DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 8/8/2025. Claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 were amended.
Claims 5 and 9-10 remain objected to.
Response to Arguments
Amendments to the claims
The applicant states on page 6 of arguments filed 8/8/2025 regarding the amendments of claims 1 and 6, “Support for this amendment is found in the originally filed specification.”
The examiner is unable to find support for the amendments in the specification. The amendment states, “…comparing the first voltage and the second voltage when the relay is in the cut-off state, and determining that an anomaly is present when a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage exceeds a predetermined threshold.”
The examiner is unable to find support for any comparison between the first voltage (V1) and the second voltage (V2) or any comparison wherein “a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage exceeds a predetermined threshold” as recited in the claims.
As best understood by the examiner, the limitations as claimed are best directed towards [0045]-[0064] of the specification filed 9/23/2023 (see [0051]-[0071] of corresponding Pg. Pub. US 2024/0183911) and steps S4-S7 of Fig. 3.
Fig. 3 teaches in step S7, “Is difference between first voltage and output voltage of first power supply unit greater than or equal to predetermined threshold, or is difference between second voltage and output voltage of second power supply unit greater than or equal to predetermined threshold?” Thus, the calculation as disclosed in S7 compares:
a difference between the first voltage and the first power supply output voltage to a threshold,
or
a difference between the first voltage and the first power supply output voltage to a threshold.
Support for such a calculation as recited in S7 is provided in [0046], [0047], [0056], [0057], [0061], and [0064] of the specification as filed 9/23/2023.
For example, [0046] and [0047] teach:
[0046] Specifically, if the difference between the first voltage V1 input from the first voltage detector 50 and the output voltage (12 V) of the first power supply unit 90 is at least a predetermined threshold, the detector 30B determines that the power path is in the abnormal state (i.e. detects an anomaly). If the difference between the first voltage V1 input from the first voltage detector 50 and the output voltage of the first power supply unit 90 is less than the predetermined threshold, the detector 30B determines that the power path is in the normal state (i.e. does not detect an anomaly).
[0047] If the difference between the second voltage V2 input from the second voltage detector 51 and the output voltage (12 V) of the second power supply unit 93 is at least a predetermined threshold, the detector 30B determines that the power path is in the abnormal state (i.e. detects an anomaly). If the difference between the second voltage V2 input from the second voltage detector 51 and the output voltage of the second power supply unit 93 is less than the predetermined threshold, the detector 30B determines that the power path is in the normal state (i.e. does not detect an anomaly).
Thus, the specification teaches comparing a difference between the first voltage V1 and an output voltage (12 V) of the first power supply unit 90, or comparing a difference between the second voltage V2 and an output voltage (12 V) of the second power supply unit 93.
Fig. 4 teaches wherein there is a difference between a first voltage and a second voltage during times T3-T4, however, there is not mention of comparing the first voltage to the second voltage as claimed.
Therefore, the examiner is unable to find any support for the limitations, “…comparing the first voltage and the second voltage when the relay is in the cut-off state, and determining that an anomaly is present when a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage exceeds a predetermined threshold” as stated by the applicant in the arguments.
Rejection Under 35 USC §103
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Reference US 2020/0185963 (Oishi) is provided to teach the amended subject matter of claims 1 and 6, as well as previously objected claims 5 and 9-10.
Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-8 stand rejected as outlined below.
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(s) 1, 3-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0361961 (Maekawa) in view of US 2019/0115175 (Saito).
Regarding claim 1, Maekawa teaches an anomaly detection device for detecting an anomaly in a power supply system, the power supply system including: a first power supply unit; a second power supply unit; a power path serving as a path for transmitting electric power between the first power supply unit and the second power supply unit; and a relay switched between a conductive state, where a current can flow through the power path, and a cut-off state, where a current flow through the power path is cut off (relay device 2 for detecting an abnormality for a power supply device 1 comprising a first power storage unit 91, a second power storage unit 92, a path between terminals P1 and P2 for transmitting power between the first power storage unit 91 and the second power storage unit 92, a switch unit 14 to cut-off power in the power path; see Fig. 1), the anomaly detection device comprising:
a first voltage detector configured to detect a first voltage on the first power supply unit side of the power path relative to the relay (first voltage monitor 21 to detect a first voltage on the first power supply side of terminal P1; see Fig. 1);
a second voltage detector configured to detect a second voltage on the second power supply unit side of the power path relative to the relay (second voltage monitor 22 to detect a second voltage on the second power supply side of terminal P2; see Fig. 1).
Maekawa fails to teach a detector configured to detect an anomaly by comparing the first voltage and the second voltage when the relay is in the cut-off state, and determining that an anomaly is present when a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Oishi teaches a detector configured to detect an anomaly by comparing the first voltage and the second voltage when the relay is in the cut-off state, and determining that an anomaly is present when a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage exceeds a predetermined threshold (controller 50 acquires the detection voltage V1 of the first high-voltage battery 11 from the first battery voltage detector 13, and acquires the detection voltage V2 of the second high-voltage battery 12 from the second battery voltage detector 14, as described above. Then, the controller 50 determines whether the potential difference between the first high-voltage battery 11 and the second high-voltage battery 12 is within an allowable range (Step U2). For example, the controller 50 compares the detection voltage V1 of the first high-voltage battery 11 with the detection voltage V2 of the second high-voltage battery 12, and determines whether the potential difference between the detection voltages V1 and V2 is within the allowable range. If the potential difference between the first high-voltage battery 11 and the second high-voltage battery 12 is within the allowable range (Yes at Step U2), the controller 50 performs the parallel connection processing to connect the first high-voltage battery 11 to the second high-voltage battery 12 in parallel (Step U3). If, instead, the potential difference between the first high-voltage battery 11 and the second high-voltage battery 12 is not within the allowable range (No at Step U2), the controller 50 performs the battery equalization processing (Step U4). See [0099], [0130]; see Fig. 18).
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 features of Oishi into Maekawa in order to gain the advantage of connecting the batteries in a parallel configuration when the voltages are withing an allowable range and, if the batteries are not within an allowable range, to prevent an excessive current from flowing and/or determine if a switch is in a lock-on state.
Regarding claim 6, Maekawa teaches an anomaly detection method for detecting an anomaly in a power supply system, the power supply system including: a first power supply unit; a second power supply unit; a power path serving as a path for transmitting electric power between the first power supply unit and the second power supply unit; and a relay switched between a conductive state, where a current can flow through the power path, and a cut-off state, where a current flow through the power path is cut off, the anomaly detection method comprising (relay device 2 for detecting an abnormality for a power supply device 1 comprising a first power storage unit 91, a second power storage unit 92, a path between terminals P1 and P2 for transmitting power between the first power storage unit 91 and the second power storage unit 92, a switch unit 14 to cut-off power in the power path; see Fig. 1):
a first operation of switching the relay to the cut-off state with use of a controller (control unit 3 controls switch 14 between an open and closed state; see Fig. 1; see [0047]);
a second operation of detecting a first voltage on the first power supply unit side of the power path relative to the relay, with use of a first voltage detector (first voltage monitor 21 to detect a first voltage on the first power supply side of terminal P1; see Fig. 1);
a third operation of detecting a second voltage on the second power supply unit side of the power path relative to the relay, with use of a second voltage detector (second voltage monitor 22 to detect a second voltage on the second power supply side of terminal P2; see Fig. 1); and
a fourth operation of detecting an anomaly based on the first voltage and the second voltage in the cut-off state, with use of a detector, after the second operation and the third operation have been executed (the voltage value detected by the voltage detection units are compared with an abnormality threshold Vth and determines an abnormality occurred if the voltage value is below Vth; see [0052] and [0054]).
Maekawa fails to teach a second operation of detecting a first voltage on the first power supply unit side of the power path relative to the relay, with use of a first voltage detector, at least after the first operation; a third operation of detecting a second voltage on the second power supply unit side of the power path relative to the relay, with use of a second voltage detector, at least after the first operation; and comparing the first voltage and the second voltage when the relay is in the cut-off state, and determining that an anomaly is present when a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Saito teaches a second operation of detecting a first voltage on the first power supply unit side of the power path relative to the relay, with use of a first voltage detector, at least after the first operation; a third operation of detecting a second voltage on the second power supply unit side of the power path relative to the relay, with use of a second voltage detector, at least after the first operation (a voltage value is determined in step S7 by a voltage monitor 21/22 on the upstream side of the relay unit 41/42 that was switched to the off state in step S6; see [0064]; see Fig. 4).
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 features of Saito into Maekawa in order to gain the advantage of measuring the voltage of a battery when the battery is disconnected from the other battery such that the measured voltage accurately reflects the battery of interest.
Maekawa fails to teach comparing the first voltage and the second voltage when the relay is in the cut-off state, and determining that an anomaly is present when a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Oishi teaches a detector configured to detect an anomaly by comparing the first voltage and the second voltage when the relay is in the cut-off state, and determining that an anomaly is present when a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage exceeds a predetermined threshold (controller 50 acquires the detection voltage V1 of the first high-voltage battery 11 from the first battery voltage detector 13, and acquires the detection voltage V2 of the second high-voltage battery 12 from the second battery voltage detector 14, as described above. Then, the controller 50 determines whether the potential difference between the first high-voltage battery 11 and the second high-voltage battery 12 is within an allowable range (Step U2). For example, the controller 50 compares the detection voltage V1 of the first high-voltage battery 11 with the detection voltage V2 of the second high-voltage battery 12, and determines whether the potential difference between the detection voltages V1 and V2 is within the allowable range. If the potential difference between the first high-voltage battery 11 and the second high-voltage battery 12 is within the allowable range (Yes at Step U2), the controller 50 performs the parallel connection processing to connect the first high-voltage battery 11 to the second high-voltage battery 12 in parallel (Step U3). If, instead, the potential difference between the first high-voltage battery 11 and the second high-voltage battery 12 is not within the allowable range (No at Step U2), the controller 50 performs the battery equalization processing (Step U4). See [0099], [0130]; see Fig. 18).
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 features of Oishi into Maekawa in order to gain the advantage of connecting the batteries in a parallel configuration when the voltages are withing an allowable range and, if the batteries are not within an allowable range, to prevent an excessive current from flowing and/or determine if a switch is in a lock-on state.
Regarding claim 3, Maekawa teaches further including; a controller configured to control the relay, wherein the controller is configured to maintain the cut-off state if the detector detects an anomaly (control 3 controls switch 14 and turns off the switch if the power supply device 1 is in a predetermined abnormal state; see [0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Maekawa teaches further including; a controller configured to control the relay (control 3 controls switch 14 and turns off the switch if the power supply device 1 is in a predetermined abnormal state; see [0048]).
Maekawa fails to teach wherein if the detector detects an anomaly, the controller is configured to at least either give a notification to an external device or perform a storage operation, while maintaining the conductive state.
Saito teaches wherein if the detector detects an anomaly, the controller is configured to at least either give a notification to an external device or perform a storage operation, while maintaining the conductive state (control unit 12 includes a notification unit which gives notification to the outside in step S7; see Figs. 2 and 6; see [0064]).
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 features of Saito into Maekawa in order to gain the advantage of notifying a driver if the voltage is below a threshold voltage to indicate a low voltage abnormality to a user in charge of maintenance.
Claim(s) 2 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0361961 (Maekawa) in view of US 2019/0115175 (Saito), and in further view of US 2020/0139821 (Yamasaki).
Regarding claim 2, Maekawa teaches further including; a controller configured to control the relay (control unit 3 controls switch 14; see Fig. 1; see [0047]).
Maekawa fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to periodically switch the relay between the conductive state and the cut-off state.
Yamasaki teaches wherein the controller is configured to periodically switch the relay between the conductive state and the cut-off state (charge monitoring units 12/13 periodically detect the voltage of the battery cells of the first battery storage BT1/BT2. See [0029]-[0030]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to periodically switch the relay between a conductive state during normal operation and an off state when the voltage is being measured in view of the combination as a whole.).
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 features of Yamasaki into Maekawa and Saito in order to gain the advantage of periodically switching the relay between a conductive state and a cut-off state in oder to periodically measure the voltage of a battery when the battery is disconnected from the other battery such that the measured voltage accurately reflects the battery of interest.
Regarding claim 7, Maekawa teaches further including; a controller configured to control the relay, wherein the controller is configured to maintain the cut-off state if the detector detects an anomaly (control 3 controls switch 14 and turns off the switch if the power supply device 1 is in a predetermined abnormal state; see [0048]).
Regarding claim 8, Maekawa teaches further including; a controller configured to control the relay (control 3 controls switch 14 and turns off the switch if the power supply device 1 is in a predetermined abnormal state; see [0048]).
Maekawa fails to teach wherein if the detector detects an anomaly, the controller is configured to at least either give a notification to an external device or perform a storage operation, while maintaining the conductive state.
Saito teaches wherein if the detector detects an anomaly, the controller is configured to at least either give a notification to an external device or perform a storage operation, while maintaining the conductive state (control unit 12 includes a notification unit which gives notification to the outside in step S7; see Figs. 2 and 6; see [0064]).
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 features of Saito into Maekawa in order to gain the advantage of notifying a driver if the voltage is below a threshold voltage to indicate a low voltage abnormality to a user in charge of maintenance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9, and 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5, 9, and 10, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest further including; a failure detection device capable of detecting a failure state, where the relay is maintained in the conductive state while the controller is performing control to set the relay to the cut-off state, and a normal state, where the relay is maintained in the cut-off state while the controller is performing control to set the relay to the cut-off state, wherein the detector is configured to detect an anomaly based on the first voltage and the second voltage while the controller is performing control to set the relay to the cut-off state, under a condition that the failure detection device detects the normal state, in combination with all limitation of the parent claims, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights