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 § 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.
Claim(s) 4-6 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 4, the limitation “one of battery banks” is unclear because it may be referring to the existing at least one battery bank or this may be a new battery bank. Amending the claim to refer instead to –the at least one battery bank—would overcome this rejection.
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, 2, 8, & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka (US 20150202968 A1).
Regarding claims 1 & 2 Hatanaka teaches a traction system of a rail vehicle (FIG. 2: depicted) comprising an electric traction motor (FIG. 2: 4), a traction battery (FIG. 2: 9) having a traction voltage, the traction battery being connected to the electric traction motor (FIG. 2: depicted), wherein the traction system further comprises an internal combustion engine (FIG. 2: 7) and a starting device configured to start the internal combustion engine (FIG. 12: G1 and associated structure acts as a starter), the starting device being connected to the traction battery by a power supply connection arranged to supply the starting device with a starting voltage (FIG. 12: depicted), but does not teach that the traction voltage has a rated value greater than or equal to 800v or that the starting voltage is strictly lower than the traction voltage.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hatanaka to use a traction voltage of at least 800 volts and a starting voltage of 10 to 30 volts, so as to achieve an optimal power transfer, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. See, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Moreover, Applicant should note that nothing of record, nor known in the art, suggests that using the specific claimed range or value yields any previously unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8 Hatanaka as modified above teaches that the traction battery comprises two voltage terminals (FIG. 2: depicted with the multiple wires coming out of it) having the traction voltage therebetween (this is how batteries work) and being connected to the electric traction motor (FIG. 2: depicted through the wires).
Regarding claim 11 Hatanaka as modified above teaches a rail vehicle comprising the system of claim 1 (paragraph 1).
Claim(s) 3-7 & 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka (US 20150202968 A1) in view of Ganor (WO 2012123815 A1).
Regarding claim 3 Hatanaka as modified above does not explicitly teach that the traction battery comprises at least one bank of batteries comprising a plurality of battery cells connected in series, however Ganor does teach the use of battery cells connected in series (FIG. 2: 101). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively used a plurality of battery cells as taught by Ganor in order to output high voltage and provide optimal power delivery.
Regarding claim 4 Hatanaka as modified above teaches wherein the power supply connection comprises a first cable connecting the starting device to an intermediate terminal of the traction battery, the intermediate terminal being electrically connected to one of battery banks, referred to as starting power bank, between two adjacent battery cells of the plurality of battery cells connected to said starting power bank (as a result of the combination, indirectly connected to an intermediate terminal through a non-intermediate terminal).
Regarding claim 5 Hatanaka as modified above teaches that the power supply connection comprises a second cable connecting the starting device to an end of said starting power bank (Hatanaka, FIG. 1: depicted with three cables).
Regarding claim 6 Hatanaka as modified above does not explicitly teach that the end of said starting power bank has a voltage substantially equal to zero with respect to chassis ground, however official notice is taken that it is commonly known in the art to have one terminal of a battery in a vehicle be grounded to the chassis. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have grounded one terminal of the battery to the chassis in order to enhance safety.
Regarding claim 7 Hatanaka as modified above teaches that the traction battery comprises a plurality of banks of batteries connected parallel to each other (Ganor, FIG. 2: depicted).
Regarding claim 9 Hatanaka as modified above does not explicitly teach that the traction battery comprises at least one bank of batteries, wherein the traction battery comprises at least one switch configured to electrically separate one of said two voltage terminals from at least one bank of batteries, and/or wherein the traction battery comprises, for the or each bank of batteries, a fuse of switch configured to electrically separate the at least one bank of batteries from one of said two voltage terminals.
However, Ganor does teach a bank of batteries (FIG. 2: 101), wherein the traction battery comprises at least one switch configured to electrically separate one of said two voltage terminals from at least one bank of batteries (FIG. 2: 1210), and wherein the traction battery comprises, for the or each bank of batteries, a switch configured to electrically separate the at least one bank of batteries from one of said two voltage terminals (FIG. 2: 202a and/or 202b). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively used a plurality of battery cells as taught by Ganor in order to output high voltage and provide optimal power delivery.
Regarding claim 10 Hatanaka as modified above does not explicitly teach that the traction battery comprises a controller configured to permit a powering of the starting device by the starting voltage when the traction voltage is higher than a predetermined threshold and/or when a temperature of the traction battery is comprised within a predetermined range of temperatures, however Ganor does teach a controller as claimed (paragraph 30). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included the battery controller of Ganor with the traction system of Hatanaka in order to enhance safety.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka (US 20150202968 A1) in view of Castelli et al. (FR 3126351 A1, herein after referred to as Castelli).
Regarding claim 12 Hatanaka as modified above does not explicitly teach an on-board battery distinct from the traction battery configured to power an on-board network of the rail vehicle, however Castelli does (FIG. 2: 20; abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have alternatively included the on-board network battery of Castelli with the traction system of Hatanaka in order to provide redundant power supply in the event of a main traction battery failure.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not replied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO 892 teach traction systems of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXWELL L MESHAKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4:00.
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, Samuel J Morano IV can be reached on (571) 272-6684. 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.
/MAXWELL L MESHAKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights