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 .
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. JP2024-039908, filed on 03/14/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/27/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Determining Abnormalities in a Power Supply System.
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 recites 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 recites 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:
Claim 1:
“an output unit that outputs”.
Claim 3:
“a first determination unit that determines”,
“a second determination unit that determines”, and
“the output unit is configured to: output”.
Claim 4:
“an engine control unit that causes”.
Claim 5”
“the engine control unit causes”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The output unit [see Paragraph 0044 – discusses a display]; the first determination unit that determines, the second determination unit that determines, and the engine control unit [see Paragraph 0023 – discusses that the engine control unit includes the first determination unit that determines and the second determination unit that determines, and that the engine control unit is a central processing unit (CPU)].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them 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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa et al (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0158245 A1) hereinafter Yoshizawa in view of Shiraishi (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0155372 A1) hereinafter Shiraishi further in view of Lee (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0233993 A1) hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshizawa discloses a power supply system mounted on a hybrid electric vehicle [see Figure 16 below - depicts components of a hybrid vehicle], the power supply system comprising:
a direct-current (DC)/DC converter that converts an output voltage of a driving battery of the hybrid electric vehicle and supplies the converted voltage to an auxiliary load [see Figure 16 below - depicts a DC/DC converter 16 that supplies a voltage on load wiring 18b to a load and a battery 14];
PNG
media_image1.png
364
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 16 of Yoshizawa
an alternator that is driven by an engine of the hybrid electric vehicle to generate electric power and supplies the generated electric power to the auxiliary load [see Figure 16 above - depicts an alternator 2, and see Paragraph 0036 - discusses that the alternator generates power, see Paragraph 0119 - discusses that the alternator generates power for the load]; and
an output unit that outputs a warning about the DC/DC converter see Paragraph 0159 - discusses an output unit 21, see Paragraph 0166 - discusses that an abnormality in the DC converter is detected and outputted using the output unit 21],
wherein the output unit is configured to:
output a first warning that prompts stopping the vehicle when see Paragraph 0166 - discusses that the output is recognized by the driver and the driver stops the vehicle]
Shiraishi discloses a power supply system mounted on a hybrid electric vehicle [see Paragraph 0216 - discusses a hybrid vehicle], the power supply system comprising:
an output unit that outputs a warning about the alternator to an occupant of the hybrid electric vehicle [see Paragraph 0159 - discusses an output unit 21, see Paragraph 0166 - discusses that an abnormality in the DC converter is detected and outputted using the output unit 21], and
wherein the output unit is configured to:
output a first warning that prompts stopping the vehicle when the alternator is abnormal [see Paragraph 0166 - discusses that the output is recognized by the driver and stops the vehicle].
Shiraishi suggests that when an alternator fails, an overcharge condition occurs [see Paragraph 0137], and that battery performance is lost [see Paragraph 0043], and that when battery performance is lost, the power is not supplied to control the brake system, power steering system, and therefore, the vehicle cannot stop safely [see Paragraph 0044].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the output unit as taught by Yoshizawa to include another notification of a warning that prompts stopping the vehicle when the alternator is abnormal as taught by Shiraishi in order to prevent an overcharge condition of the battery and lost battery performance that results in a vehicle unable to stop safely [Shiraishi, see Paragraphs 0043-0044 and 0137].
Further regarding claim 1, the combination of Yoshizawa and Shiraishi fails to disclose outputting a second warning that is different from the first warning when one of the DC/DC converter and the alternator is abnormal.
Lee discloses an output unit configured to:
output a second warning when a DC/DC converter is abnormal [see Paragraph 0046 - discusses determining an increase in impedance of a DC-DC converter and generating a warning, such as a voice warning, and see Paragraph 0021 – discusses that the warning induces a vehicle to visit a maintenance shop].
Lee suggests that when there is an increase in impedance of a DC-DC converter (a fault), warning the driver of the fault allows the driver to receive an accurate repair [see Paragraph 0046]. Lee further suggests that by determining an impedance prevents an erroneous replacement of a battery [see Paragraph 0013].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the output unit as taught by Yoshizawa to include a voice warning (that is different from the first warning) that prompts a repair when the DC/DC converter is abnormal based on impedance as taught by Lee in order to prevent an erroneous replacement of a battery and receive an accurate repair [Lee, see Paragraphs 0013 and 0046].
Regarding claim 2, Yoshizawa, Shiraishi, and Lee discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the second warning includes a message that prompts inspecting or repairing the hybrid electric vehicle [see Paragraph 0021 – discusses that the warning provided to a driver to induce (prompt) a hybrid vehicle (see Paragraph 0024) to visit a maintenance shop].
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshizawa in view of Shiraishi in view of Lee in view of Atsushi et al. (JP 2000224709 A) hereinafter Atsushi.
Regarding claim 4, Yoshizawa, Shiraishi, and Lee discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Yoshizawa further discloses an engine control unit [see Paragraph 0026 – discusses a controlling circuit] and an engine [see Paragraph 0026 – discusses an engine].
However, the combination of Yoshizawa, Shiraishi, and Lee fails to disclose an engine control unit that causes the engine to keep generating a drive force and causes the alternator to generate electric power when the DC/DC converter is abnormal and the alternator is normal, wherein the drive force of the engine is also transmitted to drive wheels.
Atsushi discloses an engine control unit that causes the engine to keep generating a drive force and causes the alternator to generate electric power when the DC/DC converter is abnormal and the alternator is normal, wherein the drive force of the engine is also transmitted to drive wheels [see Paragraph 0021 - discusses that when a DC-DC converter is abnormal, that power generated by the alternator is supplied to allow the vehicle to continue to run, see Paragraph 0009 - discusses that the alternator generates power supply to the engine, and see Paragraph 0022 - discusses that a minimum power supply is secured for traveling of the vehicle when the alternator is supplying power - therefore, when a DC-DC converter is abnormal during travel, an alternator provides power supply to the engine to continue travel and driving force is transmitted to wheels].
Atsushi suggests that when a DC-DC converter fails, that a control of an inverter will not work and the vehicle will run without transmitting drive force [see Paragraph 0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the controlling circuit as taught by Yoshizawa to cause the engine to keep generating a drive force and cause the alternator to generate electric power when the DC/DC converter is abnormal and the alternator is normal, wherein the drive force of the engine is also transmitted to drive wheels as taught by Atsushi in order to allow a vehicle to continue driving when a DC-DC converter fails [Atsushi, see Paragraphs 0013 and 0046].
Regarding claim 5, Yoshizawa, Shiraishi, Lee, and Atsushi discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Atsushi further discloses wherein the engine control unit causes the engine to keep generating a drive force, even if the hybrid electric vehicle is stopped, when the DC/DC converter is abnormal and the alternator is normal [see Paragraphs 0009, and 0021-0022 - discusses that the power generated by the alternator allows the vehicle to continue to travel - therefore, when a vehicle is stopped and the DC-DC converter is abnormal, the alternator still generates power for driving force].
Atsushi suggests that when a DC-DC converter fails, that a control of an inverter will not work and the vehicle will run without transmitting drive force [see Paragraph 0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the controlling circuit as taught by Yoshizawa to cause the engine to keep generating a drive force, even if the hybrid electric vehicle is stopped, when the DC/DC converter is abnormal and the alternator is normal as taught by Atsushi in order to allow a vehicle to continue driving when a DC-DC converter fails [Atsushi, see Paragraphs 0013 and 0046].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Yoshizawa discloses a first determination unit that determines whether the DC/DC converter is abnormal based on information about an operation state of the DC/DC converter [see Paragraph 0165 - discusses that a current/voltage is measured to determine whether the DC converter is abnormal].
Shiraishi discloses a second determination unit that determines whether the alternator is abnormal based on information about an operation state of the alternator [see Paragraph 0137 - discusses that an overcharge of the battery occurs, see Paragraph 0101 - discusses that a current is measured to determine that the alternator fails, and see Paragraph 0165 - discusses measuring that a current is unable to flow (no current) and outputting the warning].
Shiraishi further discloses output the first warning when a current that flows is equal to or greater than a threshold value [see Paragraph 0101 - discusses measuring an overcurrent when a measured current value is a value or more to generate the warning].
Lee discloses output a second warning when a DC/DC converter is abnormal [see Paragraph 0046 - discusses determining an increase in impedance of a DC-DC converter and generating a warning, such as a voice warning, and see Paragraph 0021 – discusses that the warning induces a vehicle to visit a maintenance shop]. The second warning as taught by Lee (prompt driver to repair) is different from the first warning (prompt driver to stop) as taught by Yoshizawa and Shiraishi.
Further, if an abnormality in each of Yoshizawa, Shiraishi, Lee is not triggered, then no warning is output. Therefore, this limitation is taught in each of Yoshizawa, Shiraishi.
However, the combination of Yoshizawa, Shiraishi, Lee, or Atsushi fails to disclose or make obvious these features of claim 3:
“wherein the output unit is configured to:
output the first warning when a current that flows from the auxiliary battery to the auxiliary load is equal to or greater than a threshold value; and
when the current is less than the threshold value, output the first warning if it is determined that both the DC/DC converter and the alternator are abnormal”.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias. It is thereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Takase et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0308353 A1) hereinafter Takase is directed at determining that an abnormality occurs in a DC/DC converter and a driver is warned to stop a vehicle [see Paragraph 0063].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665