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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Remarks contend significant differences are present in the arrangement of Fabregas and that of the failure detection unit of the claims. The Remarks (at 13-14) contend the limitation “by comparing an output value on an upstream side with an output value on a downstream side of the first switching element in a state in which the first switching element and the third switching element are opened whereas the second switching element and the fourth switching element are closed."
In response the operation of Ferre Fabregas teaches the voltage difference is measured in paragraph 26. In the measurement of a voltage difference or signal is verification detection of latent failures of the switch operation is realized in real time during operations of the power system. In for example verification of signal requires a comparison to make a determination of switch functionality, similarly analyzing a voltage difference compares voltage level with expected level to determine switch operation is normal or failing. Panfil teaches the various states of operation for example as claimed first (14a) and third switch (32a) open and second (36a for example) and forth (32b) closed. During a condition when the utility is not selected and batteries are being charged from 28 via the generator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply a known power supply arrangement as seen in Panfil with a failure detection unit of Ferre Fabregas for the benefit of maintain the power supply to the loads. Ferre Fabregas teaches the known importance of testing and verifying in real time operations with a controller for preventing latent failures from disrupting the power system.
Therefore, the rejection is proper and hence is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a direction of current flowing through the third switching element matches a forward direction in which the current is allowed to flow when the third switching element is open”, is unclear. The claim appears to set forth an operation of current flow through the third switch when the third switch is open, which is contrary to the disclosed operation. Applicant should amend the above to read “a direction of current flowing through the third switching element when the third switching element is closed matches a forward direction in which the current is allowed to flow when the third switching element is open.”
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panfil et al. (US 20210249896) in view of Ferre Fabregas et al. (US 20200339048)
With respect to claim 1 Panfil teaches a power supply device comprising: a main power supply (14) configured to supply electric power to electrical equipment (20); an auxiliary power supply (30) different from the main power supply, the auxiliary power supply being configured to supply electric power to the electrical equipment;
a first main power supply line (14 to 26a/26b to 34d to load 20) configured to connect the main power supply to the electrical equipment;
a second main power supply line (14 to 28a or 36c) different from the first main power supply line, the second main power supply line being configured to connect the main power supply to the electrical equipment;
a first auxiliary power supply line (from 30 to 34d across 26c) configured to connect the auxiliary power supply to the first main power supply line;
a second auxiliary power supply line (form 30 to 28c across 36d) configured to connect the auxiliary power supply to the second main power supply line;
a first switching element (for example 14a) provided on the first main power supply line, the first switching element being configured to switch a state of power supply from the main power supply to the electrical equipment;
a second switching element (see breakers 36a-c control the connection with 14 on the second main path) provided on the second main power supply line, the second switching element being configured to switch the state of power supply from the main power supply to the electrical equipment;
a third switching element (32a) provided on the first auxiliary power supply line, the third switching element being separate from the second switching element and configured to switch a state of power supply from the auxiliary power supply to the electrical equipment;
a fourth switching element (32b) provided on the second auxiliary power supply line, the fourth switching element being separate from the second switching element and configured to switch the state of power supply from the auxiliary power supply to the electrical equipment;
Panfil teaches the power supply with the main and auxiliary paths however does not teach a failure detection unit. Failure detection units to determine the failure of a switching are known to test switching operations in a power supply system, (see ECU 100) as seen in Ferre Fabregas. Ferre Fabregas teaches the failure detection unit (Fig. 1: 100) configured to detect a failure of the first switching element or the second switching element (paragraph 0026), wherein the failure detection unit detects the failure of the first switching element by comparing (see measuring voltage difference paragraph 0026) an output value on an upstream side with an output value on a downstream side of the first switching element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Panfil to include the use of failure detection unit for the benefit of identifying latent failures and maintaining power supply (paragraph 0026-27). Ferre Fabregas further teaches the open and closed combination of first through third switch maintaining power to the load. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Panfil to test in a configuration in a state in which the first switching element and the third switching element are opened whereas the second switching element and the fourth switching element are closed for the benefit of not disrupting the supply of power to the connected load(s).
With respect to claim 2 Ferre Fabregas the failure detection unit detects the failure of the second switching element by comparing (see measuring voltage difference paragraph 0026) an output value on an upstream side with an output value on a downstream side of the second switching element in a state in which the second switching element and the fourth switching element are opened whereas the first switching element and the third switching element are closed. Ferre Fabregas further teaches the open and closed combination of first through third switch maintaining power to the load. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify Panfil to test in a state in which the second switching element and the fourth switching element are opened whereas the first switching element and the third switching element are closed for the benefit of not disrupting the supply of power to the connected load(s).
With respect to claim 3 Ferre Fabregas further teaches the failure detection unit determines (see paragraph 0027 see detect failure and transmit information about the operation of the switch paragraph 0027 that there is no failure when a predetermined difference occurs between the output value on the upstream side and the output value on the downstream side, and determines that there is a failure when the predetermined difference does not occur between the output value on the upstream side and the output value on the downstream side.
With respect to claims 4-5 Ferre Fabregas the predetermined difference is a difference corresponding to a forward voltage of the third switching element or the fourth switching element (the voltage difference measure corresponding to a forward voltage as the drop across the switching element).
With respect to claim 7 Ferre Fabregas the failure detection unit performs a notification (see ECU transmitting information about the functionality of the switches paragraph 0027) when the failure of the first switching element or the second switching element is detected.
With respect to claim 9 Panfil teaches the switching elements however does not teach the elements are MOSFETs. Ferre Fabregas the switches maybe MOSFETs (paragraph 0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Panfil to try the known use of a MOSFET type switches for the predictable result of fast and reliable operations.
With respect to claim 12 Panfil the third switching (32a) element is implemented by a transistor, and when the first switching element (14a) is opened (when the utility is off) whereas the second switching element (36a) and the fourth switching element (32b) are closed (for example during battery charging via 28), a direction of current flowing through the third switching element matches a forward direction (toward the load during battery discharge from 30 to load via 32a) in which current is allowed to flow when the third switching element is open. Panfil does not teach the third switch is implemented
with a transistor. Transistors are well known alternatives to the breakers of which the Examiner takes Official Notice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Panfil to try the known use of a transistor switch as known alterative to a breaker for the predictable result of quickly switching.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 and 8 are allowed for reasons of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Michael Fin whose telephone number is (571)272-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30.
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 571-272-7429. 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.
MICHAEL FIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/MICHAEL R. FIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836