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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 12-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 13-17 of copending Application No. 19/018,144 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Application: 19/018,072
Copending Application: 19/018,144
Claim 1:
A system for supplying a low DC voltage to a vehicle from high voltage batteries of the vehicle, the system comprising: a first DC-DC converter configured to convert a high DC voltage provided by a first battery of the vehicle to a low DC voltage; and a second DC-DC converter configured to convert a high DC voltage provided by a second battery of the vehicle to a low DC voltage, wherein the first DC-DC converter is configured to be electrically connected to the first battery, and wherein the second DC-DC converter is configured to be electrically connected to the second battery.
Claim 1:
A system for supplying a low DC voltage to a vehicle from high voltage batteries of the vehicle, the system comprising: a first DC-DC converter configured to convert a high DC voltage from a first battery of the vehicle to a low DC voltage; a second DC-DC converter configured to convert a high DC voltage from a second battery of the vehicle to the low DC voltage; and a third DC-DC converter with a lower output power compared to the first and second DC-DC converters and configured to convert a high DC voltage from the batteries of the vehicle to the low DC voltage, wherein the first DC-DC converter is configured to be connected to the first battery, wherein the second DC-DC converter is configured to be connected to the second battery, and wherein the third DC-DC converter is configured to be connected to the first and second batteries in series.
Claims 12-16 of the present application 19/018,072 is identical to claims 13-17 respectively of Copending application 19/018,144.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 6 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.
In regards to claim 6, the recitation “a high voltage battery” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the first DC-DC converter and the second DC-DC converter are configured to be electrically connected directly to the high voltage batteries as claimed in claim 1 or a new high voltage battery. Thus, the metes and bounds cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gannamaneni et al. (US 2023/0121220 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Gannamaneni discloses, in figure 2, a system (100) for supplying a low DC voltage (LV) to a vehicle (Fig. 1; electric vehicle 1) from high voltage batteries (HV1, HV2) of the vehicle (Par 0040), the system (100) comprising: a first DC-DC converter (110/150) configured to convert a high DC voltage (output high DC voltage of HV1) provided by a first battery (HV1) of the vehicle to a low DC voltage (output of 110/150 low DC voltage LV) (Par 0040, 0047); and a second DC-DC converter (120/160) configured to convert a high DC voltage (output high DC voltage of HV2) provided by a second battery (HV2) of the vehicle to a low DC voltage (output of 120/160 low DC voltage LV) (Par 0040, 0047), wherein the first DC-DC converter (110/150) is configured to be electrically connected to the first battery (HV1) (See Fig. 2; DC-DC converter 110/150 is electrically connected to battery HV1), and wherein the second DC-DC converter (120/160) is configured to be electrically connected to the second battery (HV2) (See Fig. 2; DC-DC converter 120/160 is electrically connected to battery HV2).
In regards to claim 2, Gannamaneni discloses, in figure 2, the system of claim 1, wherein the first DC-DC converter (110/150) and the second DC-DC converter (120/160) are configured to provide the low DC voltage in both a key-on state and a key-off state of the vehicle (Par 0047; “the converter system 100 further includes at least one low power DC-DC module 150, 160 that is connected in parallel with one of the first high voltage DC-DC module 110 and the second high voltage DC-DC module 120 and configured to supply power to the low voltage system if the converter system 100 is in a non-operating mode…The non-operating mode may also be referred to as key-off state of the vehicle 1” thus the first DC-DC converter 110/150 and the second DC-DC converter 120/160 provide the low DC voltage in both a key-on state (non-failure operating mode; Par 0052) and a key-off state (non-operating mode; Par 0053) of the vehicle).
In regards to claim 6, Gannamaneni discloses, in figure 3, the system of claim 1, wherein the first DC-DC converter (110/150) and the second DC-DC converter (120/160) are configured to be electrically connected directly to a high voltage battery (HV1, HV2) without any switches in between (See Fig. 3; first DC-DC converter 110/150 and the second DC-DC converter 120/160 are directly electrically connected to the high voltage batteries HV1, HV2 respectively without any switches in between).
In regards to claim 7, Gannamaneni discloses, in figure 2, the system of claim 1, further comprising at least one power distribution unit (112, 122) configured to provide the low DC voltage to a plurality of loads (Par 0008; “The first low voltage interface and the second low voltage interface may be also connected to same low voltage system loads or to different low voltage system loads. The low voltage system loads may be control components for opening a door or a window to open, starting the motor, steering and braking loads etc.”), wherein the power distribution unit (112, 122) is electrically connected to both the first DC-DC converter (110/150) and the second DC-DC converter (120/160) (Par 0042-0043, see Fig. 2).
In regards to claim 8, Gannamaneni discloses, in figure 2, the system of claim 7, wherein the power distribution unit (112, 122) is configured to electrically connect each load (LV 1 – LV 11) of the plurality of loads to either the first DC-DC converter (110/150) or the second DC-DC converter (120/160) (Par 0008; The first low voltage interface 112 and the second low voltage interface 122 electrically connect each load LV1 – LV11 of the low voltage system loads to either the first DC-DC converter 110/150 or second DC-DC converter 120/160 respectively).
In regards to claim 9, Gannamaneni discloses, in figure 2, the system of claim 8, wherein the power distribution unit (112, 122) is configured to actively distribute the plurality of loads among the first DC-DC converter (110/150) and the second DC-DC converter (120/160) (Par 0008), such that the first high voltage battery (HV1) and the second high voltage battery (HV2) are essentially balanced (Par 0006- 0007; “The controller is configured to control power supply via one of the first high voltage DC-DC module and the second high voltage DC-DC module to the low voltage system in case of failure affecting the other one of the first high voltage DC-DC module and the second high voltage DC-DC module…Accordingly, the converter system may maintain the battery systems and the power supply more efficiently” thus the first high voltage battery HV1 and the second high voltage battery HV2 are essentially balanced.
In regards to claim 12, Gannamaneni discloses, in figure 2, the system of claim 1, wherein the low DC voltage is a nominal voltage of 60V or less (Par 0039; “the low voltage (LV) system may have a voltage of <60 V, for example about 12V, 24V or 48V”).
In regards to claim 13, Gannamaneni discloses, in figure 2, the system of claim 1, wherein the low DC voltage is a nominal voltage of 12V, 24V, or 48V (Par 0039; “the low voltage (LV) system may have a voltage of <60 V, for example about 12V, 24V or 48V”).
In regards to claim 14, Gannamaneni discloses, in figure 2, the system of claim 1, wherein the high DC voltage is a nominal voltage of more than 60V (Par 0039; “The high voltage (HV) system may have a voltage of 60 V<U≤1500 V, for example of about 200V or 400V”).
In regards to claim 15, Gannamaneni discloses, in figure 2, the system of claim 1, wherein the high DC voltage is a nominal voltage of 200V, 400V, 800V, or higher (Par 0039; “The high voltage (HV) system may have a voltage of 60 V<U≤1500 V, for example of about 200 V or 400V”).
In regards to claim 16, Gannamaneni discloses, in figure 2, the system of claim 1, wherein the high voltage batteries (HV1, HV2) are adapted to power an electric motor (Fig. 1; electric propulsion machine 10) of the vehicle (Fig. 1; vehicle 1) (Par 0039).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gannamaneni et al. (US 2023/0121220 A1) in view of Furukawa et al. (US 2003/0117019 A1).
In regards to claim 3, Gannamaneni discloses, in figure 2, the system of claim 2, wherein the first DC-DC converter (110/150) and the second DC-DC converter (120/160) are configured to provide the low DC voltage in the key-off state of the vehicle in a low power mode (Par 0047; “the converter system 100 further includes at least one low power DC-DC module 150, 160 that is connected in parallel with one of the first high voltage DC-DC module 110 and the second high voltage DC-DC module 120 and configured to supply power to the low voltage system if the converter system 100 is in a non-operating mode…The non-operating mode may also be referred to as key-off state of the vehicle 1”), but does not disclose in which active cooling of the DC-DC converters is switched off.
However, Furukawa discloses, in figure 1, 3a, 3b, in which active cooling of the DC-DC converters is switched off (Par 0059-0060; ECU 19-1 recognizes an OFF state (IGOFF) of the ignition switch 17 and ECU 19-1 regulates relays 10, 13, and 14 and disconnects cooling fan 7, air conditioner 8 and defroster 9 from the connection to DC/DC converter 5. The output current of the DC/DC converter 5 is then decreased by the amount of a current amplitude A1 corresponding to the sum of these load currents of cooling fan 7, air conditioner 8 and defroster 9).
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 Gannamaneni’s converter system by including in which active cooling of the DC-DC converters is switched off as taught by Furukawa in order to prevent the occurrence of electromagnetic noise due to the abrupt change in the current of the power unit, and consequently to reduce the influence on the environment (Par 0008; Furukawa).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gannamaneni et al. (US 2023/0121220 A1) in view of Furukawa et al. (US 2003/0117019 A1) in further view of Park et al. (US 2008/0310109 A1).
In regards to claim 4, Gannamaneni and Furukawa disclose the system of claim 3. Gannamaneni further discloses, in figure 2, wherein the first DC-DC converter (110/150) and the second DC-DC converter (120/160) are configured to operate in the low power mode (Par 0047; non-operating mode), but does not disclose with passive cooling only.
However, Park discloses, in figure 5, wherein the first DC-DC converter (110/150 as discussed in Gannamaneni) and the second DC-DC converter (120/160 as discussed in Gannamaneni) are configured to operate in the low power mode with passive cooling only (Par 0037; “a second heat sink 51 for cooling the DC-DC converter 54 are disposed between the inverter 53 and the DC-DC converter 54. In this case, the cross sections of the first and second heat sinks 50 and 51 have projections in the form of comb teeth” thus the heat sink 51 provides passive cooling).
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 Gannamaneni’s first and second DC-DC converters by including a heat sink which provides passive cooling only as taught by Park in order to provide a cooling structure of high voltage electrical parts for a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) that can reduce the length between an inlet and an outlet of cooling air and supply cooling air at the same temperature to all electrical parts (Par 0022; Park).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gannamaneni et al. (US 2023/0121220 A1) in view of Fukuoka et al. (US 2022/0209561 A1).
In regards to claim 5, Gannamaneni disclose the system of claim 1. Gannamaneni further discloses, in figure 2, wherein the first DC-DC converter (110/150) and the second DC-DC converter (120/160) are configured to provide electrical power in a high power mode (Par 0040, 0052; non-failure operating mode) but does not disclose with active cooling.
However, Fukuoka discloses, in figure 2, wherein the first DC-DC converter (110/150 as discussed in Gannamaneni) and the second DC-DC converter (120/160 as discussed in Gannamaneni) are configured to provide electrical power in a high power mode with active cooling (Par 0054; the circuit cooling fan 27 can cool at least a first DC-DC converter 31 and a second DC-DC converter 41, thus the circuit cooling fan 27 provides active cooling).
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 Gannamaneni’s first and second DC-DC converters by including a circuit cooling fan which provides active cooling as taught by Fukuoka in order to suppress heat generation and overheat of the first converter and/or the second converter (Par 0009, 0169; Fukuoka).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gannamaneni et al. (US 2023/0121220 A1) in view of Djelassi-Tscheck et al. (US 2022/0166422 A1).
In regards to claim 10, Gannamaneni disclose the system of claim 7, but does not disclose wherein the power distribution unit includes at least one switch to separate quality management loads from safety-critical loads.
However, Djelassi-Tscheck discloses, in figure 2, wherein the power distribution unit (112, 122 as discussed in Gannamanen) includes at least one switch (smart switch 1.1-1.4) to separate quality management loads from safety-critical loads (Par 0046; smart switches are switched to separate non-safety critical loads (e.g. air conditioning) from safety critical loads (e.g. power steering) where the non-safety-critical loads are switched off earlier than safety-critical loads in case of an under-voltage state).
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 Gannamaneni’s power distribution unit by including at least one switch to separate quality management loads from safety-critical loads as taught by Djelassi-Tscheck in order to provide a load current limitation function and over-current shut down which may be triggered at higher load currents well above the current threshold value (Par 0004, 0046; Djelassi-Tscheck).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gannamaneni et al. (US 2023/0121220 A1) in view of Gronau et al. (US 2023/0001869 A1).
In regards to claim 11, Gannamaneni disclose the system of claim 7, but does not disclose further comprising: a first electric main fuse box (eMFB) electrically connected to the first DC-DC converter, a first power distribution unit, and a second power distribution unit; and a second eMFB electrically connected to the second DC-DC converter, the first power distribution unit, and the second power distribution unit.
However, Gronau discloses, in figure 1, a first electric main fuse box (eMFB) (7a) electrically connected to the first DC-DC converter (2a) (Par 0034-0035), a first power distribution unit (13a; Par 0037), and a second power distribution unit (13b; Par 0037); and a second eMFB (7b) electrically connected to the second DC-DC converter (2b) (Par 0034-0035), the first power distribution unit (13a; Par 0037), and the second power distribution unit (13b; Par 0037).
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 Gannamaneni’s converter system by including a first electric main fuse box (eMFB) electrically connected to the first DC-DC converter, a first power distribution unit, and a second power distribution unit; and a second eMFB electrically connected to the second DC-DC converter, the first power distribution unit, and the second power distribution unit as taught by Gronau in order to provide short circuit protection and overcurrent protection (Par 0034-0035; Gronau).
Conclusion
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, Lincoln D. Donovan can be reached at (571)-272-1988. 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 12/05/2025