DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are indicated in the table below, along with corresponding structure and/or lack thereof:
Claim limitation
Claim Numbers
Structure (PGPUB citation)
Control device
2-4
A processor with memory and inputs/outputs [0019]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by King et al. US PGPUB 2010/0097031.
Regarding claim 1, King discloses a DC vehicle charging circuit [figs. 5 & 7] having an input [fig. 5 & 7, charging circuit 212 has input 128/129; pars. 42-44], a converter circuit in the form of a boost converter [fig. 5 & 7, boost converters 158, 160; par. 43], and an output [fig. 5 & 7, node at tops and bottoms of 158, 160 and 162], wherein a first input potential of the input is connected to a first output potential of the output via the converter circuit [fig. 5 & 7, 128 is connected to the positive output node via the converters 158/160/162], and the converter circuit is connected to a second output potential of the output via a connection point [fig. 5 & 7, negative terminal of the battery is connected to the negative converter node], wherein a second input potential of the input is connected to the connection point without any semiconductor switches, apart from a transistor [fig. 5 & 7; 129 is connected to the negative node of the converters/battery through a transformer (in fig. 7, in fig. 5 directly), a contactor 220 and one transistor 180, thus without any semiconductor switches apart from the transistor 180], and wherein the transistor has an inverse diode [fig. 5 & 7, 184], the forward direction of which points in the direction of the charging current that flows in the HV-minus path when energy is transferred from the input to the output [figs. 2 & 7; par. 31 & 46; the diodes (184, 182, 176, 174) are inverse diodes (like 112 in fig. 2) in boost mode, with the forward direction aligned to receive and pass current from the negative node].
Regarding claim 5, King discloses wherein the converter circuit is designed bidirectionally [par. 44].
Regarding claim 6, King discloses wherein the converter circuit has a series circuit of two working transistors [fig. 5; 178 and 180], the connecting node of which is connected to the first input potential via a working inductance of the converter circuit, either directly or via a fusible link or pyrofuse [fig. 5; 166 connects converter 160 to 128].
Regarding claim 9, King discloses wherein the working inductance, via which the converter circuit is connected to the input, is provided by a serial inductance of an inductive input filter which is connected downstream of the input [figs. 5 & 7; inductances 164, 166 and 168; pars. 33-34 & 36-37].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al. US PGPUB 2010/0097031 in view of Smolenaers US PGPUB 2020/0164755.
Regarding claim 7, King does not explicitly disclose wherein the transistor is connected to the second input potential directly or via a fusible link or pyrofuse .
However, Smolenaers disclose an on-board charger for an EV, wherein the transistor is connected to the second input potential directly or via a fusible link or pyrofuse [fig. 7; par. 276; transistors of the converter in fig. 7 are connected to an input circuit 4 with fuses].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify King to further include wherein the transistor is connected to the second input potential directly or via a fusible link or pyrofuse for the purpose of protecting the circuitry downstream of the fuse, as taught by Smolenaers (par. 276).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 2, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “a control device which is configured to determine whether the condition is met that at the input a voltage limiting element is connected between one of the input potentials and a ground potential, the threshold voltage of which is below a nominal voltage of the output, and wherein the control device is connected so as to drive the transistor and is configured to hold the transistor in the open state if it is determined that the condition is met” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 2.
Claims 3-4, being dependent on claim 2, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 2.
With respect to claim 8, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the converter circuit is accommodated in a first housing, and the transistor is accommodated in a second housing which is interposed between the input and the first housing” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Smolenaers US PGPUB 2020/0062138 (Smolenaers II) discloses an onboard charging with a boost converter and blocking diodes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights