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 § 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 and 3-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Downer et al. (6,608,396) and Lukic et al. (2008/0218104).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 13, Downer teaches an electric vehicle power system (Fig. 1), comprising:
an electric motor (18), configured to provide power to an electric vehicle (10);
a main converter (14), a DC-to-AC converter or a DC-to-DC converter, coupled with the electric motor (Col. 3, lines 3-8; motor can be AC or DC so converter output can be AC or DC);
a busbar (48) coupled with the main converter;
a main battery pack (Stage 1, 26) electrically connected to the busbar through a first DC-DC converter (Stage 1, 13); and
a fixed battery (Stage 2, 26) electrically connected to the busbar through a second DC-DC converter (Stage 2, 13);
wherein the main battery pack (Stage 1, 26) transmits electric power to the electric motor (18) by serial connecting the first DC-DC converter (Stage 1, 13), the busbar (48), and the main converter (14) in that order; the busbar (48) is configured to provide the electric power transmitted by the first DC-DC converter or by the second DC-DC converter (Stage 2, 13) to the electric motor.
Downer also teaches (at Col. 4, lines 23-41) the idea of the main battery pack being configured to charge the fixed battery (when the SOC/discharging power performance of the main battery pack is greater than the SOC of the fixed battery to balance the SOC; i.e. when the fixed battery needs to be charged), and to provide electric power from both the main battery pack and the fixed battery pack to the electric vehicle, as needed (i.e. when the discharging power performance of the main battery pack is lower than a preset threshold (i.e. power demand) of the electric vehicle aka the electric vehicle needs more power than can be provided by the main battery pack alone). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Downer’s invention operating in the claimed manner, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Downer teaches the fixed battery being configured to selectively provide electric energy to the electric motor (Col. 4, liens 26-30).
Regarding claim 4, Downer teaches the main battery pack comprising at least two electrically connected batteries (Col. 1, lines 66-67).
Regarding claim 5, Downer fails to explicitly teach the main battery pack comprising a shell. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the relevant art that batteries in vehicles are known to be located in a “shell” (i.e. housing/enclosure). 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 the main battery pack in Downer’s invention being located in a shell, since the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the relevant art and it would provide some type of protection between the main battery pack and other elements in the vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, Downer teaches the first DC-DC converter or the second DC-DC converter is configured to convert a DC power provided by the main battery pack into another DC power with a different voltage to provide to the busbar (Col. 3, lines 19-24).
Regarding claim 7, Downer teaches the main converter (14) being configured to convert a DC power (V+) provided by the busbar into another DC power with different voltage (Col. 3, lines 3-8; teaches motor being a DC machine).
Regarding claim 8, Downer teaches the fixed battery being fixed inside the electric vehicle (10) and space apart from the main battery pack (Fig. 1; Stage 1 and 2 are spaced apart).
Regarding claim 9, Downer teaches the fixed battery is an auxiliary power supply for the electric vehicle (Col. 4, lines 26-30).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Downer fails to explicitly teach the main battery pack and the fixed battery having different output powers and electrical capacities. Lukic teaches a similar electric vehicle power system (Fig. 3) to that of Downer. Lukic teaches a main battery pack (302 or 304) and a fixed battery (302 or 304). Lukic teaches the batteries’ output powers and electrical capacities being different from each other ([0007], [0008]). Therefore, depending on which of Lukic’s batteries (302 or 304) is the fixed or main battery, then one output power is greater than the other, and one electrical capacity is smaller than the other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Lukic’s main battery pack and fixed battery into Downer’s invention, since it involves a mere simple substitution of one energy storage battery/capacitor for another to perform the same function of providing power to an electric vehicle’s motor.
Regarding claim 12, Downer teaches the main converter is configured to convert a DC power provided by the main battery pack and the fixed battery into AC power and provide it to the electric motor (Col. 3, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 14, Downer fails to explicitly teach a main battery pack replacement device configured to unload and replace the main battery pack with a new one. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the electric vehicle art that battery packs can be unloaded and replaced with new ones (i.e. a main battery pack replacement device). 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 Downer’s electric vehicle comprising a main battery pack replacement device, since the Examiner takes Official Notice that they are known in the art and it would allow for a malfunctioning main battery pack to be unloaded and replaced with a new working battery pack.
Regarding claim 15, Downer teaches the main battery pack (Stage 1, 26) is located in an open space in the electric vehicle (10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that Downer controlling their batteries discharging/charging to be in balance is unrelated to any discharging power performance of the batteries. Balancing the discharge of the batteries is directly related to the discharging power performance of the batteries. As stated in the rejection above, if one battery has a higher SOC compared to another, then the battery with the higher SOC will discharge their excess charge before a battery with a lower SOC.
As recited in the previous Office Action’s Response to Arguments section, the Examiner feels that Downer teaches the general idea of previous claim 2 (now in the independent claims), at Col. 4, lines 23-41, wherein the transferring of power between the elements in the vehicle (i.e. main battery, fixed battery, and the electric vehicle/motor (18)) are described in such a way that the claimed function would be obvious based on the teaching in Downer. For example, in a case where the main battery is fully charged and has enough discharging power to provide the required amount to the electric vehicle/motor (i.e. higher than a preset threshold of the electric vehicle aka power needed/requested by the EV) and the fixed battery has a low SOC (i.e. needs to be charged), then the main battery in Downer’s invention would charge the fixed battery, as well as provide the required amount to the electric vehicle/motor. Also, Downer teaches the idea of both batteries (main and fixed) providing power to the electric vehicle/motor when the discharging power of the main battery pack is lower than the preset threshold of the electric vehicle.
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
12/26/2025
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836