to “first current 418”; Fig. 4) and less than a second power (power corresponding to Fig. 4’s third step current) is to be provided.
Sruhan further discloses the controller (“processors” of “306”) is configured to activate the first (302A) and second (302C) rail circuits in accordance with a determination that a power greater than the second power (power corresponding to Fig. 4’s current at third step) is to be provided.
Sruhan further discloses a power difference (two steps of power, corresponding to two steps of current; Fig. 4) between the second power (power corresponding to Fig. 4’s current at third step) and the first power (power corresponding to “first current 418”; Fig. 4) is greater than the first power (annotated Fig. 4, included infra, shows the two steps of current is greater than the first step of current).
PNG
media_image4.png
903
1576
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Sruhan discloses the charger of claim 1.
Sruhan further discloses the charger (306) further comprising: a third rail circuit (“power supply 302E”; Fig. 3), the third rail circuit (302E) providing power when activated (¶ [50]: “Each power supply of the docking station 306 (e.g., power supplies 302A, 302B, 302C, 302D, 302E, ..., 302X) may generate a voltage and current”).
Sruhan further discloses the controller (“processors” of “306”) is configured to activate the first (302A), second (302C), and third (302E) rail circuits in accordance with a determination that a power (third power corresponding to Fig. 4’s current at fifth step) greater than a sum of the second power (power corresponding to Fig. 4’s current at third step) and the power difference (two steps of power, corresponding to two steps of current; Fig. 4) is to be provided.
Regarding Claim 3, Sruhan discloses the charger of claim 2.
Sruhan further discloses the controller (“processors” of “306”) is configured to activate (Fig. 4 shows that “302A” and “302C” are each activated to supply the current at the third step, corresponding to the second power; “302E” is not activated to supply the current at the third step) the first (302A) and second (302C) rail circuits without activating the third rail circuit (302E) in accordance with a determination that a power greater than the second power (power corresponding to Fig. 4’s current at third step) and less than a third power (power corresponding to Fig. 4’s current at fifth step) is to be provided.
Regarding Claim 4, Sruhan discloses the charger of claim 2.
Sruhan further discloses (see Sruhan’s “Fig.4 - annotated for claim 4”, included infra) the second power (power corresponding to Fig. 4’s current at third step) is equal to a maximum power (power corresponding to current at 9th step of Fig. 4, which includes current output from each of “302A”, “302C”, and “302E”) of the first (302A), second (302C), and third (302E) rail circuits divided by three (current at 9th step divided by three equals the current at the 3rd step).
PNG
media_image5.png
909
1575
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Sruhan discloses the charger of claim 1.
Sruhan further discloses the first power (power corresponding to “first current 418”; Fig. 4) is a minimum power (power corresponding to each step increase in current of Fig. 4) that each of the first (302A) and second (302C) rail circuits at least provide when activated (Fig. 4 shows that when each rail circuit is activated, there is a corresponding step increase in current; thus, each rail circuit “302A-302X” provides the same minimum power when activated).
Regarding Claim 13, Sruhan discloses the charger of claim 1.
Sruhan further discloses the first (302A) and second (302C) rail circuits provide the same powers when activated (Fig. 4 shows that when each rail circuit is activated, there is a corresponding step increase in current; each of these step increases appear to be equal; thus, the output power is balanced between each of the activated rail circuits).
Regarding Claim 14, Sruhan discloses the charger of claim 1.
Sruhan further discloses (see Sruhan’s “Fig.4 - annotated for claim 14”, included infra) the second power (power corresponding to Fig. 4’s current at third step) is equal to a maximum power (power corresponding to current at 6th step of Fig. 4, which includes current output from each of “302A” and “302C”) of the first (302A) and second (302C) rail circuits divided by two (current at 6th step divided by two equals the current at the third step; Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image6.png
910
1576
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Sruhan discloses the charger of claim 1.
Sruhan further discloses the controller (“processors” of “306”) is configured to activate the second rail circuit instead of the first rail circuit (Sruhan’s rail circuits “302A-302X” are taught to be equivalent and thus interchangeable; ¶ [55] broadly teaches that “a first power supply may be enabled” to supply “first current 418”, which is interpreted to mean any one of “302A-302X”; thus, any one of “302A-302X” may be activated to supply the first power corresponding to “418”) in accordance with the determination that the power greater than the first power (power corresponding to “first current 418”; Fig. 4) and less than the second power (power corresponding to Fig. 4’s third step current) is to be provided.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jimenez Pino et al. (US 2021/0143665 A1; hereinafter “Jime”) in view of Igari (US 2022/0289052 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jime discloses a charger (“on-board charger (OBC) 12”; Figs. 1-6) comprising: first (“rail 22a” with “AC/DC converter 24a”; Figs. 2, 4-5) and second (“rail 22b” with “AC/DC converter 24b”; Figs. 2, 4-5) rail circuits.
Jime further discloses each of the first (22a, 24a) and second (22b, 24b) rail circuits providing power when activated (¶ [34]: “OBC 12 converts electrical power absorbed from mains supply 16 into DC electrical power and charges traction battery 14 with the DC electrical power.”).
Jime further discloses a controller (“controller 20”; Fig. 1; ¶ [35]: “20 is in communication with OBC 12 to control operations of the OBC”) configured to activate the first rail circuit (22a, 24a) in accordance with a determination that a power is to be provided (¶ [35]: “converting electrical power from mains supply 16 into a selected amount of DC electrical power”; ¶ [87]: “according to charging power demand (ibatt,target, Vbatt,sense)”).
Jime further discloses the controller (20) is configured to activate the first (22a, 24a) and second (22b, 24b) rail circuits in accordance with a determination that a power is to be provided (¶ [87]: “according to charging power demand (ibatt,target, Vbatt,sense)”).
PNG
media_image7.png
846
928
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Though Jime discloses a controller configured to activate the first rail circuit, Jime does not disclose “to activate the first rail circuit without activating the second rail circuit in accordance with a determination that a power greater than a first power and less than a second power is to be provided”.
Though Jime discloses the controller is configured to activate the first and second rail circuits, Jime further does not disclose “to activate the first and second rail circuits in accordance with a determination that a power greater than the second power is to be provided, wherein a power difference between the second power and the first power is greater than the first power”.
Igari teaches (detailed claim item mapping included supra in the 102 section) a controller configured to activate the first rail circuit without activating the second rail circuit in accordance with a determination that a power greater than a first power and less than a second power is to be provided and the controller is configured to activate the first and second rail circuits in accordance with a determination that a power greater than the second power is to be provided, wherein a power difference between the second power and the first power is greater than the first power.
Igari further teaches this sequential phase activation technique based on power levels to improve power efficiency and EMI performance (¶ [14, 82]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charger and controller disclosed by Jime to incorporate the sequential phase activation technique based on power levels, as taught by Igari, to improve power efficiency and EMI performance.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcos Pastor et al. (US 10,855,169 B1; hereinafter “Marcos”) in view of Igari (US 2022/0289052 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Marcos discloses a charger (“on-board charger (OBC) 12”; Figs. 1-4) comprising: first (“phase 22a”; Figs. 1-4) and second (“phase 22b”; Figs. 1-4) rail circuits.
Marcos further discloses each of the first (22a) and second (22b) rail circuits providing power when activated (col. 4, lines 27-29: “OBC 12 converts electrical power absorbed from mains supply 16 into DC electrical power and charges traction battery 14 with the DC electrical power”).
Marcos further discloses a controller (“controller 20”; Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 33-34: “20 is in communication with OBC 12 to control operations of the OBC”) configured to activate the first rail circuit (“22a”; col. 5, lines 47-51: “20 operates to switch close input relays 24a and 24b when mains supply 16 is a single-phase mains supply (i.e., when mains supply 16 is only directly connected to one of phases 22a, 22b, and 22c; in this case, only 50 primary phase 22a)”) without activating the second rail circuit (22b).
Marcos further discloses the controller (20) is configured to activate the first (22a) and second (22b) rail circuits (col. 5, lines 51-52: “Phases 22a, 22b, and 22c are combined when input relays 24a and 24b are switched closed”).
Though Marcos discloses a controller configured to activate the first rail circuit without activating the second rail circuit, Marcos does not disclose “to activate the first rail circuit without activating the second rail circuit in accordance with a determination that a power greater than a first power and less than a second power is to be provided”.
Though Marcos discloses the controller is configured to activate the first and second rail circuits, Marcos further does not disclose “to activate the first and second rail circuits in accordance with a determination that a power greater than the second power is to be provided, wherein a power difference between the second power and the first power is greater than the first power”.
Igari teaches (detailed claim item mapping included supra in the 102 section) a controller configured to activate the first rail circuit without activating the second rail circuit in accordance with a determination that a power greater than a first power and less than a second power is to be provided and the controller is configured to activate the first and second rail circuits in accordance with a determination that a power greater than the second power is to be provided, wherein a power difference between the second power and the first power is greater than the first power.
Igari further teaches this sequential phase activation technique based on power levels to improve power efficiency and EMI performance (¶ [14, 82]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charger and controller disclosed by Jime to incorporate the sequential phase activation technique based on power levels, as taught by Igari, to improve power efficiency and EMI performance.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igari (US 2022/0289052 A1) in view of Wang (US 2024/0195281 A1) and Togare (US 2010/0264741 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Igari discloses the charger of claim 1.
Igari further discloses each activated rail circuit is controlled (120) by switching control (¶ [49]: “switching control of the switching elements in each of the power supply circuitries 120”; ¶ [68]) depending on an operating point corresponding to the power provided (operating points to provide the “output power” to the “battery 2”).
Igari further discloses a first power range (output power from “P4” to “P3”; Fig. 3) of the power difference (P3 – P4) between the first power (P4) and the second power (P3) at least partially defines a first operation region comprising first operating points (operating points in the “first operating state” with one activated “120” providing an output power in the range “P4” to “P3”; see annotated Fig. 3, V02, included infra).
PNG
media_image8.png
888
1107
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As addressed supra, Igari discloses each activated rail circuit is controlled by switching control depending on an operating point corresponding to the power provided. However, Igari does not disclose the switching control is “one of a phase-shift mode (PSM) control or a frequency modulation mode (FMM) control depending on an operating point corresponding to the power provided”.
Igari further does not disclose “the controller is configured to select a value of the first power range to thereby set a corresponding number of the first operating points associated to the FMM control”.
Wang teaches the activated rail circuit (combo of switches “HVDC_A-D” and capacitor “CO”, which produce “VO” and “IO” to charge the “HVbattery”; Fig. 1) is controlled by one of a phase-shift mode (PSM) control (“PSM Mode”; Fig. 4; ¶ [16]: “the LLC resonant converter is controlled to operate in the PSM mode with a fixed duty cycle, a fixed frequency, and a variable phase shift in the charging control”) or a frequency modulation mode (FMM) control (“PFM Mode”; Fig. 4; ¶ [15]: “the LLC resonant converter is controlled to operate in the PFM mode with a fixed duty cycle and a variable frequency in the charging control”) depending on an operating point corresponding to the power provided (operating points are the combinations of levels of output voltages ranging from “HVDC_min” to “HVDC_max” and output powers ranging from “Po_min” to “Po_max”; Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image9.png
792
1323
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Wang further teaches to control the rail circuit into by FMM or PSM based on the operating point corresponding to the output power to maintain stability of the output voltage under a range of operating conditions (¶ [54-57]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller disclosed by Igari to control each rail circuit into by FMM or PSM based on the operating point corresponding to the output power, based on the teachings of Wang, to improve and maintain stability of the output voltage under a wider range of operating conditions.
Thus, the combo of Igari & Wang teaches the first operating points (Igari: operating points in the “first operating state” with one activated “120” providing output power in the range “P4” to “P3”) are associated to the FMM control (FMM control incorporated in each power range per teachings of Wang).
Togare teaches a first power range (range from first power 0% to second power 20-25%; Figs. 3, 5) of the power difference between the first power (0% of the “system load level 314”) and the second power (20% or 25% of the “system load level 314”, depending on direction of change of “314”) at least partially defines a first operation region comprising first operating points; (output power levels from the first rail circuit “power supply 100A” when operating in “Mode I 316”; Figs. 1A-1B, 2A-2B, 3-5).
Togare further teaches the controller (“power control module 105”; Figs. 1A-2A, 2A-2B) is configured to select a value of the first power range (¶ [40]: “As the system load power level 314 increases, transitions between Mode I 316 and Mode II 318 may occur at approximately 25% of the system load level 314”; ¶ [41]: “As the system load power level 314 decreases, transitions between Mode I 316 and Mode II 318 may occur at approximately 20% of the system load power level 314.”; thus, “105” selects whether to select 20% or 25% as the second power depending on direction of change of “314”; the selection of the second power thus selects the first power range) to thereby set a corresponding number of the first operating points (output power levels from the first rail circuit “power supply 100A” when operating in “Mode I 316”; number of op. pts. depends on the hysteresis window; Figs. 1A-1B, 2A-2B, 3-5).
NOTE 5-1: Togare is not relied upon to teach that the first operating points are “associated to the FMM control”. This aspect is taught by the combo of Igari & Wang, as addressed supra, to apply to each of the operating points for each activated rail circuit.
PNG
media_image10.png
913
1052
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Togare further teaches the controller uses a hysteresis window to select the first power range to improve efficiency of operating the rail circuits (¶ [2, 23-24, 30]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller disclosed by the combo of Igari & Wang to select a value of the first power range and thereby set a corresponding number of the first operating points, as taught by Togare, to improve efficiency of operating the rail circuits.
Regarding Claim 6, the combo of Igari, Wang, & Togare teaches the charger of claim 5.
The combo of Igari, Wang, & Togare teaches the controller (Igari’s “140”, modified per Wang & Togare to incorporate PSM control, FMM control, and hysteresis-based selection of the power range threshold values) is configured to select a larger value of the first power range (Igari’s first power range between the first power “P4” and the second power “P3”; modified per Togare to incorporate hysteresis such that the second power is variably selected as one of two thresholds of a hysteresis window; thus, the second power value would change from a lower value to a higher value when operating in the first power range) to thereby set an increased corresponding number of the first operating points (because the value of the second power would increase to an upper threshold of the hysteresis window, the number of first operating points within the first operation region would accordingly increase) associated to the FMM control (FMM switching control incorporated per Wang for the first operating points).
Regarding Claim 7, the combo of Igari, Wang, & Togare teaches the charger of claim 5.
The combo of Igari, Wang, & Togare teaches the controller (Igari’s “140”, modified per Wang & Togare to incorporate PSM control, FMM control, and hysteresis-based selection of the power range threshold values) is configured to select a value for the second power (Igari’s second power “P3”; modified per Togare to incorporate hysteresis such that the second power is variably selected as one of two thresholds of a hysteresis window) in order to select the value for the first power range (Igari’s first power range between the first power “P4” and the second power “P3”; modified per Togare to incorporate hysteresis).
Regarding Claim 8, the combo of Igari, Wang, & Togare teaches the charger of claim 5.
Igari further discloses the charger (100) further comprising a third rail circuit (a third “120”; Fig. 1), the third rail circuit providing power when activated.
Igari further discloses the controller (140) is configured to activate the first, second, and third rail circuits (all three “120”) in accordance with a determination (Fig. 3 shows a “third operating state”, wherein for output power in the range from “P5” to the “maximum output power”, all three rail circuits are activated) that a power greater than a third power (P5) greater than the second power (P3) is to be provided.
Regarding Claim 9, the combo of Igari, Wang, & Togare teaches the charger of claim 8.
The combo of Igari, Wang, & Togare teaches a second power range (Igari: output power from “P3” to “P5”; Fig. 3) of a power difference between the second power (Igari: “P3”) and the third power (Igari: “P5”) at least partially defines a second operation region comprising second operating points (Igari: operating points in the “second operating state” with two activated “120” providing an output power in the range “P3” to “P5”).
The combo of Igari, Wang, & Togare teaches the controller (Igari’s “140”, modified per Wang & Togare to incorporate PSM control, FMM control, and hysteresis-based selection of the power range threshold values) is configured to select a value of the second power range (Igari’s second power range between the second power “P3” and the third power “P5”; modified per Togare to incorporate hysteresis such that the third power is variably selected as one of two thresholds of a hysteresis window) to thereby set a number of the second operating points (Igari: operating points in the “second operating state” with two activated “120” providing an output power in the range “P3” to “P5”; because the values of “P3” and “P5” would be selected per Togare’s hysteresis teachings, the number of second operating points within the second operation region would accordingly be selected) associated to the FMM control (FMM switching control incorporated per Wang for the second operating points).
Regarding Claim 10, the combo of Igari, Wang, & Togare teaches the charger of claim 9.
The combo of Igari, Wang, & Togare teaches the controller (Igari’s “140”, modified per Wang & Togare to incorporate PSM control, FMM control, and hysteresis-based selection of the power range threshold values) is configured to select a larger value of the second power range (Igari’s second power range between the second power “P3” and the third power “P5”; modified per Togare to incorporate hysteresis such that the third power is variably selected as one of two thresholds of a hysteresis window; thus, the third power value would change from a lower value to a higher value when operating in the second power range) to thereby set an increased corresponding number of the second operating points (because the value of the third power would increase to an upper threshold of the hysteresis window, the number of second operating points within the second operation region would accordingly increase) to the FMM control (FMM switching control incorporated per Wang for the second operating points).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igari (US 2022/0289052 A1) in view of the IEEE article by Wang et al. (X. Wang et al., “Power-Loss Analysis and Efficiency Maximization of a Silicon-Carbide MOSFET-Based Three-Phase 10-kW Bidirectional EV Charger Using Variable-DC-Bus Control” in IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 880-892, Sept. 2016).
The Wang article can currently be accessed at the following hyperlink:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7484261
Regarding Claim 12, Igari discloses the charger of claim 1.
Though Igari discloses the rail circuits’ minimum power (P4), Igari does not disclose “the minimum power is at least 500 Watts”.
Wang teaches the minimum power is at least 500 Watts (Fig. 25 shows a minimum output power of 1 kW and that the efficiency is worst at this lowest output power level) for a three-phase 10-kW charger.
PNG
media_image11.png
921
1012
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Wang further teaches the minimum power is at least 500 Watts because the minimum output power is the least efficient operating point (Fig. 25). Thus, by only operating above the minimum output power, it would ensure the charger operates most efficiently.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rail circuits’ minimum power disclosed by Igari to be set to at least 500 Watts, as taught by Wang, to ensure the charger operates in its most efficient range of output power.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igari (US 2022/0289052 A1) in view of Wang (US 2024/0195281 A1) and Togare (US 2010/0264741 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Igari discloses the OBC of claim 16.
Igari further discloses each activated rail circuit is controlled (120) by switching control (¶ [49]: “switching control of the switching elements in each of the power supply circuitries 120”; ¶ [68]) depending on an operating point corresponding to the power provided (operating points to provide the “output power” to the “battery 2”).
Igari further discloses a first power range (output power from “P4” to “P3”; Fig. 3) between the minimum power (P4) and the power per rail circuit (P3) at least partially defines a first operation region comprising first operating points (operating points in the “first operating state” with one activated “120” providing an output power in the range “P4” to “P3”; see annotated Fig. 3, V02, included supra in the claim 5 section).
Igari further discloses a second power range (output power from “P3” to “P5”; Fig. 3) between the power per rail circuit (P3) and twice the power per rail circuit (P5 = 2 x P3) at least partially defines a second operation region comprising second operating points (operating points in the “second operating state” with two activated “120” providing an output power in the range “P3” to “P5”).
Igari further discloses a third power range (output power from “P5” to “maximum output power”; Fig. 3) between twice the power per rail circuit (P5 = 2 x P3) and thrice the power per rail circuit (“maximum output power” = 3 x P3) at least partially defines a third operation region comprising third operating points (operating points in the “third operating state” with two activated “120” providing an output power in the range “P5” to “maximum output power”).
As addressed supra, Igari discloses each activated rail circuit is controlled by switching control depending on an operating point corresponding to the power provided. However, Igari does not disclose the switching control is “one of a phase-shift mode (PSM) control or a frequency modulation mode (FMM) control depending on an operating point corresponding to the power provided”.
Igari further does not disclose “the controller is configured to select the first, second, and third power ranges to thereby set a corresponding number of the first, second, and third operating points associated to the FMM control”.
Wang teaches (see annotated Fig. 4, included supra in the claim 5 section) the activated rail circuit (combo of switches “HVDC_A-D” and capacitor “CO”, which produce “VO” & “IO” to charge the “HVbattery”; Fig. 1) is controlled by one of a phase-shift mode (PSM) control (“PSM Mode”; Fig. 4; ¶ [16]: “the LLC resonant converter is controlled to operate in the PSM mode with a fixed duty cycle, a fixed frequency, and a variable phase shift in the charging control”) or a frequency modulation mode (FMM) control (“PFM Mode”; Fig. 4; ¶ [15]: “the LLC resonant converter is controlled to operate in the PFM mode with a fixed duty cycle and a variable frequency in the charging control”) depending on an operating point corresponding to the power provided (op. pts. are the combos of output voltages ranging from “HVDC_min” to “HVDC_max” and output powers ranging from “Po_min” to “Po_max”; Fig. 4).
Wang further teaches to control the rail circuit into by FMM or PSM based on the operating point corresponding to the output power to maintain stability of the output voltage under a range of operating conditions (¶ [54-57]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller disclosed by Igari to control each rail circuit into by FMM or PSM based on the operating point corresponding to the output power, based on the teachings of Wang, to improve and maintain stability of the output voltage under a wider range of operating conditions.
Thus, the combo of Igari & Wang teaches the first (Igari: operating points in the “first operating state” with one activated “120” providing an output power in the range “P4” to “P3”) second (Igari: operating points in the “second operating state” with two activated “120” providing an output power in the range “P3” to “P5”), and third (Igari: operating points in the “third operating state” with three activated “120” providing an output power in the range “P5” to “maximum output power”) operating points are associated to the FMM control (FMM control incorporated in each power range per teachings of Wang).
Togare teaches the controller (“power control module 105”; Figs. 1A-2A, 2A-2B) is configured to select the first (¶ [40]: “As the system load power level 314 increases, transitions between Mode I 316 and Mode II 318 may occur at approximately 25% of the system load level 314”; ¶ [41]: “As the system load power level 314 decreases, transitions between Mode I 316 and Mode II 318 may occur at approximately 20% of the system load power level 314.”; thus, “105” selects whether to select 20% or 25% as the second power depending on direction of change of “314”; the selection of the second power thus selects the first power range), second (“105” selects whether to select 20% or 25% as the second power and whether to select 45% or 50% as the third power depending on direction of change of “314”; the selection of the second power and third power thus selects the second power range), and third (“105” selects whether to select 45% or 50% as the third power depending on direction of change of “314”; the selection of the third power thus selects the third power range) power ranges to thereby set a corresponding number of the first (output power levels from the first rail circuit “power supply 100A” when operating in “Mode I 316”; number of operating points depends on the hysteresis window; Figs. 1A-1B, 2A-2B, 3-5), second (output power levels from the combo of “100A” & “100B” when operating in “Mode II 318”; number of operating points depends on the hysteresis windows), and third (output power levels from the combo of “100A”, “100B”, & “100C” when operating in “Mode III 320”; number of operating points depends on the hysteresis windows) operating points.
NOTE 17-1: Togare is not relied upon to teach that the first, second, and third operating points are “associated to the FMM control”. This aspect is taught by the combo of Igari & Wang, as addressed supra, to apply to each of the operating points for each activated rail circuit.
Togare further teaches the controller uses a hysteresis window to select the power ranges to improve efficiency of operating the rail circuits (¶ [2, 23-24, 30]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller disclosed by the combo of Igari & Wang to select the power ranges and thereby set corresponding numbers of the first, second, and third operating points, as taught by Togare, to improve efficiency of operating the rail circuits.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jimenez Pino et al. (US 2021/0143665 A1; hereinafter “Jime”) in view of Sruhan et al. (US 2023/0187931 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Jime discloses an on-board battery charger (OBC) (“on-board charger (OBC) 12”; Figs. 1-6; annotated Figs. 1-2 included supra) comprising: first (“rail 22a” with “AC/DC converter 24a”; Figs. 2, 4-5), second (“rail 22b” with “AC/DC converter 24b”; Figs. 2, 4-5), and third (“rail 22c” with “AC/DC converter 24c”; Figs. 2, 4-5) rail circuits.
Jime further discloses each of the first (22a), second (22b), and third (22c) rail circuits providing at least a minimum power (each of “22a-22c” provides at least zero Watts) when activated.
Jime further discloses a controller (“controller 20”; Fig. 1; ¶ [35]: “20 is in communication with OBC 12 to control operations of the OBC”) configured to activate the rail circuits (22a-22c) in accordance with a determination that a power is to be provided (¶ [35]: “converting electrical power from mains supply 16 into a selected amount of DC electrical power”; ¶ [87]: “according to charging power demand (ibatt,target, Vbatt,sense)”).
Though Jime discloses a controller configured to activate the rail circuits in accordance with a determination that a power is to be provided, Jime does not disclose “to sequentially activate the rail circuits in accordance with a determination that a power is to be provided as the power to be provided is increased in multiples of a power per rail circuit greater than the minimum power”.
Sruhan teaches a controller (“processors”, per ¶ [97], used to control “docking station 306”, which enables and disables each of the “power supplies 302A-302X” per ¶ [52-53]) configured to sequentially activate (¶ [24]: “each power supply is enabled in rapid succession”) the rail circuits (302A-302X) in accordance with a determination that a power is to be provided as the power to be provided is increased in multiples of a power per rail circuit (Fig. 4 shows that when each rail circuit is activated, there is a corresponding step increase in current; thus, the output power is a multiple of the power each rail circuit “302A-302X” provides) greater than the minimum power (Fig. 4 shows that each rail circuit’s output current is > 0 Amps and thus > 0 Watts).
Sruhan further teaches this sequential activation technique to reduce the inrush current during battery charging, thus reducing risk of damages and improving efficiency (¶ [24]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller disclosed by Jime to incorporate a sequential activation technique, as taught by Sruhan, to reduce risk of damages and/or improve efficiency by reducing the inrush current during battery charging.
Regarding Claim 18, the combo of Jime & Sruhan teaches the OBC of claim 16.
The combo of Jime & Sruhan teaches wherein: the first, second, and third rail circuits (Jime: “22a-22c”; analogous to Sruhan’s “302A-302X”) provide the same powers when activated (in each of Jime and Sruhan’s chargers, the output power to the battery is evenly balanced between each of the activated rail circuits).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sruhan et al. (US 2023/0187931 A1) in view of Lewis (US 2018/0248381 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Sruhan discloses a processor (¶ [97]: “processors … may perform some or all of the functionalities described with reference to the examples described and illustrated in the figures”) to cause a controller (“processors” of “306”) to do the following.
Sruhan further discloses to activate a first rail circuit (“power supply 302A”; Fig. 3; Fig. 4 shows that from time “414” to “416”, only one rail circuit, i.e. “302A”, is activated) of a charger (“docking station 306”; Fig. 3), without activating any other rail circuit (any of “302B-302X”; Fig. 3) of the charger (306), in accordance with a determination that a power greater than a first power (power corresponding to “first current 418”; Fig. 4) and less than a second power (power corresponding to Fig. 4’s third step current) is to be provided (see annotated Fig. 4, included supra).
Sruhan further discloses a power difference (two steps of power, corresponding to two steps of current; Fig. 4) between the second power (power corresponding to Fig. 4’s current at third step) and the first power (power corresponding to “first current 418”; Fig. 4) is greater than the first power (annotated Fig. 4, included supra, shows the two steps of current is greater than the first step of current).
Sruhan further discloses to activate the first rail circuit (302A) and a second rail circuit (“power supply 302C”; Fig. 3) of the charger (306) in accordance with a determination that a power greater than the second power (power corresponding to Fig. 4’s current at third step) is to be provided.
Though Sruhan discloses a processor configured to cause the controller to do each of these actions, Sruhan does not disclose the processor is supported by “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising stored computer executable instructions”.
Lewis teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (¶ [85]: “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”) comprising stored computer executable instructions to cause a controller (“architecture 600”; Fig. 6) to do rail circuit activations (activates each “power supply 108”; Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller disclosed by Sruhan to incorporate non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising stored computer executable instructions, as taught by Lewis, to enable Sruhan’s processor to operate by storing the controller’s instructions in memory.
Regarding Claim 20, the combo of Sruhan & Lewis teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 19.
The combo of Sruhan & Lewis teaches stored computer executable instructions (incorporated per Lewis to support Sruhan’s processor) to cause the controller (Sruhan: “processors” of “306”) to: activate the first rail circuit (Sruhan: “302A”), the second rail circuit (Sruhan: “302C”), and a third rail circuit (Sruhan: “302A) of the charger (Sruhan: “306”) in accordance with a determination that a power (Sruhan: third power corresponding to Fig. 4’s current at fifth step) greater than a sum of the second power (Sruhan: power corresponding to Fig. 4’s current at third step) and the power difference (Sruhan: two steps of power, corresponding to two steps of current) is to be provided.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel P McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Eastern.
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 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.
/DANIEL P MCFARLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
