The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of 10/28/2025 have been entered and considered. Upon entering amendment, claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9 have been amended, and claims 12-15 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-15 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art’s control circuit that monitors an output voltage is not “according to a predetermined monitoring cycle” as currently amended (see Remarks, pg.8). In particular, applicant argues that Stein is silent with respect to a “control circuit monitoring the ignition voltage drops according to a predetermined monitoring cycle as provided for in independent claim 1.” (Remarks, pg.8) The examiner respectfully disagrees in that the claims do not recite the ignition voltage drops are monitored according to predetermined monitoring cycle. Instead, the claim broadly recites the “output voltage of the vehicle power supply” is monitored “according to a predetermined monitoring cycle.” Stein, Col.8, lines 12-22 teaches that the control circuit read on by the microcontroller that monitors the output voltage of the vehicle power supply has a “program” that “simply loops back and senses the ignition voltage again…” This reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “predetermined monitoring cycle” noting that the control circuit does not randomly monitor or do things on a whim- it is preprogrammed to know what to do and when. The applicant did not provide any analysis of the amended claim language to explain why “according to a predetermined monitoring cycle” adds any structure/functionality that is not in Stein’s programmed loop and measurements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12, 14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,191,704 in view of Stein et al. (5,899,082).
Regarding Claim 1,
Claim 1 of Patent No.12,191,704 teaches a vehicle power management system, adapted for a vehicle load device and a vehicle power supply, the vehicle power management system comprising: a control circuit, electrically connected to the vehicle power supply and the vehicle load device, the control circuit monitoring an output voltage of the vehicle power supply and determining according to the output voltage whether a vehicle engine is started; a charge/discharge circuit, electrically connected to the control circuit and the vehicle load device; and a backup battery, electrically connected to the charge/discharge circuit; wherein, when the vehicle engine is started, the charge/discharge circuit supplies power of the vehicle power supply to the backup battery and the vehicle load device; when the vehicle engine is not started, the backup battery discharges through the charge/discharge circuit and the charge/discharge circuit supplies power of the backup battery to the vehicle load device (see Patent No.12,191,704 claim 1).
While the recitation of “according to a predetermined monitoring cycle” is implied in the language of the control circuit since the control circuit does not randomly monitor the output voltage, Patent Claim 1, however, does not explicitly recite “according to a predetermined monitoring cycle”.
Stein, however, teaches the control circuit monitoring the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is according to a predetermined monitoring cycle (Col.4, lines 30-39, Col.8, lines 12-22; the microcontroller/control circuit that monitors the output voltage of the vehicle power supply has a program that “loops back and senses the ignition voltage again…” This is a “predetermined monitoring cycle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined teachings of Patent Claim 1 to that of Stein. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps in Patent Claim 1’s control circuit monitoring an output voltage of the vehicle power supply to obviously include a predetermined monitoring cycle in order to provide a structured and reliable way for the control circuit to implement the monitoring of the vehicle power supply’s output voltage.
Regarding Claim 2,
Claims 1-2 of Patent No.12,191,704 in view of Stein teaches the vehicle power management system according to claim 1, further comprising: a first switch circuit, electrically connected to the control circuit, the charge/discharge circuit and the vehicle power supply; wherein, the control circuit causes the first switch circuit to be in an on state when the vehicle engine is started, and causes the first switch circuit to be in an off state when the vehicle engine is not started (See Patent claim 2).
Regarding Claim 3,
Claims 1-3 of Patent No.12,191,704 in view of Stein teaches the vehicle power management system according to claim 2, wherein the control circuit is set with an allowed input voltage range and a voltage threshold, and the voltage threshold is within the allowed input voltage range; when the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is within the allowed input voltage range and is greater than or equal to the voltage threshold, the control circuit causes the first switch circuit to be in the on state; when the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is not within the allowed input voltage range or is smaller than the voltage threshold, the control circuit causes the first switch circuit to be in the off state (See Patent Claim 3).
Regarding Claim 4,
Claims 1-2 of Patent No.12,191,704 in view of Stein teaches wherein the control circuit is electrically connected to the vehicle load device (see Patent claim 1); when the first switch circuit is in the on state and the control circuit learns that a monitored power loss of the vehicle load device is greater than or equal to a power threshold (see Patent claims 1 and 2; “…first switch to be in an on state when the vehicle engine is started” and “when the vehicle engine is started and the control circuit monitors a power loss…”), the control circuit causes the first switch circuit to switch from the on state to the off state, and the charge/discharge circuit supplies the power of the backup battery to the vehicle load device (see Patent Claims 1 and 2; Patent claim 1 teaches the charge/discharge circuit supplies power of the backup battery to the vehicle load when the monitored power loss of the vehicle load is greater than a threshold and Patent Claims 1 and 2 teaches the control circuit causes the first switch circuit to be in an off state when the vehicle engine is not started to supply power of the backup battery to the load- thus, causing it to switch from an on state to an off state); when the first switch circuit is in the on state and the control circuit learns that the monitored power loss of the vehicle load device is smaller than the power threshold (see Patent claims 1 and 2; “…first switch to be in an on state when the vehicle engine is started” and “when the vehicle engine is started and the control circuit monitors that the power loss…is smaller than the power threshold…”), the charge/discharge circuit supplies the power of the vehicle power supply to the backup battery and the vehicle load device (see Patent Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 5,
Claims 1-2, 4 of Patent No.12,191,704 in view of Stein teaches the vehicle power management system according to claim 2, further comprising: a second switch circuit, electrically connected to the charge/discharge circuit, the control circuit and the vehicle load device; wherein, the control circuit is further set with an allowed output voltage range; the control circuit causes the second switch circuit to be in an on state when an output voltage of the charge/discharge circuit is within the allowed output voltage range, and causes the second switch circuit to be in an off state when the output voltage of the charge/discharge circuit is not within the allowed output voltage range (See Patent Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 6,
Claim 5 of Patent No.12,191,704 teaches an operating method of a vehicle power management system, the operating method comprising: monitoring an output voltage of a vehicle power supply by a control circuit; determining according to the output voltage by the control circuit whether a vehicle engine is started; when the vehicle engine is started, supplying power of the vehicle power supply to a backup battery and a vehicle load device by a charge/discharge circuit; when the vehicle engine is not started, discharging the charge/discharge circuit by the backup battery; and supplying power of the backup battery to the vehicle load device by the charge/discharge circuit (See Patent claim 5).
While the recitation of “according to a predetermined monitoring cycle” is implied in the language of the control circuit since the control circuit does not randomly monitor the output voltage, Patent Claim 5, however, does not explicitly recite “according to a predetermined monitoring cycle”.
Stein, however, teaches the control circuit monitoring the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is according to a predetermined monitoring cycle (Col.4, lines 30-39, Col.8, lines 12-22; the microcontroller/control circuit that monitors the output voltage of the vehicle power supply has a program that “loops back and senses the ignition voltage again…” This is a “predetermined monitoring cycle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined teachings of Patent Claim 5 to that of Stein. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps in Patent Claim 5’s control circuit monitoring an output voltage of the vehicle power supply to obviously include a predetermined monitoring cycle in order to provide a structured and reliable way for the control circuit to implement the monitoring of the vehicle power supply’s output voltage.
Regarding Claim 7,
Claims 5-6 of Patent No.12,191,704 in view of Stein teaches the operating method of the vehicle power management system according to claim 6, further comprising: before supplying the power to the backup battery and the vehicle load device by the charge/discharge circuit, causing a first switch circuit connected between the vehicle (See Patent Claim 6)
Regarding Claim 8,
Claims 5, 7 of Patent No.12,191,704 in view of Stein teaches the operating method of the vehicle power management system according to claim 6, further comprising: before discharging the charge/discharge circuit by the backup battery, causing a first switch circuit connected between the vehicle power supply and the charge/discharge circuit to be in an off state by the control circuit (see Patent claim 7).
Regarding Claim 9,
Claims 5-7 of Patent No.12,191,704 in view of Stein teaches monitoring a power loss of the vehicle load device by the control circuit (see Patent Claim 5); when the first switch circuit is in the on state and the control circuit learns that the monitored power loss of the vehicle load device is greater than or equal to a power threshold (Patent claims 5 and 6; “…before supplying power of the vehicle power supply to the backup battery and the vehicle load…causing a first switch circuit…to be in an on state…” and “the control circuit monitors that a power loss… is greater than or equal to a power threshold…”), causing the first switch circuit to switch from the on state to an off state by the control circuit (see Patent claims 5 and 7; cause the first switch to be in an off state before supplying power of the backup battery to the vehicle load), and supplying the power of the backup battery to the vehicle load device by the charge/discharge circuit (see Patent claims 5, 7); and wherein the first switch circuit is in the on state and the control circuit learns that the monitored power loss of the vehicle load device is smaller than the power threshold (Patent claims 5 and 6; “before supplying power of the vehicle power supply to the backup battery and the vehicle load…causing a first switch circuit…to be in an on state…” and “the control circuit monitors that the power loss of the vehicle load device is smaller than the power threshold.”), supplying power of the vehicle power supply to the backup battery and the vehicle load device by the charge/discharge circuit (see Patent claim 5).
Regarding Claim 10,
Claims 5, 8 of Patent No.12,191,704 in view of Stein teaches the operating method of the vehicle power management system according to claim 6, further comprising: determining by the control circuit whether the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is within an allowed voltage range;
when the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is within the allowed voltage range, determining by the control circuit whether the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is greater than or equal to a voltage threshold; when the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is greater than or equal to the voltage threshold, causing a first switch circuit connected between the vehicle power supply and the charge/discharge circuit to be in an on state by the control circuit; and when the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is not within the allowed voltage range or is smaller than the voltage threshold, causing the first switch circuit to be in an off state by the control circuit (See Patent claim 8).
Regarding Claim 11,
Claims 5, 9 of Patent No.12,191,704 in view of Stein teaches the operating method of the vehicle power management system according to claim 10, further comprising: determining by the control circuit whether an output voltage of the charge/discharge circuit is within an allowed output voltage range; when the output voltage of the charge/discharge circuit is within the allowed output voltage range, causing a second switch circuit connected between the charge/discharge circuit and the vehicle load device to be in an on state by the control circuit; and when the output voltage of the charge/discharge circuit is not within the allowed voltage range, causing the second switch circuit to be in an off state by the control circuit (See Patent Claim 9).
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 6 of Patent No.12,191,704 in view of Stein teaches wherein when the vehicle engine is not started, discharging through the charge/discharge circuit by the backup battery and supplying power of the backup battery to the vehicle load device by the charge/discharge circuit comprises discharging through the charge/discharge by the backup battery to supply power of the backup battery to the vehicle load device (see Patent Claim 6). The only distinction between claim 12 and Patent claim 6 is the recitation of “only”, which is not patentably distinct from Patent claim 6, because Patent claim 6 does not recite any other way except for the backup battery to supply power to the vehicle load device. Therefore, “only” is implied from Patent claim 6.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 1 of Patent No.12,191,704 in view of Stein teaches wherein when the vehicle engine is not started, the charge/discharge circuit supplies power of the backup battery to the vehicle load device (see Patent Claim 1). The only distinction between claim 14 and Patent claim 1 is the recitation of “only”, which is not patentably distinct from Patent claim 1, because Patent claim 1 does not recite any other way except for the backup battery to supply power to the vehicle load device. Therefore, “only” is implied from Patent claim 1.
Claims 13, 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,191,704 in view of Stein et al. (5,899,082) in further view of Ito (2004/0174649 A1).
Regarding Claim 13,
Claims 5 and 7 of Patent No.12,191,704 in view of Stein teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 6 and further teaches causing a first state switch circuit connected between the vehicle power supply and the charge/discharge circuit to be in an off state by the control circuit (see Patent claim 7). The combination does not teach determining by the control circuit whether the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is within an allowed voltage range; and when the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is greater than the allowed voltage range, causing the first switch circuit connected to be in the off state.
Ito (fig.2), however, teaches determining by the control circuit (5) whether the output voltage of the power supply (1) is within an allowed voltage range (par [22] and related discussion; i.e., determining the output voltage of power supply 1 is in a normal range/allowed range in which SW is on); and when the output voltage of the power supply is greater than the allowed voltage range (par [22]; when the output voltage exceeds a predetermined level/reference voltage level/the normal range), causing a first switch circuit (“SW”) to be in the off state (par [22]; SW is turned off by 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Ito’s teachings for safety and protection purposes by further using the first switch as a protection switch to protect components downstream of the vehicle power supply from overvoltage conditions.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claims 1 and 2 of Patent No.12,191,704 in view of Stein teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches a first switch circuit, electrically connected to the control circuit, the charge/discharge circuit and the vehicle power supply (see Patent claim 2); wherein the control circuit causes the first switch circuit to be in an off state (see Patent claim 2).
The combination does not teach wherein the control circuit is set with an allowed input voltage range, and when the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is greater than the allowed input voltage range, the control circuit causes the first switch circuit to be in an off state.
Ito (fig.2), however, teaches wherein the control circuit is set with an allowed input voltage range (par [22] and related discussion; the control circuit is set with an allowed input voltage range that is below a predetermined threshold level/ the power supply operates normally), and when the output voltage of the power supply (1) is greater than the allowed input voltage, the control circuit (5) causes the first switch circuit (“SW”) to be in an off state (par [22]; when the output of the power supply exceeds the predetermined level/reference voltage/allowed input voltage range, SW is controlled to be in an off state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Ito’s teachings. The motivation would have been for safety and protection purposes by further using the first switch as a protection switch to protect components downstream of the vehicle power supply from overvoltage conditions.
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) 1, 6, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al Rasheed et al. (2018/0191185 A1) in view of Stein et al. (5,899,082).
Regarding Claim 1,
Al Rasheed teaches a vehicle power management system, adapted for a vehicle load device (102) and a vehicle power supply (104, 110), the vehicle power management system comprising:
a control circuit (200 included in 100), electrically connected to the vehicle power supply and the vehicle load device (see figs.1-3), determining whether a vehicle engine is started (par [26]; “… to determine if the engine is in an ON state or an OFF state”);
a charge/discharge circuit (see fig.2, items 202-1, 202-2, 202-3; Note: the claim does not define the structure of the charge/discharge circuit nor is said structure defined in applicant’s specification), electrically connected to the control circuit and the vehicle load (see figs.1-2);
a backup battery (106), electrically connected to the charge/discharge circuit (see figs.1-2);
wherein, when the vehicle engine is started, the charge/discharge circuit supplies power of the vehicle power supply to the backup battery (106) and the vehicle load device (102, pars [30-31, 35-36]); when the vehicle engine is not started, the backup battery (106) discharges through the charge/discharge circuit (discharge through 202-2 of the “charge/discharge circuit”) and the charge/discharge circuit supplies power of the backup battery (106) to the vehicle load device (102, pars [18, 37-38]; when the engine is in an OFF state, discharge 106 through 202-2 to the load 102).
Al Rasheed teaches the load receives power from the alternator 110 by way of the primary battery 104 (see par [30]) and monitors the voltage of the primary battery 104 (par [27]).
Al Rasheed does not explicitly disclose the control circuit monitoring an output voltage of the vehicle power supply according to a predetermined monitoring cycle and the determination of whether the engine is started is according to the output voltage.
Stein, however, teaches the control circuit monitoring an output voltage of the vehicle power supply (Col.4, lines 30-39, Col.8, lines 12-15, 19-22; control circuit monitors the output voltage/ignition voltage that corresponds to the alternator output to the battery of the vehicle power supply) according to a predetermined monitoring cycle (Col.8, lines 12-22 and related discussion; the microcontroller/control circuit that monitors the output voltage of the vehicle power supply has a “program” that “loops back and senses the ignition voltage again…” This is a “predetermined monitoring cycle”) and the determination of whether the vehicle engine is started is according to the monitored output voltage of the vehicle power supply (Col.4, lines 30-39, Col.8, lines 12-15, 19-22; Stein teaches the ignition voltage corresponds to the alternator output to the battery and determines the engine is ON/started when the output voltage is greater than 13V and the engine is OFF/not started when the output voltage drops below 13V).
Thus, in the combination, the ignition voltage would be between the alternator and the primary battery of the vehicle power supply of Al Rasheed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have relied upon the teachings of Stein. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps in Al Rasheed that already teaches determining whether the engine is in ON/starting state or an OFF/ not starting state (Al Rasheed, par [26]) but does not explicitly teach how the determination is made. One skilled in the art would have obviously looked to Stein to learn how the determination of the engine- whether it is on or off- is made, which would be according to a predetermined monitoring cycle of the output voltage of the “vehicle power supply”.
Examiner Note: The “vehicle power supply” is not defined and where the output voltage is being monitored is also not claimed. Thus, a voltage measurement to determine if the engine is on or off reads on the broad language of the claim as currently presented. It is further noted that the structure of the charge/discharge circuit is not defined in the claim or the applicant’s specification. Therefore, Al Rasheed’s charge/discharge circuit reads on the BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation) of “charge/discharge circuit”.
Regarding Claim 6,
Al Rasheed teaches an operating method of a vehicle power management system, the operating method comprising:
a vehicle power supply (104, 110), a control circuit (200 included in 100);
determine by the control circuit whether a vehicle engine is started (par [26]; “… to determine if the engine is in an ON state or an OFF state”);
when the vehicle engine is started, supplying power of the vehicle power supply to a backup battery (106) and a vehicle load device (102) by a charge/discharge circuit (see fig.2, items 202-1, 202-2, 202-3, pars [30-31, 35-36]. Note: the claim does not define the structure of the charge/discharge circuit nor is said structure defined in applicant’s specification);
when the vehicle engine is not started, discharging through the charge/discharge circuit by the backup battery (106) (discharge through 202-2 of the “charge/discharge circuit”); and
supplying power of the backup battery (106) to the vehicle load device (102) by the charge/discharge circuit (pars [18, 37-38]; when the engine is in an OFF state, supplying power of the backup battery to load 102 by 202-2 of the charge/discharge circuit).
Al Rasheed teaches the load receives power from the alternator 110 by way of the primary battery 104 (see par [30]) and monitors the voltage of the primary battery 104 (par [27]).
Al Rasheed does not explicitly disclose monitoring an output voltage of the vehicle power supply according to a predetermined monitoring cycle and the determining of whether the engine is started is according to the output voltage.
Stein, however, teaches the control circuit monitoring an output voltage of the vehicle power supply (Col.4, lines 30-39, Col.8, lines 12-15, 19-22; control circuit monitors the output voltage/ignition voltage that corresponds to the alternator output to the battery of the vehicle power supply) according to a predetermined monitoring cycle (Col.8, lines 12-22; the microcontroller/control circuit that monitors the output voltage of the vehicle power supply has a “program” that “loops back and senses the ignition voltage again…” This is a “predetermined monitoring cycle”) and the determining of whether the vehicle engine is started is according to the output voltage of the vehicle power supply (Col.4, lines 30-39, Col.8, lines 12-15, 19-22; Stein teaches the ignition voltage corresponds to the alternator output to the battery and determines the engine is ON/started when the output voltage is greater than 13V and the engine is OFF/not started when the output voltage drops below 13V).
Thus, in the combination, the ignition voltage would be between the alternator and the primary battery of the vehicle power supply of Al Rasheed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have relied upon the teachings of Stein. The motivation would have been to fill in the gaps in Al Rasheed that already teaches determining whether the engine is in ON/starting state or an OFF/ not starting state (Al Rasheed, par [26]) but does not explicitly teach how the determination is made. One skilled in the art would have obviously looked to Stein to learn how the determination of the engine- whether it is on or off- is made, which would be according to a predetermined monitoring cycle of the output voltage of the “vehicle power supply”.
Examiner Note: The “vehicle power supply” is not defined and where the output voltage is being monitored is also not claimed. Thus, a voltage measurement as discussed in the combination to determine if the engine is on or off reads on the claim as currently presented. It is further noted that the structure of the charge/discharge circuit is not defined in the claim or the applicant’s specification. Therefore, Al Rasheed’s charge/discharge circuit reads on the BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation) of “charge/discharge circuit”.
Regarding Claim 12,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 6 and further teaches wherein when the vehicle engine is not started, discharging through the charge/discharge circuit by the backup battery and supplying power of the backup battery to the vehicle load device by the charge/discharge circuit comprises discharging through the charge/discharge circuit by the backup battery to supply power of only the backup battery to the vehicle load device (Al Rasheed, figs.3-4, pars [22, 38]; when the engine is OFF S402 is N and the primary battery has no sufficient charge, only the backup battery 106 supplies power to the load in S414 and S418. Examiner note: While there are other times that Al Rasheed uses the main battery when the engine is off- however, there is at least one time when only the backup battery is used).
Regarding Claim 14,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein when the vehicle engine is not started, the charge/discharge circuit supplies power of only the backup battery to the vehicle load device (Al Rasheed, figs.3-4, pars [22, 38]; when the engine is OFF S402 is N and the primary battery has no sufficient charge, only the backup battery 106 supplies power to the load in S414 and S418. Examiner note: While there are other times that Al Rasheed uses the main battery when the engine is off- however, there is at least one time when only the backup battery is used).
Claim(s) 2-3, 7-8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al Rasheed et al. (2018/0191185 A1) in view of Stein et al. (5,899,082) in further view of Kambara (2022/0029452 A1).
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 including the functional operations of when the vehicle engine is started and not started.
The combination does not explicitly disclose a first switch circuit, electrically connected to the control circuit, the charge/discharge circuit and the vehicle power supply; wherein, the control circuit causes the first switch circuit to be in an on state when the vehicle engine is started, and causes the first switch circuit to be in an off state when the vehicle engine is not started.
Kambara (fig.1), however, teaches a first switch circuit (“input interruption unit”, par [44]), electrically connected to the control circuit (39), the charge/discharge circuit (35) and the vehicle power supply (91 and the ignition); wherein, the control circuit (39) causes the first switch circuit to be in an on state when the ignition is on (Kambara, pars [62, 66]; when the ignition is on, the charging operation of the backup battery and supply of power to the load takes place-corresponding to when the vehicle engine starts), and causes the first switch circuit to be in an off state when the vehicle engine is not started (par [61]; vehicle operation is stopped/engine is not started, the first switched is turned off).
In the combination, a first switch/input interruption unit is added between the primary battery and the charge/discharge circuit so that when the vehicle engine is on/started, the first switch is turned on to allow the backup battery to be charged and the load to be supplied with power and when vehicle engine is stopped, the first switch is off to allow for the discharge of the backup battery and prevent the charging operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Kambara by adding a first switch between the vehicle power supply and the charge/discharge circuit. The motivation would have been to have a main switch outside of the charge/discharge circuit that controls and oversees the overall charging operation by either permitting it (i.e., turned on to charge the backup battery and supply power to the load) or preventing it (i.e., turned off and the charging operation is prohibited).
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 2 and further teaches wherein the control circuit is set with an allowed input voltage range and a voltage threshold (Stein, Col.4, lines 30-37, Col.8, lines 10-15; Stein teaches the control circuit is set with an allowed input voltage range of 13V and above with the voltage threshold being 13V), and the voltage threshold is within the allowed input voltage range (Stein, Col.4, lines 30-37, Col.8, lines 10-15; 13V is within the input voltage range); when the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is within the allowed input voltage and is greater than or equal to the voltage threshold, the control circuit causes the first switch to be in the ON state (Al Rasheed, pars [30-31, 35-36], Stein, Col.8, lines 12-15, Kambara, pars [62, 66]; Al Rasheed teaches the charging operation of the backup battery and supplying power to the load when the vehicle engine is on. Stein teaches when the output voltage is within the range 13V+ and greater than 13V/the threshold, the vehicle engine is ON and Kambara teaches the first switch is turned on when the ignition is ON and the charging operation described by Al Rasheed occurs. Thus, the combination teaches when the output voltage of the power supply is within the range and greater than threshold, the vehicle engine is ON and the first switch is controlled to be ON); when the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is not within the allowed input voltage range or is smaller than the voltage threshold (Al Rasheed, par [30] and Stein, Col.4, lines 37-39, Col.8, lines 19-22; Stein teaches the output voltage dropping below 13V in the combination), the control circuit causes the first switch circuit to be in the off state (Al Rasheed, pars [18, 37-38], Stein, Col.4, lines 37-39, Col.8, lines 19-22, and Kambara, par [61]; Al Rasheed teaches discharge the backup battery when the vehicle engine is off. Stein teaches the vehicle engine is off when the output voltage is smaller than the threshold, and Kambara teaches the first switch is controlled to be in an off state when the vehicle operation is stopped/engine is off).
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 6 and further teaches supplying the power to the backup battery and the vehicle load device by the charge/discharge circuit (see rejection of claim 6).
The combination does not explicitly disclose before supplying the power to the backup battery and the vehicle load device by the charge/discharge circuit, causing a first switch circuit connected between the vehicle power supply and the charge/discharge circuit to be in an on state by the control circuit.
Kambara (fig.1), however, teaches before supplying the power to the backup battery and the vehicle load by the charge/discharge circuit (35), causing a first switch circuit (“input interruption unit”, par [44]), connected between the vehicle power supply (91 and the ignition) and the charge/discharge circuit (35) to be in an on state by the control circuit (39, pars [62, 66]; when the ignition is on, the first switch is turned on before charging the backup battery and supplying power to the load).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Kambara by adding a first switch between the vehicle power supply and the charge/discharge circuit. The motivation would have been to have a main switch outside of the charge/discharge circuit that controls and oversees the overall charging operation by either permitting it (i.e., turned on before charging the backup battery and supply power to the load) or preventing it (i.e., turned off and the charging operation is prohibited).
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 6 and further teaches discharging through the charge/discharge circuit by the backup battery (see rejection of claim 6).
The combination does not explicitly disclose before discharging through the charge/discharge circuit by the backup battery, causing a first switch circuit connected between the vehicle power supply and
the charge/discharge circuit to be in an off state by the control circuit.
Kambara (fig.1), however, teaches before discharging through the charge/discharge circuit (35) by the backup battery (92), causing a first switch circuit (input interruption unit”, par [44]), connected between the vehicle power supply (91 and the ignition) and the charge/discharge circuit (35) to be in an off state by the control circuit (39, pars [46, 61, 69]; the first switched is turned off before the backup battery discharges through).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Kambara by adding a first switch between the vehicle power supply and the charge/discharge circuit. The motivation would have been to have a main switch outside of the charge/discharge circuit that controls and oversees the overall charging and discharging operations by either permitting the charging operation and preventing the discharging operation (i.e., turned on before charging the backup battery and supply power to the load) or preventing the charging operation and allowing the discharging operation (i.e., turned off and the discharging operation is implemented).
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 6 and the combination in further view of Kambara teaches a first switch circuit (“input interruption unit”, par [44]), connected between the vehicle power supply (91 and the ignition) and the charge/discharge circuit (35) to be in an on state by the control circuit (39; see rejections of claims 7 and 8 - the motivation statements used in those claims are similarly applied to claim 10). The combination further teaches determining by the control circuit whether the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is within an allowed voltage range (Stein, Col.4, lines 30-37, Col.8, lines 10-15; Stein teaches the control circuit determines whether the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is within an allowed voltage range, which is a range of 13V and above); when the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is within the allowed voltage range, determining by the control circuit whether the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is greater than or equal to a voltage threshold (Stein, Col.4, lines 30-37, Col.8, lines 10-15; Stein teaches when the output voltage is within the range 13V+ and greater than 13V/the threshold); when the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is greater than or equal to the voltage threshold, causing the first switch circuit connected between the vehicle power supply and the charge/discharge circuit to be in an on state by the control circuit (Al Rasheed, pars [30-31, 35-36], Stein, Col.8, lines 12-15, Kambara, pars [62, 66]; Al Rasheed teaches the charging operation of the backup battery and supplying power to the load when the vehicle engine is on. Stein teaches when the output voltage is within the range 13V+ and greater than 13V/the threshold, the vehicle engine is ON and Kambara teaches the first switch is turned on when the ignition is ON and the charging operation described by Al Rasheed occurs. Thus, the combination teaches when the output voltage of the power supply is within the range and greater than threshold, the vehicle engine is ON and the first switch is controlled to be ON); and when the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is not within the allowed input voltage range or is smaller than the voltage threshold (Al Rasheed, par [30] and Stein, Col.4, lines 37-39, Col.8, lines 19-22; Stein teaches the output voltage dropping below 13V in the combination), causing the first switch circuit to be in an off state by the control circuit (Al Rasheed, pars [18, 37-38], Stein, Col.4, lines 37-39, Col.8, lines 19-22, and Kambara, par [61]; Al Rasheed teaches discharge the backup battery when the vehicle engine is off. Stein teaches the vehicle engine is off when the output voltage is smaller than the threshold, and Kambara teaches the first switch is controlled to be in an off state when the vehicle operation is stopped/engine is off).
Claim(s) 5, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al Rasheed et al. (2018/0191185 A1) in view of Stein et al. (5,899,082) in further view of Kambara (2022/0029452 A1) in further view of Kambara (2022/0021233 A1) hereinafter Kambara ‘233.
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 2. The combination does not explicitly disclose a second switch circuit, electrically connected to the charge/discharge circuit, the control circuit and the vehicle load device; wherein, the control circuit is further set with an allowed output voltage
range; the control circuit causes the second switch circuit to be in an on state when an output voltage of the charge/discharge circuit is within the allowed output voltage range, and causes the second switch circuit to be in an off state when the output voltage of the charge/discharge circuit is not within the allowed output voltage range.
Kambara ‘233 (fig.1), however, teaches a second switch circuit (16, par [41]), electrically connected to the charge/discharge circuit (10), the control circuit (24) and the vehicle load device (94); wherein, the control circuit is further set with an allowed output voltage range (pars [63-64]; allowed voltage range above the second threshold); the control circuit (24) causes the second switch circuit (16) to be in an on state when an output voltage of the charge/discharge circuit is within the allowed output voltage range (par [63]; If the output voltage is within the allowed range/in the range greater than the second threshold, the switch 16 is controlled to be in an on state), and causes the second switch circuit (16) to be in an off state when the output voltage of the charge/discharge circuit (10) is not within the allowed output voltage range (par [64]; second switch 16 is in an off state when the output voltage is not within the allowed range-lower than the range above the second threshold voltage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Kambara ‘233. The motivation would have been for protection and safety purposes in situations when the power supplied from the backup battery by the charge/discharge circuit to the load is abnormal.
Regarding Claim 11,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 10. The combination does not explicitly disclose determining by the control circuit whether an output voltage of the charge/discharge circuit is within an allowed output voltage range; when the output voltage of the charge/discharge circuit is within the allowed output voltage range, causing a second switch circuit connected between the charge/discharge circuit and the vehicle load device to be in an on state by the control circuit; and when the output voltage of the charge/discharge circuit is not within the allowed voltage range, causing the second switch circuit to be in an off state by the control circuit.
Kambara ‘233 (fig.1), however, teaches determining by the control circuit (24) whether an output voltage of the charge/discharge circuit (10) is within an allowed output voltage range (pars [63-64]; within allowed voltage range above the second threshold); when the output voltage of the charge/discharge circuit (10) is within the allowed output voltage range, causing a second switch circuit (16, par [44]) connected between the charge/discharge circuit (10) and the vehicle load device (94) to be in an on state by the control circuit (par [63]; when the output voltage is within the allowed range/in the range greater than the second threshold, the switch 16 is controlled to be in an on state); and when the output voltage of the charge/discharge circuit (10) is not within the allowed voltage range, causing the second switch circuit (16) to be in an off state by the control circuit (par [64]; second switch 16 is in an off state when the output voltage is not within the allowed range-lower than the range above the second threshold voltage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Kambara ‘233. The motivation would have been for protection and safety purposes in situations when the power supplied from the backup battery by the charge/discharge circuit to the load is abnormal.
Claim(s) 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al Rasheed et al. (2018/0191185 A1) in view of Stein et al. (5,899,082) in further view of Ito (2004/0174649 A1).
Regarding Claim 13,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 6. The combination does not explicitly disclose determining by the control circuit whether the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is within an allowed voltage range; and when the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is greater than the allowed voltage range, causing a first switch circuit connected to the vehicle power supply to be in an off state by the control circuit.
Ito (fig.2), however, teaches it is known to determine by the control circuit (5) whether the output voltage of the power supply (1) is within an allowed voltage range (par [22] and related discussion; i.e., determining the output voltage of power supply 1 is in a normal range/allowed range in which SW is on); and when the output voltage of the power supply is greater than the allowed voltage range (par [22]; when the output voltage exceeds a predetermined level/reference voltage level/the normal range), causing a first switch circuit (“SW”) connected to the power supply (1) to be in an off state by the control circuit (5, par [22]; SW is turned off by 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Ito’s teachings and to further connect Ito’s first switch circuit SW between Al Rasheed’s vehicle power supply and the charge/discharge circuit. The motivation would have been for safety and protection purposes by using a protection switch to protect components downstream of the vehicle power supply from overvoltage conditions.
Regarding Claim 15,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose a first switch circuit, electrically connected to the control circuit, the charge/discharge circuit and the vehicle power supply; wherein the control circuit is set with an allowed input voltage range, and when the output voltage of the vehicle power supply is greater than the allowed input voltage range, the control circuit causes the first switch circuit to be in an off state.
Ito (fig.2), however, teaches it is known to have a first switch circuit (“SW”), electrically connected to the control circuit (5), and the power supply (1); wherein the control circuit is set with an allowed input voltage range (par [22] and related discussion; the control circuit is set with an allowed input voltage range that is below a predetermined threshold level/ the power supply operates normally), and when the output voltage of the power supply (1) is greater than the allowed input voltage, the control circuit (5) causes the first switch circuit (“SW”) to be in an off state (par [22]; when the output of the power supply exceeds the predetermined level/reference voltage/allowed input voltage range, SW is controlled to be in an off state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination with Ito’s teachings and to further connect Ito’s first switch circuit SW to Al Rasheed’s vehicle power supply and the charge/discharge circuit. The motivation would have been for safety and protection purposes by using a protection switch to protect components downstream from the vehicle power supply from overvoltage conditions.
Conclusion
There is no prior art for claims 4 and 9. They would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer is filed to overcome the Double Patenting rejection, and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim (i.e., claims 1 and 6, respectively) and any intervening claims (i.e., claims 2 and 7, respectively).
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 RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (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 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.
/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836