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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are still pending.
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 1-6 and 8-14 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. The phrase “in the event safety components of the electric vehicle become unavailable” in line 11 in claim 1 fails to have any support in the specification. The examiner suggests that the phrase should be deleted or modified.
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 1-6 and 8-14 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. The phrase “in the event safety components of the electric vehicle become unavailable” in line 11 in claim 1 is indefinite because it was an attempt to claim the invention by excluding what the inventors did not invent rather than distinctly and particularly pointing out what they did invent. In re Schechter, 205 F.2d 185, 98 USPQ 144 (CCPA 1953)
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths et al. US 2020/0274375 A1 in a view of Wang et al. US 12,057,732 B2
Regarding claim 1, Griffiths discloses
A high-voltage component (Other systems for Pumping operation) of an electric vehicle [0374, 0375], wherein the high-voltage component is configured to be connected to a high-voltage traction battery (Item 104) of the electric vehicle, said high-voltage component comprising: at least one electric machine (Item 106); a power electronic (Items 404 along with DC/DC) assembly which is configured to convert a high voltage of the traction battery into an operating voltage for the at least one electric machine (The electric machine runs using power from the battery), wherein the power electronic assembly has a converter DC link with a DC link capacitor arrangement (Figs. 64 and 184 shows a DC link with filter capacitors 6404 and a CAP) [0500]; and a control assembly (Item 102) which is configured to be connected to a low-voltage on-board electrical system of the electric vehicle and comprises a control unit (Item 102 itself), wherein the power electronic assembly has an integrated DC-DC voltage converter (DC/DC) which is connected to the control assembly and which is configured to convert the high voltage of the traction battery into a voltage corresponding to the voltage of the low-voltage on-board electrical system (Auto Loads) of the electric vehicle.
Griffiths does not disclose but Wang et al. disclose which is configured to initiate an active electrical discharge of the DC link capacitor (item 116) arrangement in the event safety components of the electric vehicle become unavailable (column 8, lines 15-35, column 12, lines 51-67, column 13, lines 1-26) (The battery contactor can be opened to isolate item 116 and item 118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to initiate an active electrical discharge of the DC link capacitor as disclosed by Wang in Griffiths teachings to avoid any damage to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Griffiths discloses
, wherein the high-voltage component has at least one pump device which is connected to the electric machine [0547].
Regarding claim 3, Griffiths discloses the pump device but does not mention “a hydraulic internal gear pump”. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a hydraulic internal gear pump because it has high efficiency and the ability to handle high-viscosity fluids.
Regarding claim 4, Griffiths alternate embodiment discloses
, wherein the power electronic assembly has an EMI filter (Fig. 254 discloses EMI filter). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an EMI filter in Fig. 4 to suppress noise on DC bus.
Regarding claim 5, Griffiths discloses
, wherein the power electronic assembly has a circuit breaker (IGBT) by way of which the electric machine is connected to the power electronic assembly [0624].
Regarding claim 6, Griffiths discloses
, wherein the circuit breaker is an insulated-gate bipolar transistor [0624].
Regarding claim 8, Griffiths does not disclose but Wang et al. disclose, wherein the control unit (item 108) is configured to initiate the active electrical discharge of the DC link capacitor arrangement in the event of a fault or crash (Wang’s column 8, lines 15-35, column 12, lines 51-67, column 13, lines 1-26).
Regarding claim 9, Griffiths does not disclose but Wang et al. disclose wherein the control unit (item 108) is configured to initiate an active phase short-circuit of the electric machine in the event of a fault or crash (Wang’s column 8, lines 15-35, column 12, lines 51-67, column 13, lines 1-26).
Regarding claim 10, Griffiths discloses
, wherein the high-voltage component forms part of an active damping regulation apparatus (Oscillation) of the electric vehicle [0644].
Regarding claim 11, Griffiths discloses
An electric vehicle comprising the high-voltage component of claim 1 [0374].
Regarding claim 12, Griffiths does not disclose but Wang et al. disclose, wherein the control assembly is configured to tripper safety functions of the electrical vehicle when a vehicle fault (a condition indicative of a call to discharge) or vehicle crash is detected (Wang’s column 8, lines 15-35, column 12, lines 51-67, column 13, lines 1-26).
Regarding claim 13, Griffiths discloses, wherein the at least one electric machine is connected to a pump device [0547], and Wang discloses the control unit (item 108) is configured to initiate an active phase short-circuit of the electric machine to prevent rotation of a pump device (Wang’s column 3, lines 20-28, column 8, lines 15-35, column 12, lines 51-67, column 13, lines 1-26) (pump is non-propulsion electric component).
Regarding claim 14, Griffiths discloses wherein the at least one electric machine is connected to a pump device [0547], and Wang discloses the control unit is configured to initiate an active phase short-circuit of the electric machine to prevent the pump device from inducing an electrical voltage during movement of a body of the electric vehicle (Wang’s column 3, lines 20-28, column 8, lines 15-35, column 12, lines 51-67, column 13, lines 1-26) (pump is non-propulsion electric component).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot over a new prior art (see updated claim rejection for details).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EL-BARBARI et al. (US 2024/0088812 A1) disclose active discharge of the DC link capacitor by short-circuits during crash.
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 BICKEY DHAKAL whose telephone number is (571)272-3577. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272-2060. 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.
/BICKEY DHAKAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights