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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument with respect to claim 1, is Sato's circuit arrangement-as best shown in Figure 2-shows the step-down conversion units (24A, 24B) connected after the relays (22A, 22B). That is, the relays 22A/22B stop the supply of power to all paths downstream, including the step-down units 24A/24B. Thus, if the relays are open, the step-down conversion units will not be operatively connected to the batteries to supply low voltage DC to low voltage loads, and low voltage redundancy will be lost. That is, Sato completely severs the batteries from the entire power path including the high voltage and low voltage paths during a fault. Sato, therefore, does not provide the continued low-voltage operation benefit achieved by the structure of claim 1.
This is not persuasive because the claim does not require a continued low-voltage operation benefit. The claim merely recites “wherein the first battery module is connected to a first DC-DC converter for converting high voltage DC to low voltage DC, and the second battery module is connected to a second DC-DC converter for converting high voltage DC to low voltage DC; and wherein the first battery module and the second battery module are individually connected to high voltage loads via a dual back-to-back switch unit.” Sato discloses, in figure 2, the first and second battery module 21A, 21B connected to the first and second DC-DC converters 24A, 24B respectively via switch units 22A, 22B. Thus, when switch units 22A and 22B are closed, DC-DC converters 24A and 24B converts high voltage DC to low voltage DC to high voltage loads.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2021/0376627 A1) in view of Smith et al. (US 2021/0070191 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Sato discloses, in figure 2, a power supply and distribution system (20) for an electric vehicle (Fig. 1; 10) (Par 0020), comprising a high voltage battery pack (21A, 21B) with a first battery module (21A) and a second battery module (21B), wherein the first battery module (21A) and the second battery module (21B) each has an individual power output connector (output connector to power conversion units 23A, 23B respectively) (Par 0023); and wherein the high voltage battery pack (21A, 21B) is monitored and controlled by a first Battery Electrical Control Module (29A, 29B) (Par 0024); wherein the first battery module (21A) is connected to a first DC-DC converter (24A) for converting high voltage DC to low voltage DC (Par 0023), and the second battery module (21B) is connected to a second DC-DC converter (24B) for converting high voltage DC to low voltage DC (Par 0023); and wherein the first battery module (21A) and the second battery module (21B) are individually connected to high voltage loads (23A, 25A, 23B, 25B) via a dual switch unit (22A, 22B respectively) (Par 0023), the dual switch unit (22A, 22B) comprising a first switch (22A) connected to the first battery module (21A), a second switch (22B) connected to the second battery module (21B) and a first Microcontroller unit (26) in communication with the first Battery Electrical Control Module (29A, 29B) (Par 0024), the first Microcontroller unit (26) controlling the first switch (22A) and the second switch (22B) (Par 0027; the control unit 28 of system control ECU 26 outputs a control signal SC, which is for controlling the operation of the relays 22A, 22B, according to the abnormality detection result of the detection unit 27); wherein the first switch (22A) and the second switch (22B) are connected in parallel to the high voltage loads (23A, 25A, 23B, 25B) of the electrical vehicle (Par 0023; “the step-down conversion units 24A and 24B may be step-down DC-DC converters, and are connected in parallel to the motors 25A and 25B” and relay 22A and conversion unit 24A are in a circuit path located above switch 32 which is parallel to a circuit path below switch 32 that contains relay 22B and conversion unit 24B); and wherein the first switch (22A) and the second switch (22B) are arranged to be individually controlled by the first Microcontroller unit (26) (Par 0027; the control unit 28 of system control ECU 26 outputs an individual control signal SC, which is for controlling the operation of the relays 22A, 22B, according to the abnormality detection result of the detection unit 27).
Sato does not disclose the dual switch unit comprising a first switch and a second switch being back-to-back switch units.
However, Smith discloses, in figure 3, a dual back-to-back switch unit (220, 225) comprising a first back-to-back switch (220) and a second back-to-back switch (225) (Par 0063, 0065).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Sato’s first and second switches 22A and 22B with a first back-to-back switch and a second back-to-back switch as taught by Smith in order to provide circuit protection of a battery by allowing the battery to disconnect from loads to prevent over-discharge but still allow current to flow in the direction that would be charging the battery so that the battery can recover from the over-discharge fault without damage (Smith; Par 0067).
In regards to claim 2, Sato in view of Smith disclose the power supply system according to claim 1. Sato further discloses, in figure 2, wherein the dual switch unit (22A, 22B, as modified by Smith) is arranged to in case of failure of the first battery module (21A) disconnect the first battery module (21A) by opening the first switch (22A) (Par 0026-0027; “Specifically, if an abnormality occurs in at least one of the power supply paths 30A and 30B, the control unit 28 turns off the separation relay 32, turns off the relay 22A (22B) on the power supply path in which the abnormality has occurred in order to stop the supply of power to the motor 25A (25B) from the power supply path in which the abnormality has occurred”); and in case of failure of the second battery module (21B) disconnect the second battery module (21B) by opening the second switch (22B) (Par 0027).
In regards to claim 4, Sato in view of Smith disclose the power supply system according to claim 1. Sato further discloses, in figure 2, wherein the dual switch unit (22A, 22B, as modified by Smith) is arranged to in case of failure of both the first battery module (21A) and the second battery module (21B) disconnect all high voltage loads (23A, 25A, 23B, 25B) by opening both the first switch (22A) and the second switch (22B) (Fig. 4; steps S5-S8; Par 0033; in a case of an abnormality of both the first high voltage battery 21A and second high voltage battery 21B has been detected, the first and second switches 22A and 22B are turned off).
In regards to claim 6, Sato in view of Smith disclose the power supply system according to claim 1. Sato further discloses, in figure 2, wherein the first switch (22A) is connected, on a load side of the first switch, (load side 30A connected to 22A above relay 32), to a first group of high voltage loads (23A, 25A) (Par 0023) and the second switch (22B) is connected, on a load side of the second switch (load side 30A connected to 22B below relay 32), to a second group of high voltage loads (23B, 25B), wherein a third switch (32) is arranged between the first group of high voltage loads (23A, 25A) and the second group of high voltage loads (23B, 25B) (Par 0021; separation relay 32 is arranged between the first group of high voltage loads 23A, 25A and second group of high voltage loads 23B, 25B and is turned on and off to switch between allowing electric current to pass and not allowing electric current to pass through the connection conduction path 31).
Sato does not disclose the third switch being a back-to-back switch.
However, Smith discloses, in figure 3, a back-to-back switch (220; Par 0065).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace Sato’s third switch 32 with a back-to-back switch as taught in Smith in order to provide circuit protection of a battery by allowing the battery to disconnect from loads to prevent over-discharge but still allow current to flow in the direction that would be charging the battery so that the battery can recover from the over-discharge fault without damage (Smith; Par 0067).
In regards to claim 8, Sato in view of Smith disclose the power supply system according to claim 1. Sato further discloses, in figure 2, a method, comprising the steps of monitoring the health of the first battery module (21A) and the second battery module (21B) at the first Battery Electrical Control Module (29A, 29B) (Par 0024); communicating the health of the first battery module (21A) and the second battery module (21B) from the first Battery Electrical Control Module (29A, 29B) to the first Microcontroller unit (26) (Par 0024; “The battery control ECUs 29A and 29B detect the voltage and current of the high-voltage batteries 21A and 21B, and output a detection signal SA to the system control ECU 26, the detection signal SA being in accordance with the voltage values, current values, and the like detected from the high-voltage batteries 21A and 21B”); in response to determining at the first Microcontroller unit (26) that the first battery module (21A) is failing, opening the first switch (22A) (Par 0026-0027; “Specifically, if an abnormality occurs in at least one of the power supply paths 30A and 30B, the control unit 28 turns off the separation relay 32, turns off the relay 22A (22B) on the power supply path in which the abnormality has occurred in order to stop the supply of power to the motor 25A (25B) from the power supply path in which the abnormality has occurred”); and in response to determining at the first Microcontroller unit (26) that the second battery module (21B) is failing, opening the second switch (22B) (Par 0027).
In regards to claim 12, Sato in view of Smith disclose the power supply system according to claim 1. Sato further discloses, in figure 2, wherein, in a state in which the high voltage loads (23A, 25A, 23B, 25B) are disconnected from the first (21A) and second battery (21B) modules by the first (22A) and second switches (22B) being open (Par 0026-0027), the first (21A) and second battery (21B) modules are respectively connected to the first and second DC-DC converters (24A, 24B) so that low voltage DC is supplied to a least one low voltage load (34) connected to at least one of the DC-DC converters (24A, 24B) (Par 0030; normal operation).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2021/0376627 A1) and Smith et al. (US 2021/0070191 A1) in further view of Kamachi et al. (US 2015/0028019 A1).
In regards to claim 5, Sato and Smith disclose the power supply system according to claim 1. Sato further discloses, in figure 2, wherein the high voltage loads (23A, 25A, 23B, 25B) are comprised in the group consisting of electrical motors (25A, 25B) for propulsion of the vehicle (Par 0020) but does not disclose an electrical vehicle inlet, and an on board charger.
However, Kamachi discloses, in figure 2, an electrical vehicle inlet (15), and an on board charger (8) (Par 0024).
Thus, 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 Sato’s power source system by including an electrical vehicle inlet, and an on board charger as taught by Kamachi in order to transform an alternating current which is supplied from the external power supply to a direct current to charge the battery (Kamachi; Par 0024).
In regards to claim 7, Sato, Smith, and Kamachi disclose the power supply system according to claim 6. Sato further discloses, in figure 2, wherein the first group of high voltage loads (23A, 25A) comprises a first electrical motor (25A) and the second group of high voltage loads (23B, 25B) comprises a second electrical motor (25B) (Par 0023).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 ALEX WONG LAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3409. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571)-270-7101. 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.
/ALEX W LAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2842
/REGIS J BETSCH/SPE, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights