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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-22 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claims 1, 16, and 20, the specification (particularly paragraphs 0026 and 0035) fail to explicitly teach performing a boost operation upon occurrence of a condition in which an input voltage corresponding to the input power from the system is in a normal state. The only description of when to perform a boost operation is in paragraph 0035, and that states performing a boost operation upon the occurrence of detecting operation of vehicle equipment (which is also claimed in independent claim 20). The Examiner will disregard the claim language stating that a boost operation is performed upon occurrence of a condition in which an input voltage corresponding to the input power from the power system is in a normal state, since it is not explicitly described in the Applicant’s specification.
Responding to the Applicant’s most recent Remarks (dated March 13, 2026), regarding the timings (a-m) and the normal state being timings a-e, the claim language would be correct if the boost operation occurred during all of the timings a-e, however, as agreed by the Examiner, the boost operation is only occurring during timings c and d, “upon detecting the operation of vehicle equipment”. Therefore, the Examiner believes that claim language is not what is explicitly described in the Applicant’s specification, which is the boost operation is performed upon detecting the operation of vehicle equipment.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a bidirectional buck-boost converter” is claimed. The Examiner believes that this converter is the same as the “boost circuit” of claim 1, since the claim states this bidirectional converter performs the boost operation. The Examiner requests the Applicant clarify this assumption and make the claims more clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 16-18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kageyama et al. (JP 2017070057 A).
Regarding independent claims 1, 16, and 20, and dependent claim 22, Kageyama teaches (Figs. 2 and 3) a power supply device comprising:
an electrical storage device (11);
a charging circuit (12) configured to
start charging of the electrical storage device based on input power (via 9) from a power system (16 and/or 20) of a vehicle (15), upon occurrence of a condition in which a voltage of the electrical storage device decreases to a first threshold ([0081]), and
stop the charging of the electrical storage device, upon occurrence of a condition in which the voltage of the electrical storage device increases to a second threshold, the second threshold being greater than the first threshold ([0020]);
a boost circuit (13) configured to step up the voltage of the electrical storage device ([0023]); and
a control circuit (21) configured to cause the boost circuit to perform a boost operation ([0023]), upon occurrence/detection of a condition in which vehicle equipment is operated ([0051]; collision avoidance operation) when an input voltage from the power system is within a predetermined range ([0021]), such that,
a boosted voltage that is higher than the voltage of the electrical storage device is supplied to a load device (17) ([0052]), and
the boosted voltage is a constant (“stabilized”) voltage ([0024].
Regarding claim 2, Kageyama teaches a power path with one end coupled to the power system (via 9) and the other end coupled to an output node (10) side of the boosted voltage (via NPSU, 18; Fig. 3; [0033]).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Kageyama teaches a motorized device (vehicle) comprising:
the power supply device of claim 1; and
the load device (17), wherein the load device is a device configured to control an operation of vehicle equipment that is operated by a user ([0051], [0052]).
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) 3-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama et al. (JP 2017070057 A) and Nakayama (2021/0009102). Kageyama teaches the power supply device as described above.
Regarding claim 3, Kageyama fails to explicitly teach the boost circuit being bidirectional and including the charging circuit. Nakayama teaches a similar power supply device (Fig. 1) to that of Kageyama. Nakayama teaches a power system (20), a load (90), an electrical storage device (32), charging/boost circuit (31), and a control circuit (10). Nakayama teaches their boost circuit (31) being a bidirectional buck-boost converter that includes the charging circuit ([0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Kageyama’s boost circuit being bidirectional and including the charging circuit to minimize the number of elements used in the system to reduce overall costs.
Regarding claim 4, the Kageyama/Nakayama combination teaches the control circuit being configured to cause the bidirectional buck-boost converter to perform a charging operation such that the electrical storage device is charged with power that is input from the output node through the power path (Kageyama at [0020]; and Nakayama teaches the input and output nodes being the same node and the power path being between 20 and 30).
Regarding claim 5, Kageyama teaches the control circuit (21) being configured to
cause the bidirectional buck-boost converter to perform the charging operation upon occurrence of the condition in which the voltage of the electrical storage device decreases to the first threshold ([0081]), and
stop the charging operation of the bidirectional buck-boost converter upon occurrence of the condition in which the voltage of the electrical storage device increases to the second threshold ([0020]).
Regarding claims 6, 9, Kageyama teaches the load device is a device configured to control an operation of vehicle equipment that is operated by a user, and
wherein the control circuit is configured to cause the bidirectional buck-boost converter to perform the boost operation (from a charge mode/operation), while the vehicle equipment is detected to be operating. ([0051], [0052])
Regarding claim 7, Kageyama teaches the control circuit is configured to stop the boost operation of the bidirectional buck-boost converter, in a case where the vehicle equipment is not operated. ([0026]; when a collision is not predicted and/or after a collision is averted after the predetermined connection time)
Regarding claim 8, Kageyama teaches the control circuit is configured to cause the bidirectional buck-boost converter to switch from a charge mode to a boost mode, upon occurrence of a condition in which an abnormality (i.e. collision being predicted) in the vehicle is detected. ([0020], [0023])
Regarding claim 10, Kageyama teaches the control circuit is configured to operate the boost circuit such that the boosted voltage is 13V ([0052]) and the voltage of the power path is provided by the battery (16; [0046]; i.e. ~13V). Kageyama fails to explicitly teach the boosted voltage being lower than a voltage of the power path. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the boosted voltage being lower (i.e. 12.6V) than a voltage of the power path (i.e. 13V), since the Applicant has not disclosed that having the boosted voltage being lower than a voltage of the power path solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with various output voltages (around 13V) being output from either path to power the load.
Regarding claim 11, Kageyama teaches the control circuit is configured to start, upon occurrence of a condition in which an abnormality in the vehicle is detected (i.e. collision is predicted), the boost operation of the boost circuit such that a current flows from the boost circuit into the load device. ([0023])
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Kageyama teaches the load device is a device configured to control an operation of vehicle equipment that is operated by a user ([0051], [0052]), and
wherein in a case where the control circuit causes the boost circuit to perform the boost operation such that a current flows from the boost circuit into the load device ([0051], [0052]), the control circuit is configured to
cause the boost circuit to switch from the boost operation to either an intermittent operation or a PFM operating mode, upon occurrence of a condition in which an abnormality in the vehicle is detected (Kageyama teaches intermittent operation based on the switch unit 23 at [0023] and [0026]).
Kageyama fails to explicitly teach operating the boost circuit in a PWM operating mode. However the Examiner takes Official Notice that operating a boost circuit in a PWM operating mode is known in the art to boost the input voltage to a boosted output voltage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the boost circuit in a PWM operating mode to boost the voltage supplied to the load, upon occurrence of a condition in which the operation of the vehicle equipment is detected, since the Examiner takes Official Notice that operating a boost circuit in a PWM operating mode would allow for the voltage to be boosted as needed, as taught in the Kageyama reference, and it involves a mere simple substitution or design choice on how to operate the boost circuit to boost an input voltage to an output and using a PWM operating mode is known in the relevant art.
Regarding claim 19, Kageyama teaches the idea of the vehicle equipment (i.e. load 17) being any/all types of vehicle components ([0059]). Kageyama fails to explicitly teach the vehicle equipment being an opening-and-closing member. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that opening-and-closing members, such as a door or window, are known types of vehicle components and are encompassed in Kageyama’s “vehicle components” that are being powered in their load (17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Kageyama’s vehicle equipment being an opening-and-closing member, since Kageyama teaches the general idea and the Examiner takes Official Notice that opening-and-closing members are known vehicle components.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama et al. (JP 2017070057 A) and Kobayashi et al. (2009/0193273). Kageyama teaches the power supply device as described above.
Regarding claim 14, Kageyama fails to explicitly teach a regulator to generate a supply voltage to the control circuit. Kobayashi teaches a similar power supply device (Fig. 5) to that of Kageyama. Kobayashi teaches an electrical storage device (3), a control circuit (20), and a regulator (11). Kobayashi also teaches the regulator configured to generate a supply voltage to the control circuit, based on the power that is supplied by the electrical storage device ([0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a regulator into Kageyama’s invention to generate a supply voltage to the control circuit, based on the power supplied by either the power system or the electrical storage device, since Kobayashi teaches a way to power the control circuit and Kageyama was silent as to how their control circuit is powered and power is needed to power and allow the control circuit to function.
Regarding claim 15, Kageyama teaches the idea of a backflow prevention circuit unit (19; i.e. a diode) being implemented between a power source and the load ([0034]) to prevent power from flowing backwards into the power source. Neither Kageyama nor Kobayashi explicitly teach having a diode between the electrical storage device and the regulator. However, since Kageyama teaches the idea of using a diode to prevent power from flowing backwards into a power source, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a diode between the electrical storage device and the regulator to prevent power from flowing backwards into the electrical storage device from the regulator to prevent undesirable power from flowing into the electrical storage device.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama et al. (JP 2017070057 A) and Ulinski et al. (6,700,802). Kageyama teaches the power supply device as described above. Kageyama also teaches the control circuit configured to cause the boost circuit to perform the boost operation regardless of whether a failure of the power system or an emergency state occurs ([0023]).
Kageyama fails to explicitly teach their buck charging circuit (12) and the boost circuit (13) comprising a singular bidirectional buck-boost converter. Ulinski teaches a similar vehicle power supply device (Fig. 1A) to that of Kageyama. Ulinski teaches a singular bidirectional buck-boost converter (106) used to charge and boost/discharge an electrical storage device (110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a single bidirectional buck-boost converter into Kageyama’s invention for their buck charging circuit (12) and boost circuit (13), since it involves a mere simple substitution of some circuit element for others to perform the same function of buck-boost conversion of input power to and from an electrical storage device, and it would allow for fewer elements to be used in the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 112 rejection is upheld and more explanation as to why it is upheld was presented above within the 112 rejection.
Regarding other limitations in the claims, the Examiner would like to point out that the Kageyama reference teaches the main power source (16 and 20) still operate the vehicle normally during times when the input voltage (at 9) from the power system is below a certain voltage level. The boost operation only occurs during times when the input voltage is below a certain level AND a collision prediction signal is detected. Arguably, when the input voltage from the power system is below a certain level, the system could still be considered to be in a normal state since the vehicle is still being operated normally (when a collision prediction is not detected).
The Examiner believes that there are small differences between the Kageyama reference and the present invention, however, at this time they are not explicitly described in the claim language. The Examiner also believes that the Applicant needs to amend their independent claims to explicitly claim what is taught in the specification regarding timings c and d (and not a-e).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRU M PARRIES whose telephone number is (571)272-8542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday from 9:00am to 6:00pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rexford Barnie, can be reached on 571-272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
DMP
3/17/2026
/DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836