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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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: diagnosis device of control of an ideal diode.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KODA (JP 2015100240A).
Regarding claim 1, KODA teaches a diagnosis device (13) that detects an abnormality of an ideal diode (D1 and 30) in an electric circuit (1) including a direct-current (DC)-DC converter (12), a battery (2), and the ideal diode (D1 and 30), to an anode side of which an output of the DC-DC converter (12) is connected and to a cathode side of which the battery (2) is connected (as shown in fig. 1), the diagnosis device (13) comprising: an acquisition unit (32) that acquires an output voltage of the DC-DC converter (12) with operation of the DC-DC converter stopped (KODA’s description discloses “The voltage detector 32 detects the voltage between the source and drain of the FET 30. Here, even when the DCDC converter 12 stops operating in a state where the positive electrode and the negative electrode of the battery 2 are connected to the terminals 10 and 11, current flows from the DCDC converter 12 to the source of the FET 30. For example, dark current flows”), the ideal diode (D1 and 30) being powered by the output of the DC-DC converter (12) (KODA’s description discloses “As described above, the FET 30 is provided in a path of a current flowing between the terminals 10 and 11 via the DCDC converter 12 when a DC voltage is applied between the terminals 10 and 11, and the FET 30 is connected to the DCDC converter 12 with a direct current. Turns on when voltage is applied in one direction”); and a determination unit (32 and 35) that determines that the ideal diode (D1 and 30) is abnormal when the output voltage is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold value (KODA’s description discloses “When a large amount of current flows from the source to the drain of the FET 30 and the voltage detection unit 32 detects a voltage equal to or higher than the threshold voltage and the detection signal indicates a low level voltage, the control unit 35 detects an overcurrent in the DCDC converter 12” ).
Regarding claim 3, KODA teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, KODA teaches wherein: the electric circuit (1) is mounted on a vehicle (KODA’s description discloses “The transformer system 1, the battery 2 and the capacitor C1 are suitably mounted on the vehicle”); and the acquisition unit (32) acquires the output voltage after ignition of the vehicle is turned on (KODA’s description discloses “When the control unit 35 determines that the ignition switch is not turned off, that is, remains on (S11: NO), the control unit 35 returns the process to step S10, and performs the determination in step S10 until the ignition switch is turned off”) and before the DC-DC converter (12) operates (KODA’s description discloses “The voltage detector 32 detects the voltage between the source and drain of the FET 30. Here, even when the DCDC converter 12 stops operating in a state where the positive electrode and the negative electrode of the battery 2 are connected to the terminals 10 and 11, current flows from the DCDC converter 12 to the source of the FET 30. For example, dark current flows”).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KODA (JP 2015100240A) in view of Niu et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0025365).
Regarding claim 2, KODA teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, KODA teaches wherein: the electric circuit (1) is mounted on a vehicle (KODA’s description discloses “The transformer system 1, the battery 2 and the capacitor C1 are suitably mounted on the vehicle”).
KODA fails to specifically teach wherein the acquisition unit acquires the output voltage after ignition of the vehicle is turned off and the operation of DC-DC converter is stopped. However, Niu et al. teaches wherein the acquisition unit (46) acquires the output voltage after ignition of the vehicle (30) is turned off and the operation of DC-DC converter (38) is stopped (as shown in fig. 2 and disclosed in para. 0008 and 0019).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the acquisition unit acquire the output voltage after ignition of the vehicle is turned off and the operation of DC-DC converter is stopped as taught by Niu et al. with the invention of KODA in order to preserve battery charge while a vehicle is in an off state and while the vehicle is starting up (Niu et al. para. 0007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4-5, the prior art fails to specifically teach wherein when it is determined that the ideal diode is normal when the ignition of the vehicle is turned off, the determination unit does not make a new determination for a predetermined time after determining that the ideal diode is normal, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights