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 .
Claims 1-13 are pending.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first apparatus" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of the examination, "the first apparatus" will be treated as "the first reset apparatus".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 2, 6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English translated document of JP 2008223692 A [hereafter Mori], and further in view of Wei et al. (US Pat. 11,705,751 B1) [hereafter Wei].
As per claim 1, Mori teaches:
A signal latching circuit, comprising a controller, a latch, and a first reset apparatus; (Mori, Fig. 1, Abstract, latch and a latch circuit, microcomputers 1 & 2, watchdog signal, WDC, WDC1, WDC2)
wherein the controller is electrically connected to both the latch and the first reset apparatus, and the latch is configured to be electrically connected to a switch (Mori, Fig. 1, Abstract, a sub-microcontroller connected to a latch circuit and a main microcomputer comprising a watchdog and reset capability, which is equivalent to the first reset apparatus, and relay 50, which is equivalent to the switch; pg. 7, last paragraph, a latching circuit comprises a capacitor that is stored to continue to feed the voltage during reset)
the controller is configured to transmit a first signal to the latch and transmit a second signal to the first reset apparatus; (Mori, Fig. 1, Abstract, pg. 6, 6th paragraph, sub-microcomputer sending signal to latch and WDC1)
the first signal is used to control the switch to turn on, and the second signal is used to indicate that the controller is in a working state; (Mori, Fig. 1, Abstract, a latch circuit maintains the voltage level of an output signal to a relay 50 immediately before resetting and continuously outputs to the relay 50 the signal of the same voltage, watchdog signal periodically sent to the reset apparatus 20)
the first reset apparatus is configured to transmit a first reset signal to the controller in response to not receiving the second signal within a first duration; and (Mori, Fig. 1, pg. 5, last paragraph, main microcomputer outputs a reset signal to the sub-microcomputer; pg. 6, 6th paragraph, sub-microcomputer outputting watchdog signal to notify its operating status)
the latch is configured to latch the first signal during a reset period of the controller (Mori, Fig. 1, pg. 11, 1st paragraph, relay 50 maintains the voltage level)
Mori does not specifically teach:
a switch disposed on a charging path and/or a discharging path
However, Wei in an analogous art teaches:
latch connected to a switch device that controls charging and discharging of energy-storage device (Wei, Fig.1, col. 11, line 52 – col. 12, line 3)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate teachings of Wei into the teachings of Mori to provide a switch disposed on a charging path and/or a discharging path. The modification would be obvious because the latch circuit allows the system to continue to output a predetermined signal (Wei, col. 11, lines 66-67).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Mori further teaches:
wherein the first reset apparatus is a first watchdog (Mori, Fig. 1, main microcomputer comprising watchdog capability)
Claim 6 is a battery system claim incorporating the signal latching circuit corresponding to the circuit claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth in connection of the rejection of claim 1 above, and Wei further teaches:
a battery and a battery management system, the battery is electrically connected to the battery management system (Wei, col. 11, lines 33-51, BMS controlling charging and discharging)
Claim 10 is a method claim corresponding to the signal latching circuit claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons set forth in connection of the rejection of claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7, 9, 11-13 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pat. 9,931,956 B2 discloses a battery management system capable of controlling the output of a vehicle battery by placing the battery to a shutdown mode when a timer reaches a predetermined value after the vehicle is turned off.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAE M KO whose telephone number is (571)270-3886. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/CHAE M KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights