Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/714,560

Method for Controlling an On-Board Power Supply System for a Motor Vehicle, On-Board Power Supply System and Motor Vehicle

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
May 29, 2024
Examiner
PARRIES, DRU M
Art Unit
2836
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
OA Round
2 (Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
389 granted / 616 resolved
-4.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
651
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
64.6%
+24.6% vs TC avg
§102
26.8%
-13.2% vs TC avg
§112
6.9%
-33.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 616 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 102 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (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) 11-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (2019/0275968). Regarding independent claims 11 and 15, Kim teaches (Fig. 3) a method for controlling an on-board power supply system for a motor vehicle, wherein the motor vehicle comprises a high-tension voltage network (below 70) that supplies high-voltage loads (60) with high-tension voltage from a high-voltage energy store (10), a low-tension voltage network (above 70) that supplies low-voltage loads (30) with low-tension voltage, and a main converter (70) that converts the high-tension voltage in the high-tension voltage network into the low-tension voltage in the low-tension voltage network, the method comprising: during the parking phase (i.e. turning the vehicle OFF): introducing a predefined quantity of energy (based on the SOC of one of the batteries, 10 and 81) from the high-tension voltage network into the low-tension voltage network via a bypass converter (80) so as to power operation of the low-voltage loads (30) during the parking phase ([0045], [0046], [0049], [0054]-[0056]); and switching off the bypass converter assembly when the introduced quantity of energy exceeds a maximum quantity of energy permitted by a battery management system (90) to be drawn from the high-voltage energy store to power operation of the low-voltage loads during the parking phase ([0055]). Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the maximum permissible quantity of energy is determined by the battery management system (based on SOC of battery 81) and is communicated to the bypass converter assembly (via control signals) prior to the switch-off of the battery management system during the parking phase of the motor vehicle. Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the maximum permissible quantity of energy is determined by the battery management system by reference to the weakest cell of the high- voltage energy store ([0049]; determines the “discharge possibility” of the HV energy store, which has reference to the weakest cell). Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches for the determination of the maximum permissible quantity of energy, the ambient temperature, the temperature of the high-voltage energy store and/or the state-of-health of cells in the high-voltage energy store are considered ([0049]; when considering “discharge possibility”, the state-of-health of cells are considered). Regarding claims 16, Kim teaches the main converter being configured as a DC/DC converter (from a battery to a battery) having a maximum capacity of at least 1 kW ([0036]). Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches the bypass converter assembly (80) being configured as a DC/DC converter having a maximum capacity not exceeding 100 W ([0036]). Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches a motor vehicle having the on-board power supply system of claim 15 (Abstract). Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches the motor vehicle comprising an electric drive machine (60) for electric driving operation, and wherein the high-voltage energy store (10) is designed to supply energy to the electric drive machine ([0039]). 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) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2019/0275968). Kim teaches the on-board power supply system as described above. Kim fails to explicitly teach the bypass converter assembly being integrated in the high-voltage energy store. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structurally integrate the bypass converter assembly in the high-voltage energy store, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed January 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the Examiner believes that the Kim reference does teach (at [0055]) powering the operation of the loads 30 during the parking phase (i.e. vehicle is OFF). Second, the Examiner believes the Applicant isn’t giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. The phrase “when the introduced quantity of energy exceeds a maximum quantity of energy permitted…to be drawn from the high-voltage energy store” could simply mean whenever the battery management system deems it necessary to stop supplying power (that’s the amount of energy permitted). So, in the rejection, that permitted amount is equal to the amount introduced during charging until when the charging amount of battery 81 is equal to or greater than the preset charging amount (as taught in [0055] of Kim). Kim teaches charging the battery 81 (via the second converter 80) while also powering operation of the low-voltage loads at the same time. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. 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 2/10/2026 /DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 29, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 28, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583335
APPARATUS COMPRISING AN INVERTER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587030
POWER SUPPLY SWITCHING SYSTEM AND SWITCH APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12558984
Resilient Charging Station
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12549005
FLICKER PREVENTION DEVICE AND FLICKER PREVENTION CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539957
EMERGENCY BACKUP POWER SOURCE AND CONTROL CIRCUIT FOR ELECTRICALLY OPERATED AIRCRAFT WINDOW SHADES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (+13.0%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 616 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month