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 .
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species: (I) the species disclosed by figure 3 which requires, inter alia, a capacitor in parallel with a Schottky diode; and (II) the species disclosed by figure 5 which requires, inter alia, a TVS diode in series with a Schottky diode. The species are independent or distinct because they require different components that are not interchangeable and operate in a different manner. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claim is generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with David Kohn, Esq., on August 25, 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species I, claims 1-8 & 10. During the conversation, the applicant’s representative explained that figure 5 is a “comparative or comparison circuit” used only to demonstrate the benefits of figure 3. However, no indication of that--e.g., a “Prior Art” label on the figure--is made in the specification. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. No claims are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS/IDSs) submitted on 1/6/2025, 10/15/2025, and 3/17/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS/IDSs is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
This application does not contain an abstract of the disclosure as required by 37 CFR 1.72(b). An abstract on a separate sheet is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. 5717562 to Antone et al.
Regarding claim 1, Antone teaches a battery system, comprising:
a battery pack (270);
a relay that is connected to a first terminal of the battery pack and includes a relay coil (230); and
a battery management system (BMS) that is connected to the relay coil to control an operation of the relay (200),
wherein the BMS includes:
a protection circuit that configured to apply a voltage to the relay coil to operate the relay and that includes a capacitor (330) connected in parallel with the relay coil (230), and
a main control unit (MCU) (210) configured to:
transmit a control signal to the protection circuit for controlling the operation of the relay (210; column 6 line 58-column 7 line 36); and
diagnose operation of the protection circuit based on a voltage signal received from the protection circuit (210; column 6 line 58-column 7 line 36).
Regarding claim 2, Antone teaches the battery system of claim 1, wherein:
the protection circuit includes:
a first switch configured to apply a driving voltage to a high side of the relay coil;
a second switch that connects ground to a low side of the relay coil; and
a Schottky diode that is connected in parallel with the relay coil and has a cathode terminal connected to the high side of the relay coil and an anode terminal connected to the low side of the relay coil.
Regarding claim 2, Antone teaches the battery system of claim 1, wherein:
the protection circuit includes:
a first switch configured to apply a driving voltage to a high side of the relay coil (240);
a second switch that connects ground to a low side of the relay coil (260); and
a Schottky diode that is connected in parallel with the relay coil and has a cathode terminal connected to the high side of the relay coil and an anode terminal connected to the low side of the relay coil (310; figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Antone teaches the battery system of claim 2, wherein:
the BMS further includes:
a first analog-to-digital converter (ADC) (340) configured to convert a first analog signal corresponding to a high side voltage of the relay coil into a first voltage measurement signal; and
a second ADC configured to convert a second analog signal corresponding to a low side voltage of the relay coil into a second voltage measurement signal (320 is connected to 290 and 350).
Regarding claim 4, Antone teaches the battery system of claim 3, wherein:
the MCU is configured to determine whether the protection circuit is in a normal state based on the first voltage measurement signal and the second voltage measurement signal (column 6 lines 23-29; column 7 lines 55-62).
Regarding claim 5, Antone teaches the battery system of claim 4, wherein:
the MCU is configured to:
monitor the first voltage measurement signal and the second voltage measurement signal (column 6 line 58-column 7 line 36),
derive a first voltage value representing the voltage across the relay coil in an on state of the first switch and the second switch and a second voltage value representing the voltage across the relay coil in an off state of at least one of the first switch or the second switch from the first voltage measurement signal and the second voltage measurement signal (figure 3 element 450),
measure a back electromotive force (EMF) of the relay coil based on the first voltage value and the second voltage value, and
determine whether the protection circuit is in the normal state based on the back EMF (column 6 line 58 to column 7 line 19).
Regarding claim 6, Antone teaches a relay back EMF protection circuit, comprising:
a first switch configured to apply a driving voltage to a high side of a relay coil included in the relay (240);
a second switch that connects ground to a low side of the relay coil (260);
a capacitor that is connected in parallel with the relay coil (330); and
a Schottky diode that has a cathode terminal connected to the high side of the relay coil (310), and an anode terminal connected to the low side of the relay coil (figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Antone teaches a method for preventing back EMF of a relay, comprising:
turning on, by a main control unit (MCU), a high side switch connected to a high side of a relay coil included in the relay and a low side switch connected to a low side of the relay coil (figure 3 T1 shows the high side switch 420 and the low side switch 440 connected/switched on);
receiving, by the MCU, second signals from the high side and the low side of the relay coil, respectively (figure 3 element 450 shows voltage across the capacitor/coil obtained from the sensor 320 when the two switches 240 and 260 are closed);
deriving, by the MCU, a first voltage value representing a voltage across the relay coil in an on state of the high side switch and the low side switch based on the first signals (figure 3 element 450 shows the voltage across the capacitor, i.e., the high side and low side of the coil);
turning off, by the MCU, at least one of the high side switch or the low side switch (figure 3 at T2 shows the high side switch 420 disconnected/off);
receiving, by the MCU, two second signals from the high side and the low side of the relay coil, respectively (figure 3 element 450 shows voltage across the capacitor/coil obtained from the sensor 320; the ECM also receives current measurement 380 which is the discharging of the coil);
deriving, by the MCU, a second voltage value representing the voltage across the relay coil in an off state of the high side switch and the low side switch based on the second signals (figure 3 element 450); and
diagnosing, by the MCU, an operation of a protection circuit based on the first voltage value and the second voltage value (210; column 6 line 58-column 7 line 36).
Regarding claim 10, Antone teaches the method of claim 8, wherein:
diagnosing operation of the protection circuit comprises:
determining the back EMF of the relay coil based on the first voltage value and the second voltage value (column 6 line 58-column 7 line 36); and
determining whether the protection circuit is in a normal state based on the back EMF (column 6 line 58-column 7 line 36).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antone.
Regarding claim 7, Antone teaches the protection circuit of claim 6, but does not teach explicitly further comprising:
a first resistor and a second resistor that are connected in series to the high side of the relay coil;
a third resistor;
a second diode including an anode terminal connected to a source of a second voltage and a cathode terminal connected to a first terminal of the third resistor, wherein an opposing second terminal of the third resistor is connected to the low side of the relay coil; and
a fourth resistor and a fifth resistor that are connected in series to the low side of the relay coil, and
wherein the protection circuit is configured to output a first voltage signal representing a high side voltage of the relay coil from a first node between the first resistor and the second resistor, and a second voltage signal representing a low side voltage of the relay coil from a second node between the fourth resistor and the fifth resistor.
However, Antone teaches a voltage sensor (figure 2 element 320) connected between a low side and high side of a coil when switches are on using voltage dividers (column 5 lines 16-22), which implies a combination of resistors configured to scale voltage across a high-voltage capacitor.
It 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 to use the voltage divider arrangement of Antone to achieve the same effect as the claimed arrangement as rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 37 C.C.P.A. 1026, 86 U.S.P.Q. 70, 181 F.2d 1019 (1950).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent No. 4246621 to Tsukioka discloses an energizing circuit for solenoid valve.
United States Patent No. 8212389 to Morimoto discloses a relay driving circuit and battery pack using same having a capacitor, switching elements, a relay, and a relay coil.
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20130240766 to Teramoto et al. discloses a holding circuit, electromagnetic valve, valve selector, and flow controller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert P Alejnikov whose telephone number is (571)270-5164. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00a-6:00p M-F.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571.272.2619. 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.
/ROBERT P ALEJNIKOV JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
