DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,2,8,9,11,12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by FURUKAWA et al. US20100127663A1.
CLAIM 1
FURUKAWA et al. discloses:
a battery source (battery 1);
a power path through which power is transmitted between the power source unit and a load (Fig. 3, battery 1, through switch 2 to load 10);
a switch (switch 2) provided on the power path and configured to switch the power path between a current-carrying state and a current-interrupting state; and
a shut-off unit (Fig. 3, switch 2) configured to be switched from an allowing state to a shut-off state, the shut- off unit in the allowing state allowing power to be supplied from the power source unit (battery 1) to the load (Fig. 3, load 10) through the power path (Fig. 3, battery 1, through switch 2A, to load 10) , and the shut-off unit (Fig. 3, switch 2) in the shut-off state shutting off power supplied from the power source unit to the load, the shut-off control device comprising a control unit configured to switch the shut-off unit to the shut-off state when a value of a current flowing through the power path has exceeded a first threshold ( Fig. 3, less than 500A), wherein the first threshold (less than 500A) is smaller than a second threshold that is the maximum current value (500A, switch fusing current) at which the switch is capable of maintaining the power path in the current-carrying state (relay 2 contacts fuse together making relay inoperative).
CLAIM 2
FURUKAWA et al. discloses the shut-off control device according to claim 1, wherein the switch is an electromagnetic relay, the power path enters the current-carrying state when the switch is switched on and enters the current-interrupting state when the switch is switched off, and when a current larger than the second threshold flows through the switch, the switch is switched from on to off by electromagnetic repelling force ([0034] In FIG. 3, the maximum cut-off current of the relays 2 is 500 A, the switch switches at a current less than 500A to avoid contact fusing, a relay is inherently an electromagnetic device, a coil current produces an electromagnetic force to close or open the contacts).
CLAIM 8
FURUKAWA et al. discloses the shut-off control device according to claim 1, wherein the first threshold (LESS THAN 500A) is set such that the shut-off unit is switched to the shut-off state before the value of the current flowing through the power path reaches the second threshold (500A), in view of a time lag (FIG. 3, .3 SECONDS) from when it is determined that the value of the current flowing through the power path has exceeded the first threshold to when the shut-off unit is switched to the shut-off state.
CLAIM 9
FURUKAWA et al. discloses the shut-off control device according to claim 1,
wherein the first threshold (less than 500A) is larger than a third threshold (Fig 3, 200A) that is the maximum value of a current that may flow through the power path when the power path is in a normal state.
CLAIM 11
FURUKAWA et al. discloses the shut-off control device according to claim 2, wherein the first threshold is set such that the shut-off unit is switched to the shut-off state before the value of the current flowing through the power path reaches the second threshold (Fig. 3, relay cut-off current), in view of a time lag (Fig. 3, .3 seconds) from when it is determined that the value of the current flowing through the power path has exceeded the first threshold to when the shut-off unit is switched to the shut-off state.
CLAIM 12
FURUKAWA et al. discloses the shut-off control device according to claim 2, wherein the first threshold (Fig. 3, 500A, .3 seconds) is larger than a third threshold (Fig. 3, 200A, .3 seconds) that is the maximum value of a current that may flow through the power path when the power path is in a normal state.
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) 3,4,5,6,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FURUKAWA et al. US 20100127663A1 in view of KUMAR et al. US 20170317500.
CLAIM 3
FURUKAWA et al. discloses 3. the shut-off control device according to claim 1.
FURUKAWA et al. does not disclose wherein the second threshold is smaller than a saturation current that flows through the power path when a ground fault occurs in the power path.
KUMAR et al. discloses TABLE 1, inverter power rating verses ground fault threshold disclosing the ground fault is smaller than a saturation current that flows through the power path when a ground fault occurs in the power path.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the second threshold smaller than the saturation current that flows through the power path when a ground fault occurs in the power path to protect a person from a ground fault.
CLAIMS 4,5
FURUKAWA et al. in view of KUMAR et al. disclose the shut-off control device according to
claim 3,
FURUKAWA et al. discloses wherein the first threshold is set such that the shut-off unit is switched to the shut-off state before the value of the current flowing through the power path reaches the saturation current (Fig. 3, 500A), in view of a time lag (Fig. 3) from when it is determined that the value of the current flowing through the power path has exceeded the first threshold (fig. 3, less than 500A after .3 seconds) to when the shut-off unit is switched to the shut-off state.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the first threshold such that the shut-off unit is switched to the shut-off state before the value of the current flowing through the power path reaches the saturation current (500A), in view of a time lag (Fig. 3, .3 seconds) from when it is determined that the value of the current flowing through the power path has exceeded the first threshold to when the shut-off unit is switched to the shut-off state to prevent overcurrent from fusing the switch contacts.
CLAIM 6
FURUKAWA et al. in view of KUMAR et al. disclose the shut-off control device according to
claim 5.
FURUKAWA et al. discloses wherein the first threshold (Fig. 3., less than 500A, at .3 seconds) is larger than a third threshold (Fig. 2,3, fuse 8, 200A, at .3 seconds) that is the maximum value of a current that may flow through the power path when the power path is in a normal state.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the first threshold to be larger than a third threshold that is the maximum value of a
current that may flow through the power path when the power path is in a normal state to protect the switch contacts from an over current condition.
CLAIM 10
FURUKAWA et al. in view of KUMAR et al. disclose the shut-off control device according to
claim 2.
FURUKAWA et al. wherein the second threshold is (less than 500A).
KUMAR et al. discloses table 1for ground fault threshold amps. disclosing threshold being smaller than a saturation current that flows through the power path when a ground fault occurs in the power path.
It is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the saturation current that flows through the power path when a ground fault occurs would have to be larger than the second threshold because the ground fault condition is an abnormal condition that is protected by the ground fault interrupting the saturation current to prevent an unsafe condition from occurring.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FURUKAWA et al. US 20100127663A1 in view of KUMAR et al. US 20170317500 in further view of KAMBHAM US20190123542.
CLAIM 7
FURUKAWA et al. in view of KUMAR et al. disclose the shut-off control device according to
claim 6.
The above references do not disclose discloses wherein any of a pyro fuse, a semiconductor switch, and an electromagnetic fuse is used as the shut-off unit.
KAMBHAM discloses [0002] The batteries used in hybrid and electric vehicles store a large amount of energy. Under various fault conditions, the battery should be electrically isolated from the vehicle's electrical system as quickly as possible to prevent an overcurrent event that can result in a vehicle fire. For example, when a vehicle is involved in a collision, the vehicle's batteries should be disconnected from the electrical system to reduce the possibility of a fire caused by a short circuit. Pyro-fuses are one type of isolation device that is used to quickly disconnect a vehicle's batteries from the vehicle's electrical system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used a pyro fuse to quickly disconnect vehicle batteries from the circuit to prevent a fire due to a short circuit system failure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT L DEBERADINIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2049. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am to 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Barnie Rexford can be reached at 571 272 2391. 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.
July 2, 2026
/ROBERT L DEBERADINIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights