CTNF 18/764,737 CTNF 84694 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5) because Figure 3 shows modified forms of construction in the same view as shown in Figure 1. For example, Figure 1 discloses relay 30 which is connected between battery module 14 and variable resistor 44, the charger inlet 118; and relay 34 which is connected between battery module 12 and variable resistor 44. However, Figure 3 discloses relay 30 which is connected between battery module 12 and variable resistor 44; and relay 34 which is connected between battery module 14 and variable resistor 44. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 07-30-03-h AIA CLAIM INTERPRETATION 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims 1-5 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control device configured to control opening and closing of the relays and a resistance value of the variable resistor , wherein the control device is configured to execute a current adjustment process for reducing the resistance value of the variable resistor continuously or stepwise after controlling the relays to form the parallel circuit” (emphasis added), as recited in the base claim 1; “the control device is configured to estimate or detect at least one of an open circuit voltage difference between the first battery module and the second battery module and a circulation current flowing between the first battery module and the second battery module ; and determine the resistance value of the variable resistor based on at least one of the open circuit voltage difference and the circulation current” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 2; “the control device is configured to determine the resistance value of the variable resistor ” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 3; and “the control device is configured to electrically open the bypass circuit during execution of the current adjustment process , and conduct the bypass circuit after completion of the current adjustment process ” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 4. Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-5 have been treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (See paragraphs [0026]-0027]; and in conjunction with Fig. 1) as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 1 is indefinite because the limitation “ control opening and closing of the relays and a resistance value of the variable resistor , wherein the control device is configured to execute a current adjustment process for reducing the resistance value of the variable resistor continuously or stepwise after controlling the relays to form the parallel circuit” is unclear. For example, it is not clear how the control device can perform the above recited functions. It is well known in the art that the control device is a device that causes an apparatus or other device to be controlled to operation . Since, the control device does not include any other element to perform the above functions. Therefore, the above recited functions are not supported by the recited control device. Furthermore, claims 2-5 are rejected due to their dependencies on the base claim 1. For claims 1-5 , Claimed element “control device” is limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The specification merely recites the function and does not identify any specific structure in detail for the above specified limitations. It is noted that the use of the term “control device” is not adequate structure for performing specialized function because they do not describe a particular structure for performing the function. For claim 5 , the recitations “when the power supply device supplies the electric power to the motor, control the connection circuit to form the series to connect the first battery module and the second battery module in series to the motor” (emphasis added) and “when the power supply device is charged by the external power supply, control the connection circuit to form the parallel circuit to connect the first battery module and the second battery module in parallel to the charging inlet” (emphasis added) are unclear. They are understood which element(s) is/are used to control the connection circuit to form the series or parallel circuit. Clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-5 are ineligible. Claim interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 is a power supply device. The machine/apparatus involves multiple mental steps. Step 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites an apparatus (claim 1), Thus, the claim 1-5 are to a machine, which is one of statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes). Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The claim still must be reviewed to determine if it recites any other type of judicial exception. Limitations receiving data (i.e., “execute a current adjustment process”, on lines 12-13 of claim 1; ; and “estimate or detect at least one of an open circuit voltage difference”, on line 3 of claim 2) and performing mathematical calculations (i.e. “execute a current adjustment process for reducing the resistance value of the variable resistor”, on lines 12-13 of claim 1; “determine the resistance value of the variable resistor based on at least one of the open voltage difference and the circulation current”, on lines 6-7 or claim 2; “ determine the resistance value of the variable resistor to control a product of the open circuit voltage difference and the circulation current to be equal to or smaller than a predetermined threshold value” (emphasis added), on lines 2-4 of claim 3), are all mental steps as evident from the disclosure. The grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, and in fact specifically includes “mathematical relationships” and “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, these limitations recite a concept that falls into the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas. These limitations also fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving algebraic equations in their minds using a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii) and (iii). As explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 Update, in situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II), and October 2019 Update at Section I.B. Thus, for purposes of further discussion, this example considers these limitations as a single abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section Ill(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites the additional elements “control device” in claims 1-5, which uses control device to perform the recited steps. The control device in the above steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. An evaluation of whether limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong Two analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well- understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not limitation is well- known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, these additional elements are recited so generically that they represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(d). It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of the short primary linear motor does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(l) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES). Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of using control device to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. A control device to no more than well-understood, routine or conventional which is notoriously well-known. Also, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Such as “execute”, “determine”, etc.). The claims are not patent eligible. Thus, claims 1-5 are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 2022/0227256 A1) . For claim 1 , Yu discloses a power supply device (Fig. 2 of Yu discloses a power supply device 200 -- see Yu, Fig. 2, paragraph [0049]) comprising: a first battery module and a second battery module chargeable by an external power supply (Figs. 2 and 4 of Yu disclose a first battery module 402 and a second battery module 404 chargeable by an external power supply (generator connected to high voltage bus 27) – see Yu, Figs. 2 and 4, paragraphs [0052]-[0053] and [0070]-[0071]); a connection circuit including a plurality of relays and configured to selectively form a series circuit and a parallel circuit, the series circuit being a circuit in which the first battery module and the second battery module are connected in series, and the parallel circuit being a circuit in which the first battery module and the second battery module are connected in parallel (Figs. 4-5 of Yu disclose a connection circuit 400 including a plurality of relays A, B, C, D and configured to selectively form a series circuit (switch C turns ON and other switches AB, D turn OFF) and a parallel circuit (Switch C turns OFF and other switches A/B and D turn ON) the series circuit being a circuit in which the first battery module 402 and the second battery module 404 are connected in series, and the parallel circuit being a circuit in which the first battery module 402 and the second battery module 404 are connected in parallel – see Yu, Figs. 4-5, abstract, paragraphs [0073]-[0074], [0083] and [0087]); a variable resistor provided in the connection circuit and interposed between the first battery module and the second battery module in the parallel circuit (Figs. 4-5 of Yu discloses a variable resistor 408 provided in the connection circuit 400 and interposed between the first battery module 402 and the second battery module 404 in the parallel circuit – see Figs. 4-5, paragraphs [0087], [0097]-[0098] and [0107]); and a control device configured to control opening and closing of the relays and a resistance value of the variable resistor (Figs. 2-5 of Yu discloses a control device 26/30 configured to control opening and closing of the relays (A, B, C, D) and a resistance value of the variable resistor 408 – see Yu, Figs. 4-5, paragraphs [0058]-[0059], [0081]-[0083], [0087]-[0088] and [0097]-[0099]), wherein the control device is configured to execute a current adjustment process for reducing the resistance value of the variable resistor continuously or stepwise after controlling the relays to form the parallel circuit (Figs. 2-5 of Yu discloses a control device 26/30 configured to execute a current adjustment process (see Yu, Figs 4-5, paragraphs [0032] and [0082]-[0092]) which is silent for reducing the resistance value of the variable resistor continuously or stepwise after controlling the relays to form the parallel circuit. However, Yu discloses, in the current adjustment process, the resistance value of the variable resistor 408 which is controlled so that the resistance value increases as the current increases (see Yu, paragraph [0098]). Speak differently, Yu obviously discloses the resistance value of the variable resistor which continuously reduces as the current decreases after controlling the relays to form the parallel circuit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Yu to include the control device which is configured to execute a current adjustment process for reducing the resistance value of the variable resistor continuously or stepwise after controlling the relays to form the parallel circuit for purpose of control power for system efficiently). For claim 2 , Yu discloses the power supply device according to claim 1, wherein the control device is configured to: estimate or detect at least one of an open circuit voltage difference between the first battery module and the second battery module and a circulation current flowing between the first battery module and the second battery module (see Yu, Fig. 4, paragraph [0067]); and determine the resistance value of the variable resistor based on at least one of the open circuit voltage difference and the circulation current (see Yu, Fig. 4, paragraphs [0095]-[0099]). For claim 3 , Yu discloses all limitation as applied to claim 2 above. Yu discloses the control device which is silent for determining the resistance value of the variable resistor to control a product of the open circuit voltage difference and the circulation current to be equal to or smaller than a predetermined threshold value. However, since the voltage difference between the fist battery module 402 and the second battery module 404 is adjusted by adjusting the resistance value of the variable resistor 408 to control a product of the open circuit (Mode M2 or M4) voltage difference and the circulation current to be equal to or smaller than a predetermined threshold value (see Yu, Figs. 2 and 4-5, paragraphs [0090]-[0092]). Also, the so-called “a predetermined threshold value” is undefined, any values of circulation current is considered to be equal to or smaller than a predetermined threshold value. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Yu to include determining the resistance value of the variable resistor to control a product of the open circuit voltage difference and the circulation current to be equal to or smaller than a predetermined threshold value for purpose of control power for system efficiently. For claim 4 , Yu discloses the power supply device according to claim 1, wherein: the connection circuit includes a bypass circuit configured to bypass the variable resistor via at least one of the relays (Fig. 4 of Yu discloses the connection circuit (A, B, C, D) includes a bypass circuit (relay B) configured to bypass the variable resistor 408 via at least one of the relays (close relay B) – see Yu, Fig. 4, paragraph [0102]); and the control device is configured to electrically open the bypass circuit during execution of the current adjustment process, and conduct the bypass circuit after completion of the current adjustment process (see Yu, Figs. 4-5, paragraphs [0102]-[0108]). For claim 5 , Yu discloses an electrified vehicle (Fig. 1 of Yu discloses an electrified vehicle 10 -- see Yu, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0046]-[0047]) comprising: a motor configured to drive a wheel (Fig. 2 of Yu discloses a motor 28 configured to drive wheel – see Yu, Fig. 2, paragraphs [0055]-[0056]); the power supply device according to claim 1 that is configured to supply electric power to the motor (see Yu, Fig. 2 and explanation in claim 1 above); and a charging inlet configured such that the external power supply is attachable to and detachable from the charging inlet, wherein the control device is configured to (Figs. 2 and 4 of Yu disclose a charging inlet (22, 24) configured such that the external power supply is attachable to and detachable from the charging inlet (22, 24) – see Yu, Figs. 2 and 4, paragraphs [0052]-[0053]), wherein the control device is configured to: when the power supply device supplies the electric power to the motor, control the connection circuit to form the series circuit to connect the first battery module and the second battery module in series to the motor (see Yu, Figs. 4-5, paragraphs [0083]-[0085]); and when the power supply device is charged by the external power supply, control the connection circuit to form the parallel circuit to connect the first battery module and the second battery module in parallel to the charging inlet (see Yu, Figs. 4-5, paragraphs [0087]-[0090]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-3852. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-3852. 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 at (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. /THAI T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 May 27, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/764,737 Page 2 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/764,737 Page 3 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/764,737 Page 4 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/764,737 Page 5 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/764,737 Page 6 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/764,737 Page 7 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/764,737 Page 8 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/764,737 Page 9 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/764,737 Page 10 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/764,737 Page 11 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/764,737 Page 12 Art Unit: 2837 Application/Control Number: 18/764,737 Page 13 Art Unit: 2837
Prosecution Insights