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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the application filed on November 15, 2024. Claims 1-5 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-022116, filed on February 16, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 15, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation discloses sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation discloses function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“power storage device” in claims 1, 2 and 5. A review of the specification shows that it is a high-voltage battery in [0012].
“second power storage device” in claim 2. A review of the specification shows that it is a low-voltage battery in [0012].
“power control device” in claims 1 and 5. A review of the specification shows that it is alternately named PCU in [0012] and includes a first inverter 31, a second inverter 32, a step-up/step-down converter 33, and a motor electronic control unit (hereinafter referred to as "MG ECU") 30 in [0019].
“precharge device” in claims 1, 2 and 5. A review of the specification shows no structure for the device. For purposes of this examination, it will be interpreted as a circuit including a resistor and a relay.
“control device” in claims 1-4. A review of the specification shows no structure for the device only that it’s part of the power supply system. For purposes of this examination, it will be interpreted as a computer including a processor and memory.
“voltage conversion device” in claims 2 and 4. A review of the specification has no mention of this limitation. For purposes of this examination, it will be interpreted as a bi-directional DC/DC converter.
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of the precharge, control, and voltage conversion devices. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 limitation “precharge device” in claims 1, 2 and 5.
Claim limitation “control device” in claims 1-4.
Claim limitation “voltage conversion device” in claims 2 and 4.
All of these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states that the claimed function of precharging, controlling, and voltage conversion is performed by the devices separately or together in the entirety of the specification. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the precharging, controlling, and voltage conversion of the of the power supply system. The use of the terms alone are not adequate structure for performing controlling the precharging, controlling, and voltage conversion of the power supply system because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function as would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the terms precharging, controlling, and voltage conversion refer to the devices mentioned and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures performs the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozawa et al., JP2020/145871A (Hereinafter, “Nozawa 871”), in view of Nozawa JP2022/0136781A (Hereinafter, “Nozawa 781”).
Regarding Claim 1, Nozawa 871 discloses a power supply system (1) comprising: a power storage device (2); See Fig.1 and [0010], “The power supply system 1 also includes a high-voltage battery (first power storage device) 2 … a power control device (hereinafter referred to as "PCU") 3 that is connected to the high-voltage battery 2.”
a power control device (3) including a capacitor (34) and connected to the power storage device; See Fig.1 and [0019], “PCU 3 includes a filter capacitor (first capacitor) 34 , a smoothing capacitor (second capacitor) 35 , and voltage sensors 36 and 37.”
a precharge device (5) configured to perform precharge of the capacitor of the power control device in response to a system start-up request; and a control device configured to transmit a target voltage of the capacitor to the precharge device in response to the system start-up request, See [0025], “When the driver turns on the start switch SS (start-up request), the HVECU 10 (CPU) acquires the inter-terminal voltage VB of the high-voltage battery 2 detected by the voltage sensor 21, as shown in FIG. 2, sets the inter-terminal voltage VB as the target voltage Vtag for precharging the filter capacitor 34 and the smoothing capacitor 35 of the PCU 3, and transmits the set target voltage Vtag to the DDC ECU 55 of the bidirectional DC/DC converter 5 (step S100).
determine whether an abnormality has occurred in See [0025], “Upon receiving the target voltage Vtag from the HVECU 10, the DDC ECU 55 starts feedback control (communication state) of the voltage conversion circuit 50 so that the detection value of the voltage sensor 51 becomes the target voltage Vtag … so that the detection value is maintained at the target voltage Vtag.”See [0029], “If it is determined in step S130 that the inter-terminal voltage VL of the filter capacitor 34 is equal to or greater than the overvoltage threshold Vref (step S130: YES), this means that the filter capacitor 34 has exceeded the target voltage Vtag and is being overcharged due to an abnormality in the voltage conversion circuit 50, the voltage sensor 51, the DDC ECU 55, or the like of the bidirectional DC/DC converter 5.”
when the abnormality See [0026], “After processing step S100, the HVECU 10 acquires … the terminal voltage VL of the filter capacitor
34 detected by the voltage sensor 36, and determines … it can be considered that the terminal voltage VL of the filter capacitor 34 and the terminal voltage VH of the smoothing capacitor 35 have reached the target voltage Vtag through precharging using the bidirectional DC/DC converter 5. (i.e. precharging complete)”
when the precharge is completed, determine that the precharge device is normal, and See [0027], “if it is determined in step S110 that the absolute value |VB-VL| is equal to or less than the value α (within the range from -α to +α) (step S110: NO), the HVECU 10 closes the positive side system main relay SMRB and the negative side system main relay SMRG (step S180) … After the process of step S180, the HVECU 10 transitions the vehicle state to a READY-ON state in which the hybrid vehicle V is permitted to travel (step S190), and ends the routine of FIG. 2.”
when the precharge is not completed, determine that an abnormality has occurred in the precharge device. See [0029], “If it is determined in step S130 that the inter-terminal voltage VL of the filter capacitor 34 is equal to or greater than the overvoltage threshold Vref (step S130: YES), this means that the filter capacitor 34 has exceeded the target voltage Vtag and is being overcharged due to an abnormality in the voltage conversion circuit 50, the voltage sensor 51, the DDC ECU 55, or the
like of the bidirectional DC/DC converter 5.”
Nozawa 871 discloses a hybrid power system, but does not disclose abnormalities in communication state. However, Nozawa 781 teaches a hybrid power system with abnormality detection in communication state in [0052], “The control unit 332 of the bidirectional DC/DC converter 33 has a function of detecting abnormalities in the CAN communication and the DDFS communication.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Nozawa’s power device with the recovery communication limitations disclosed in Hunley with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user of the vehicle can take appropriate measures in response to the abnormality in the first communication., See Nozawa 781 [0008].
Regarding Claim 2, Nozawa 871 discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
further comprising a second power storage device (4) having a lower voltage than the power storage device, See Fig.1 and [0010], “The power supply system 1 also includes … a low-voltage battery (second power storage device) 4 that has a lower voltage than the high-voltage battery 2, and a bidirectional DC/DC converter (second voltage conversion device) 5.”
wherein: the precharge device is a voltage conversion device configured to precharge the capacitor by adjusting electric power from the second power storage device to the target voltage; and
See [0007], “the first and second capacitors are precharged with power from the second storage device boosted by the second voltage conversion device, the voltage difference between the first storage device and the first capacitor and the voltage of the first capacitor are monitored (to a target value).”
the control device is configured to set the target voltage in response to the system start-up request,
See [0014], “when the driver turns on the start switch SS to request system startup of the hybrid vehicle V, the HVECU 10 supplies an excitation current to the coils … thereby electrically connecting the high-voltage battery 2 and the PCU 3.”
transmit the target voltage to a control circuit of the voltage conversion device via controller area network communication, and See [0013], “The HVECU 10 is connected to an engine electronic control unit and the like via a communication line such as a CAN,” And [0023], “the target voltage Vtag of the bidirectional DC/DC converter 5 (voltage conversion circuit 50) is set by the HVECU 10 and transmitted from the HVECU 10 to the DDC ECU 55 via a communication line.
Nozawa 871 discloses a hybrid power system using controller area network, but does not disclose abnormalities in communication. However, Nozawa 781 teaches a hybrid power system with abnormality detection in communication including the following:
determine whether an abnormality has occurred in the controller area network communication. See [0052], “The control unit 332 of the bidirectional DC/DC converter 33 has a function of detecting abnormalities in the CAN communication and the DDFS communication. The control unit 332 detects an abnormality in the CAN communication (disruption of the CAN communication) when it becomes unable to acquire an operation command from the HV-ECU 60 via the CAN communication at predetermined intervals.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Nozawa’s power device with the recovery communication limitations disclosed in Hunley with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user of the vehicle can take appropriate measures in response to the abnormality in the first communication., See Nozawa 781 [0008].
Regarding Claim 3, Nozawa 871 discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 2:
wherein: the predetermined sensor is a voltage sensor configured to detect a voltage of the capacitor; See [0026], “terminal voltage VL of the filter capacitor 34 detected by the voltage sensor 36.”,
and the control device is configured to determine that the precharge is completed when a detected value from the voltage sensor is equal to or greater than a predetermined value continuously for a predetermined period or longer. See [0026], “HVECU 10 determines whether a predetermined time tref has elapsed since the target voltage Vtag was sent to the DDC ECU 55 in step S100 (step S120). The time tref used as a threshold value in step S120 is defined as the time from when the target voltage Vtag is transmitted to the DDC ECU 55 until it can be considered that the terminal voltage VL of the filter capacitor 34 and the terminal voltage VH of the smoothing capacitor 35 have reached the target voltage Vtag through precharging using the bidirectional DC/DC converter 5.
Regarding Claim 4, Nozawa 871 discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 2:
when the precharge is completed, determine that the voltage conversion device is normal, and See [0027], “if it is determined in step S110 that the absolute value |VB-VL| is equal to or less than the value α (within the range from -α to +α) (step S110: NO), the HVECU 10 closes the positive side system main relay SMRB and the negative side system main relay SMRG (step S180) … After the process of step S180, the HVECU 10 transitions the vehicle state to a READY-ON state in which the hybrid vehicle V is permitted to travel (step S190), and ends the routine of FIG. 2.”
when the precharge is not completed, determine that an abnormality has occurred in the voltage conversion device. See [0029], “If it is determined in step S130 that the inter-terminal voltage VL of the filter capacitor 34 is equal to or greater than the overvoltage threshold Vref (step S130: YES), this means that the filter capacitor 34 has exceeded the target voltage Vtag and is being overcharged due to an abnormality in the voltage conversion circuit 50, the voltage sensor 51, the DDC ECU 55, or the like of the bidirectional DC/DC converter 5.” Also [0031], “the HVECU 10 transmits a command signal to the DDC ECU 55 to stop the operation of the bidirectional DC/DC converter 5 (step S150) … HVECU 10 turns on a warning light provided on an instrument panel (not shown) or the like to indicate that an abnormality has occurred in the precharge by the bidirectional DC/DC converter 5 (step S160).” Warning light function is directly linked to stop command signal process in Fig.2
Nozawa 871 discloses a hybrid power system, but does not disclose backup communication lines. However, Nozawa 781 teaches a hybrid power system with backup communication methods in [0038-0057] included in the following limitations:
wherein: the voltage conversion device is connected to the control device via a backupSee Nozawa 781 [0038], “The bidirectional DC/DC converter 33 and the HV-ECU 60 are connected by a communication line (direct line) 90 that is not connected to the in-vehicle
network.”
the control device is configured to when the abnormality of the controller area network communication is determined, transmit a precharge start command to the voltage conversion device via the backup communication line, See Nozawa 781 [0052], “The control unit 332 detects an abnormality in the CAN communication (disruption of the CAN communication) when it becomes unable to acquire an operation command from the HV-ECU 60 via the CAN communication at predetermined intervals. And [0050], “when the vehicle is started, if precharge control of each circuit is executed using power from the auxiliary battery 40, the HV-ECU 60 generates an operation command (hereinafter also referred to as a “second command”) for causing the bidirectional DC/DC converter 33 to perform a boost operation, and outputs the operation command to the bidirectional DC/DC converter 33 … In the DDFS communication, the second command is transmitted from the HVECU 60 to the bidirectional DC/DC converter 33 . In DDFS communication, feedback control is not performed because it is not possible to transmit as much information as in CAN communication. In this case, the bidirectional DC/DC converter 33 performs a step-up operation with a fixed output.”
determine whether the precharge is completed based on the detected value from the predetermined sensor after the precharge start command is transmitted, See Nozawa 781 [0056], “When an abnormality occurs in the CAN communication, the control unit 332 controls each part (for example, the power conversion circuit) of the bidirectional DC/DC converter 33 in accordance with the operation command obtained through the DDFS communication … HV-ECU 60 determines whether to stop the voltage step-down operation or the voltage step-up operation based on sensor values from various parts of the vehicle (i.e. precharge completed).”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Nozawa’s power device with the recovery communication limitations disclosed in Hunley with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user of the vehicle can take appropriate measures in response to the abnormality in the first communication., See Nozawa 781 [0011].
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US Publication US 20130175857 A1 by Shreevani et al.
US Patent US 11458844 B2 by Takahashi et al.
US Publication US 20230249578 A1 by Smith et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, NAVID MEHDIZADEH can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669