DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 12/5/2024.
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 § 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 10 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. Regarding claim 10, it’s not clear as to if the limitation “a battery” is the same or different from the “battery” limitation mentioned in claim 1.
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) 1-2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Odaohara (US 2007/0262651). Regarding claim 1, Odaohara discloses (see fig. 2) a regulation circuit applicable to a battery, comprising: a battery side (side comprising battery 15), configured to be connected to the battery (15); a bus side (side connected to 10), configured to be connected to an external power supply (10); a power module (17/FET2/FET3/inductor/capacitor), configured to regulate a voltage (operation of 17/FET2/FET3/inductor/capacitor) and connected between the battery side and the bus side (connection between 15 and 10); and a control switch group (FET1/FET20/FET4-7), wherein the control switch group comprises: a first control switch (FET1), connected between the bus side and the power module (FET1 connection to 10 and FET2); a second control switch (FET20), connected between the first control switch and the battery side (FET20 connection between FET1 and 15/16); and a third control switch (FET4-5), connected between the power module and the battery side (FET4-5 between 17/FET2/FET3/inductor/capacitor and 15). Regarding claim 2, Odaohara discloses (see fig. 2) that the power module comprises at least one bridge arm (arm comprising FET2/FET3) and at least one inductance element (inductor), and a first end of each inductance element among the at least one inductance element is connected to a corresponding one bridge arm among the at least one bridge arm (connection of inductor to node between FET2/FET3). Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Odaohara discloses (see fig. 2) a regulation system, comprising: a battery (16); and the regulation circuit according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odaohara (US 2007/0262651) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2023/0395890). Regarding claim 8, Odaohara does not disclose a first safety device, connected between the first control switch and the bus side; and/or a second safety device, connected between the second control switch and the battery side, and between the third control switch and the battery side. Zhao et al. discloses (see fig. 3) a first safety device, connected between the first control switch and the bus side (14 connection between 21 and bus comprising the B+ terminal); and/or a second safety device, connected between the second control switch and the battery side, and between the third control switch and the battery side. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the circuit of Odaohara to include the features of Zhao et al. because it’s used as means to reduce unwanted operations due to transient events, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 9, Odaohara does not disclose a first lightning protection device, wherein an input side of the first lightning protection device is connected to the bus side; and/or a second lightning protection device, wherein an input side of the second lightning protection device is connected to the battery side. Zhao et al. discloses (see fig. 3) a first lightning protection device (14), wherein an input side of the first lightning protection device is connected to the bus side (14 connection B+ terminal of bus); and/or a second lightning protection device, wherein an input side of the second lightning protection device is connected to the battery side. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the circuit of Odaohara to include the features of Zhao et al. because it’s used as means to reduce unwanted operations due to transient events, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 11-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lipcsei (US 2008/0100143) discloses a power management system with a charger/boost controller. Greening et al. (US 2009/0325056) discloses a parallel battery architecture with a shared bidirectional converter. Lee et al. (US Patent 7889524) discloses an integrated bi-directional converter for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A GBLENDE whose telephone number is (571)270-5472. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-272-1838. 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.
/JEFFREY A GBLENDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights