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 .
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on 08/11/2026. These amendments are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks (pages 1-5), filed on 08/11/2026, with respect to claims 6-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejection of claims 6-20 has been withdrawn.
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 16-20 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 16, lines 3-4 recite “transmitting a first signal related to a state control of a contactor, and a second signal for activating the retention circuit, to the retention circuit” while lines 5-6 recite “a first retention signal”, “a second retention signal”, a first retention circuit” and “a second retention circuit”. It is not clear if the “first signal”, “second signal” and “the retention circuit” are different, in the sense of being additional features or included, from “a first retention signal”, “a second retention signal”, a first retention circuit” and “a second retention circuit”. The disclosure doesn’t clarify the issue. Further clarification is needed.
Claims 17-20 depending on claim 16 are rejected for the same reasons as mentioned above.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonring (US PGPUB 2022/0242538) in view of CHO et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0124672).
Regarding claim 1, Gonring teaches a retention circuit diagnostic system (100) comprising: a first retention circuit (122A) configures to output a first retention signal for controlling a contactor (124A) (as shown in fig. 3); a second retention circuit (126A) configured to output a second retention signal for controlling the contactor (124A) (as shown in fig. 3); and a controller (130) configured to transmit a second signal for activating the first retention circuit (122A) and the second retention circuit (126A) (as shown in fig. 3 and disclosed in para. 0035-0037).
Gonring fails to specifically teach a controller configured to transmit a first signal related to a state control of the contactor and configured to diagnose the first retention circuit based on the first retention signal. However, CHO et al. teaches a controller (120) configured to transmit a first signal related to a state control of the contactor (1) and configured to diagnose the first retention circuit (110) based on the first retention signal (as disclosed in para. 0060).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the controller configured to transmit a first signal related to a state control of the contactor and configured to diagnose the first retention circuit based on the first retention signal as taught by CHO et al. with the invention of Gonring in order to accurately determine whether to stop or maintain an operation of the vehicle (CHO et al. para. 0060).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gonring and CHO et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, CHO et al. teaches wherein the controller (120) is configured to determine that the first retention circuit (110) operates normally based on the first retention signal being within a predetermined level range (for example, based on five seconds of the counting time, as disclosed in para. 0052).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the controller configured to transmit a first signal related to a state control of the contactor and configured to determine that the first retention circuit operates normally based on the first retention signal being within a predetermined level range as taught by CHO et al. with the invention of Gonring in order to maintain the connection state of the contact point of the contactor for a predetermined time (CHO et al. para. 0051).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gonring and CHO et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, CHO et al. teaches wherein the controller (120) is configured to determine whether the contactor (1) is in an open state or in a closed state (as disclosed in para. 0048), and is configured to transmit the second signal to the first retention circuit (110) based on the contactor (1) being in the open state (as disclosed in para. 0048).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the controller configured to determine whether the contactor is in an open state or in a closed state, and is configured to transmit the second signal to the first retention circuit based on the contactor being in the open state as taught by CHO et al. with the invention of Gonring in order for the controller to directly control an operation state of the contactor (CHO et al. para. 0048).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gonring and CHO et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, CHO et al. teaches wherein the controller (120) is configured to initialize the first retention circuit (110) based on completion of a diagnosis of the first retention circuit (110) (as shown in fig. 4 and disclosed in para. 0053-0054).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the controller configured to initialize the first retention circuit based on completion of a diagnosis of the first retention circuit as taught by CHO et al. with the invention of Gonring in order to continue to avoid halting the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gonring and CHO et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, CHO et al. teaches wherein the controller (120) is configured to output fault information based on the first retention circuit (110) performing an abnormal operation (as shown in fig. 4 step S405a).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the controller configured to output fault information based on the first retention circuit performing an abnormal operation as taught by CHO et al. with the invention of Gonring in order to help a user recognize the fault.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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.
Claims 9-15 are allowed.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 6-8, the prior art fails to specifically teach a retention circuit diagnostic system comprising: wherein the controller is configured to transmit the first signal to the second retention circuit, and to diagnose the second retention circuit based on the second retention signal output from the second retention circuit, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claims 9-15, the prior art fails to specifically teach a retention circuit diagnostic system comprising: a second retention circuit configured to output a second retention signal for controlling a second contactor; and a controller configured to generate a test signal for testing each of the first retention circuit and the second retention circuit, and configured to diagnose at least one of the first retention circuit or the second retention circuit based on at least one of the first retention signal or the second retention signal, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claims 16-20, the prior art fails to specifically teach a diagnosis method of a retention circuit, the diagnosis method comprising: obtaining a first retention signal output form a first retention circuit; obtaining a second retention signal output from a second retention circuit; and diagnosing whether the first retention circuit or the second retention circuit operates normally based on the first retention signal or the second retention signal, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
RICH et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0150182) teaches verifying operation of battery contactors during vehicle operation without loss of power.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
