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 .
This is a response to the amendment filed 7/31/2025. Claim 1 is pending and are under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Inoue (US 2024/0157916).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue’s figure 1X shows a first power supply (10) for supplying electric power to a load (32a, 32b), and a second power supply (24, 22) connected to the first power supply, wherein the second power supply comprises a battery unit (24), a bidirectional DC-DC converter (22 is bidirectional because it can be charged and discharged), and a switching device (20), the battery unit is configured to be charged with electric power supplied from the first power supply via the bidirectional DC-DC converter, and configured to supply electric power to the load via the bidirectional DC-DC converter when electric power is not supplied from the first power supply to the load, the switching device is configured to cut off a connection between the first power supply and the bidirectional DC-DC converter when the voltage of the first power supply becomes equal to or lower than a threshold value, and the switching device comprises two FETs which are opposed to each other and connected therebetween by connecting drains to each other as called for in claim 1.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mitani et al. (US 2023/0192017).
Regarding claim 1, Mitani et al.’s figure 1 shows a first power supply (2) for supplying electric power to a load (3), and a second power supply (7, 8) connected to the first power supply, wherein the second power supply comprises a battery unit (5), a bidirectional DC-DC converter (7 is bidirectional because it can be charged and discharged), and a switching device (10), the battery unit is configured to be charged with electric power supplied from the first power supply via the bidirectional DC-DC converter, and configured to supply electric power to the load via the bidirectional DC-DC converter when electric power is not supplied from the first power supply to the load, the switching device is configured to cut off a connection between the first power supply and the bidirectional DC-DC converter when the voltage of the first power supply becomes equal to or lower than a threshold value, and the switching device comprises two FETs which are opposed to each other and connected therebetween by connecting drains to each other as called for in claim 1.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakushima et al. (US 2023/0085180) in view of Misuda et al. (US 2013/0241466) and Carter (USP 7,893,560).
Regarding claim 1, Hakushima et al.’s figures 2-8 shows a power supply system comprising a first power supply (10) for supplying electric power to a load (101, 103), and a second power supply (20) connected to the first power supply via a switches 41, 42 (figure 6), and a switching device (41, 42), wherein the second power supply is configured to be charged with electric power supplied from the first power supply (figure 6), and configured to supply electric power to the load (103) when electric power is not supplied from the first power supply to the load (see figure 4), and the switching device (41) is configured to cut off a connection between the first power supply and the second power supply when the voltage of the first power supply becomes equal to or lower than a threshold value (figure 4 when fault grounds occurs and sensed by sensors 51 and 52).
The difference seen between Hakushima et al. and the present invention are: (1) the second power comprises a battery unit and bidirectional DC-DC converter; (2) the switching device comprises two FETs which are opposed to each other and connected therebetween by connecting drains to each other as called for in claim 1.
Regarding the difference noted in item (1), Misuda et al.’s figure 1 shows a backup power supply unit comprising a battery unit (1) and bidirectional DC-DC converter (3, bidirectional converter because it is capable of charging and discharging). The combination of DC-DC converter and the battery unit is to prolong the cycle life of the repeated charging/discharging the battery unit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Hakushima et al.’s second power supply unit by including a bidirectional DC-DC for the purpose of prolong the cycle life of the repeated charging/discharging the battery unit as taught by Misuda et al. reference.
Regarding the difference noted in item (2), Carter reference shows a power supply system using two FET switches opposed to each other and connected therebetween (208) by connecting drains to each other for connecting and disconnecting the power supply to a load/between power supply sources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have Carter’s two switches opposed to each other in Hakushima et al.’s circuit arrangement as taught by Carter reference.
Conclusion
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 TUAN THIEU LAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 am to 5:00 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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at 571-272-1988. 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.
/TUAN T LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 9/6/2025