DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants' submission filed on <arch 30, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed with the RCE have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
There does not appear to be written description support in the specification for the intended language that the MOSFET selectively provides operating power “required to control opening and closing of the contactor.” See the §112(a) rejection below for more details.
The prior art teaches that it is known to use transistors (including MOSFETs) to selectively provide current to a contactor winding (see references in the attached PTO-892 form). Tamagawa (US 2008/0316666) figure 1 is added to the obviousness rejection of the claims, but the Applicants should consider all of the references listed in the PTO-892 form as materially relevant.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the Applicants are misusing the phrase “configured to” (line 15 of the annotated claim). The claim recites “the MOSFET is configured to selectively permit or block transmission of operating power from the storage battery to control opening and closing of the contactor”. The configuration of the MOSFET ends at its terminals (gate, source, drain). That a contactor may use this operating power to turn on/off is not part of how the MOSFET is configured. It’s how multiple components (or the overall low-voltage power supply system) are interconnected – not just the MOSFET.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 lacks written description support in the originally filed specification for the limitation of “the MOSFET is configured to selectively permit or block transmission of operating power from the storage battery required to control opening and closing of the contactor”.
The Applicants point to the specification, paragraph 34, for support of this language. But the specification does not disclose that the MOSFET is connected to the contactor relay/winding or any other part of the contactor that controls its on/off state.
The specification states, “control the MOSFET 400 to be disconnected, so as to disconnect the contactor 321, thereby cutting off the high-voltage power supply of the whole vehicle” (par 34), and that, “the MOSFET 400 is used to control connection/disconnection between the storage battery and the contactor…” (par 35). These passages indicate that the MOSFET is generally connected to the contactor input – not that the MOSFET controls the relay’s on/off state. The MOSFET is merely upstream (or downstream) of the contactor so that, when the MOSFET opens, there is no power being passed through the contactor (even if it remains closed).
This is compared to paragraph 37, which states, “The processor 310 is configured to control the contactor 321 to be closed or opened.” This establishes how the Applicants intend to discuss a contactor control signal.
No such language does not appear in any discussion of the relationship between the MOSFET and contactor and no figure shows any specific type of connection between the MOSFET and contactor control input, winding, relay, etc.
Thus, the evidence demonstrates that there is no written description support in the originally filed specification for the amended claim language of “the MOSFET is configured to selectively permit or block transmission of operating power from the storage battery to control opening and closing of the contactor”.
Claims 3-10 and 21-22 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi (US 5,313,923) in view of Colavincenzo (US 2018/0162375) and Tamagawa (US 2008/0316666).
With respect to claim 1, Takeuchi discloses a low-voltage power supply system (fig 1; col. 3-5), comprising:
a storage battery (2);
an electric control circuit (left side of figure 1) connected with the storage battery (via at least ground – the computer 5 is powered and would be grounded to the same potential as the rest of the electrical circuitry within the same vehicle) and comprising a battery management controller BMC (5);
a control circuit (all of 6 except 12), wherein the control circuit is connected with a BMC (5) and configured to receive a control command of the BMC (via 9);
a MOSFET (12) having a gate connected with the control circuit (see fig 1); and
a battery management system (3, 8) comprising a contactor (3) and a processor (obvious from col. 3, lines 44-46 – an ignition switch is not known to have the ability to drive a separate relay on/off – there is obviously a generic “processor” in between that senses/knows the state of the ignition switch and then correspondingly controls the relay, as stated in the reference), the processor is connected with the contactor and configured to control the contactor to be closed or opened (col. 3, lines 44-46); and
wherein
the contactor is connected with a first terminal of the MOSFET (its top, through the line 8),
the storage battery is connected with a second terminal of the MOSFET (its bottom, through ground and the pump),
the MOSFET is configured to selectively permit or block transmission of operating power from the storage battery to the contactor;
the MOSEFT is mounted to the electric control circuit or the battery management system (the physical placement of electrical components is an obvious modification – see analysis, below), and
the BMC (5) is configured to control on/off of the MOSFET (12) through the control circuit (6).
Takeuchi discloses a power supply system that includes a series connection of a battery, a contactor and a MOSFET. By opening the MOSFET, power supply (or current) through the contactor will be denied/blocked, thereby turning off the load.
The Takeuchi contactor (3) is controlled to be opened/closed depending on the state of the ignition switch (col. 3, lines 44-46). As stated in the Advisory Action, and not rebutted by the Applicants, this obviously includes a generic and undefined “processor” to convert the ignition switch state into commands for the relay. No defining characteristics of the processor are present in the claim – nor do the Applicants argue that they intend the claim to include any.
By opening the MOSFET, Takeuchi denies current through the relay and removed current/voltage at load. Takeuchi shows that the MOSFET and contactor are in opposite locations in the series connection, as compared to the Applicants’ figures. The language used in the claims does not explicitly require this type of orientation of components. As previously discussed (and not rebutted), “connected” does not mean “directly connected” – the specification (par 49) clearly indicates that intervening components are intended to be included within a generic “connection”. Nor have the Applicants present any arguments that they intend for the claim to only include a direct connection. Thus, the “connection” of components does not have to be through direct wiring and can be through the Takeuchi ground and/or pump. The Takeuchi MOSFET top (first terminal) is connected to the contactor (3) and the MOSFET bottom (second terminal) is connected to the battery (2).
Thus, Takeuchi discloses the connections of the wherein clause without having to be modified.
However, as it appears to be the Applicants’ intention to claim the orientation of their figures (battery-MOSFET-contactor-ground), the following analysis is presented as an alternative rejection. Takeuchi does not expressly disclose that the MOSFET is between the battery and contactor (again, no “direct” connections are claimed and the claim omits defining the location of ground – this alternative rejection implies the presence of words that are not in the claim). At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to move the Takeuchi contactor (3) to reverse the electrical positions of the MOSEFT (12) and contactor (3).
These two switches are in series and whichever one is “first” (closer to the battery or pump) is entirely arbitrary. The skilled artisan would have understood that series connected switches act as an OR gate and opening any one will create an open circuit and deny current to the load. In other words, the Takeuchi MOSFET would function in exactly the same (to allow/deny current through the entire loop, including the contactor) regardless of whether the contactor is upstream or downstream of the MOSFET.
The MOSFET is maintained in its current physical location. This modification moves the physical position of the contactor (3) to be between the MOSFET and pump – a modification that has no electrically effect on the circuitry. The contactor (3) will continue to act as a switch to allow/deny current from the battery to the load. Similarly, the MOSFET will continue to act as originally designed (to act as a “final gatekeeper” if a short to ground exists on line 8).
Takeuchi discloses the power supply system and an “electric control circuit” that is connected to the battery and comprises a BMC, but does not expressly disclose the electric control circuit is a “board”. Colavincenzo discloses a low-voltage power supply system (fig 1, 24; par 142-143) comprising:
a storage battery (11); and
an electric control circuit board (84) connected with the storage battery (obvious, the battery is a critical component of the vehicle power supply and would have a generic “connection” to the other electrical components of the vehicle), wherein the electric control circuit board comprises a BMC (83).
Colavincenzo teaches that it is known to control a vehicle battery through an “electric control circuit board”. Takeuchi and Colavincenzo are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely vehicle power supplies. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the Takeuchi BMC to be on a “board”, as taught by Colavincenzo. The motivation for doing so would have been to add a structural unit with predictable results.
The circuit board neither adds to nor detracts from the performance of the Takeuchi figure 1 system. At best, the circuit board only exists to physically support the BMC. Adding a physical board to the Takeuchi electrical circuit is obvious because it produces a predictable effect. The skilled artisan would have understood that electrical components need to be fixed in place on a surface. A “board” is a common way of doing so. The physical support structure does not affect Takeuchi’s electrical functionality.
Takeuchi discloses the use of a MOSFET to selectively permit/block battery from reaching the contactor. Takeuchi does not expressly disclose the MOSFET provides operating power required to control opening and closing of the contactor (language which has no written description support in the specification). Tamagawa (figure 1; page 1) discloses a vehicle-based contactor (electromagnetic switch 200), a battery (Vbat) a MOSEFT (110) with a gate (see fig) connected to a control circuit (microcomputer of par 6).
Tamagawa obviously teaches, wherein:
the contactor is connected with a first terminal of the MOSFET (its top, through Nout),
the storage battery is connected with a second terminal of the MOSFET (through ground or through the obviousness of swapping the electrical locations of the contactor 200 and MOSFET 110, as discussed above),
the MOSFET is configured to selectively permit or block transmission of operating power from the storage battery to the contactor required to control opening and closing of the contactor (par 5-6); and
the control circuit is configured to control on/off of the MOSFET (par 6).
Takeuchi and Tamagawa are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely contactor control circuits. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Takeuchi to include a MOSFET to drive the contactor winding, as taught by Tamagawa. The motivation for doing so would have been to fill in the gaps missing in the Takeuchi disclosure. Takeuchi discloses the contactor is controlled to be opened/closed, but does not expressly disclose how. The skilled artisan would have understood that a contactor includes a winding that needs to be energized to drive the contactor to change positions. Thus, they would have considered known and proven methods to do so, such as Tamagawa’s circuit that uses MOSFET to selectively drive or deny battery current through the contactor winding.
With respect to claim 3, the combination is interpreted as including Takeuchi’s control circuit and MOSFET integrated on the Colavincenzo circuit board. The motivation for doing so is because the physical placement of electrical components is interpreted as arbitrary. The Takeuchi electrical components will function in the same way regardless of where they are (same/different circuit boards). “integrated” is interpreted as “physically combined” – not as any type of miniaturization onto an integrated circuit board.
With respect to claim 9, Takeuchi discloses the MOSFET is integrated in the battery management system (see fig 1). The Takeuchi BMS is interpreted as including transmission line 8 – and the MOSFET is clearly connected in series with this line. Thus, the Takeuchi MOSFET is “integrated” (physically combined) in the BMS.
Takeuchi discloses the control circuit, but does not expressly disclose it has its own control circuit “board”. Colavincenzo teaches that circuit boards are known to house/hold controllers (79, 83). Thus, the combination provides two Colavincenzo circuit boards – a first is the “electric control circuit board” and the second is the “control circuit board” that exists to hold the control circuit. The skilled artisan, viewing Colavincenzo’s disclosure, would have understood the benefits of placing a control circuits on circuit boards (as opposed to just letting it sit loose in the system). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to place the Takeuchi control circuit on a “circuit board” to achieve the predictable results of physical stability.
The Examiner notes that, in the combination, Tamagawa adds a second MOSFET to Takeuchi. The original Takeuchi MOSFET (in series with the contactor on the power supply loop between the battery and load) remains. The combination adds a second MOSFET to be between the battery and contactor winding.
With respect to claim 22, Takeuchi and Tamagawa combine to teach that, when an abnormality occurs, the processor controls the contactor to be disconnected and the BMC also controls the MOSFET to be disconnected through the control circuit.
Takeuchi discloses an abnormality (ignition off) results in the processing controlling the contactor to be off/disconnected. Tamagawa discloses that an abnormality (wire break – see par 8, 17-20) results in the control circuit controlling the MOSFET to be off/disconnected (which then opens the contactor). Thus, the combination teaches two ways in which the contactor is controlled to be disconnected.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Colavincenzo, Tamagawa and Bergstrom (US 2016/0207418).
The combination (Takeuchi, Colavincenzo, Tamagawa) discloses the power supply of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the BMC has a sleep state. Bergstrom discloses a vehicle comprising a BMC with a sleep state, in which it consumes minimal battery power (par 165).
The combination and Bergstrom are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely vehicles with BMCs. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the Takeuchi BMC to include a sleep state, as taught by Bergstrom. The motivation for doing so would have been to conserve power when the vehicle is not being used.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Rex Barnie can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights