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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Embodiment II (Claims 1-11 and 13-20) in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Species requirement fails to set forth the corresponding claims “Specifically, the restriction is based on “figures” and fails to identify which specificity which claims are alleged to correspond to which embodiments and therefore does not present a proper prima facie basis for restriction MPEP 808.1(a) However, such a restriction can be issued in certain circumstances, which are unfortunately fraught with some challenges.” First, nowhere in MPEP 808.01(a) is there a requirement for Examiner to identify the claim correspondences and Applicant is directed to the proper MPEP section which describes Applicant’s burden, MPEP 809.02(a) which clearly states that in all species circumstances are the various embodiments preferably identified via Figures and not under certain circumstances.
Therefore Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive because such a requirement does not exists. In fact, Applicant as creator and author of the disclosure is in the best position to determine such correspondence. As per MPEP 809.02(a) “Action as follows should be taken” include “Clearly identifying each of the disclosed species to which claim are to be restricted. The species are preferably identified as the species of figures 1, 2, and 3 (emphasis added) or the species of examples I, II, and III, respectively”. MPEP 809.2(a) further goes on to state “a reply (that is, a reply from Applicant) to a requirement made according to this section should include a proper election along with a listing of all claims readable thereon, including any claims subsequently added”. Nowhere in MPEP 809.2(a) is there a suggestion or requirement that Examiner provide said listing of claims readable on the various species. To the contrary, the requirement explicitly puts the burden on claims readable on the various species on Applicant.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
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 details must be shown in enabling detail or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claimed “vehicle electrical system” not identified or labeled with proper identifier in the Figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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 1-11 and 13-20 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.
Regarding Claim 1
The claim term “vehicle electrical system” is unintelligible. First, the Figures fail to label such component.
Second, a “vehicle electrical system” does not refer to any particular or known components in the art. Although singularly a collection of known words, collectively they do not refer to any known circuitry or components nor is it clear that it would even refer to an alternator or other source of electrical power.
Third, the specification discloses a single enabling embodiment for said “vehicle electrical system” as that of the vehicle alternator:
[0037] In some aspects, the techniques described herein relate to a method, wherein the vehicle electrical system includes an alternator of the vehicle.
Attempts to claim every and all present and future “vehicle electrical systems” for supplying power when the only disclosure for said component is that of an alternator is improper and will further include 112, 1st issues as attempting to claim a broader scope (every and all present and future vehicle electrical system) beyond that of the disclosed alternator.
The claim will be examined as best understood wherein “vehicle electrical system” is read as “vehicle alternator”.
The claim term “interpret a load power request” is unintelligible making it unclear what structure said limitation is intended to add to the apparatus claim. Although components can be claimed functionally, said function must be clear and understood. However “interpret a load power request” is not a known function in the electrical engineering art.
The specification discloses a confusing definition of the term and attempts to define many different operations with a single sweep of non-correlated functions:
[0110] Certain operations described herein include interpreting, receiving, and/or determining one or more values, parameters, inputs, data, or other information. Operations including interpreting, receiving, and/or determining any value parameter, input, data, and/or other information include, without limitation: receiving data via a user input; receiving data over a network of any type; reading a data value from a memory location in communication with the receiving device; utilizing a default value as a received data value; estimating, calculating, or deriving a data value based on other information available to the receiving device; and/or updating any of these in response to a later received data value. In certain embodiments, a data value may be received by a first operation, and later updated by a second operation, as part of the receiving a data value. For example, when communications are down, intermittent, or interrupted, a first operation to interpret, receive, and/or determine a data value may be performed, and when communications are restored an updated operation to interpret, receive, and/or determine the data value may be performed.
Although the specification attempts to broadly define “certain operations describe herein include….” Such a broad attempt to define a plurality of operations is insufficient. It must be clear what “interpret” specifically means in order to ascertain its meets and bounds and make the claim term and resulting claim definite as to what specific structure is being added to the apparatus claim.
The closest and best understood definition for the function of “interpret” is disclosed as:
For example, when communications are down, intermittent, or interrupted, a first operation to interpret, receive, and/or determine a data value may be performed, and when communications are restored an updated operation to interpret, receive, and/or determine the data value may be performed [0110].
The claim will be examined as best understood in light of the above teaching of “interpret”.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9,
It is unclear what is meant by the claim term “structured” which will be interpreted as “configured to”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowed if re-written as provided below to correct the 112 issues above:
1. A system, comprising:
an electrical load for a vehicle;
a power provider for the electrical load, comprising a plurality of components comprising:
a battery pack;
a vehicle alternator; and
a DC/DC converter electrically interposed between the electrical load and others of the plurality of components of the power provider; and
a power management controller, comprising:
a load power management circuit configured to:
interpret a load power request wherein interpret comprises when communications are down, performing a first operation to receive and determine a data value of the load power request and when communications are restored, performing an updated operation to receive and determine the data value of the load power request; and
provide at least one of a power modulation command or a voltage modulation command in response to the load power request,
wherein the DC/DC converter is responsive to the at least one of the power modulation command or the voltage modulation command to provide at least one of a boost voltage or a buck voltage to a voltage provided by at least one of the battery pack or the vehicle electrical system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CAVALLARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8541. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-18:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (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 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 CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836