DETAILED ACTION
1. 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
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-13 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “…a first bidirectional direct-current to direct-current (DC/DC) converter, the first DC/DC converter being configured to supply direct-current power to the battery pack; a second DC/DC converter; and an alternating-current to direct-current (AC/DC) converter connected to the external power grid, the AC/DC converter being configured to convert current, wherein the controller includes a main control unit (MCU) is located between the AC/DC converter and the first DC/DC converter, the MCU being configured to generate a control signal, wherein, when the supply of the power from the external power grid is impossible, the controller is configured to perform control such that power stored in the battery pack is supplied to the main power source, and wherein, when the supply of the power from the external power grid is interrupted, the MCU operates the second DC/DC converter to change a current direction of the first DC/DC converter from the battery pack to the main power source.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “the first DC/DC converter”, if it is referring back to previously defined “first bidirectional direct-current to direct-current (DC/DC) converter” then the first underlined portion of the claim limitation should be “the first bidirectional DC/DC converter”, also for the second and third underlined portions of the claim limitation according to antecedent basis requirement; otherwise, the first, second (bold) and third (bold) underlined portions of the claim limitation should clearly define the differences over “first bidirectional direct-current to direct-current (DC/DC) converter”;
Note: according to Application’s specification on paragraph 88, there is only one bidirectional DC/DC converter 600 in Fig.3 and the first DC/DC converter is 800 in Fig.3;
(ii). the underlined portion of the claim limitation “a main control unit (MCU) is located between the AC/DC converter and the first DC/DC converter” is not clear since according to Application’s Fig.3, the AC/DC converter is 500, the first DC/DC converter is 800 and a main control unit (MCU) is 710, but the MCU 710 is not in between the AC/DC converter 500 and the first DC/DC converter 800; and
(iii). the underlined portion of the claim limitation “the MCU operates the second DC/DC converter to change a current direction of the first DC/DC converter from the battery pack to the main power source.” is also not clear what is meant at least due to the term “the first DC/DC converter”.
Dependent claims 2-6 are also rejected at least the same reason as rejected independent claim 1 as stated above because the dependent claims 2-6 are depending on the rejected independent claim 1.
Regarding clam 2, the claim limitation “the first DC/DC converter” should be consistent with the claim 1 as stated above.
Regarding clam 3, the claim limitation “the second DC/DC converter is located between the MCU and the first DC/DC converter and the battery pack” is not clear since the term “the first DC/DC converter” has insufficient antecedent basis and also according to Application’s Fig.3, the second DC/DC converter (900) is not located between the MCU (710) and the first DC/DC converter (800) and the battery pack (battery pack connected to bidirectional DC/DC converter).
Regarding clam 5, the claim limitation “the first DC/DC converter” should be consistent with the claim 1 as stated above.
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitation “…a first bidirectional direct-current to direct-current (DC/DC) converter, the first DC/DC converter being configured to supply direct-current power to the battery pack; a second DC/DC converter; a transistor formed between the second DC/DC converter and the first DC/DC converter and the battery pack; and a voltage sensing unit configured to determine whether voltage between the first DC/DC converter and a main control unit (MCU) is abnormal, wherein, when supply of power from the external power grid is impossible, the controller is configured to perform control such that the power stored in the battery pack is supplied to the main power source, and wherein when a value of voltage sensed by the voltage sensing unit is 0 volts (V), the controller is configured to perform control such that the transistor is turned on, whereby the second DC/DC converter is operated to change a current direction of the first DC/DC converter.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “the first DC/DC converter”, if it is referring back to previously defined “first bidirectional direct-current to direct-current (DC/DC) converter” then the first underlined portion of the claim limitation should be “the first bidirectional DC/DC converter”, also for the second, third and fourth underlined portions of the claim limitation according to antecedent basis requirement; otherwise, the first, second, third and fourth underlined portions of the claim limitation should clearly define the differences over “first bidirectional direct-current to direct-current (DC/DC) converter”.
Note: according to Application’s specification on paragraph 88, there is only one bidirectional DC/DC converter 600 in Fig.3 and the first DC/DC converter is 800 in Fig.3.
Dependent claims 8-13 are also rejected at least the same reason as rejected independent claim 7 as stated above because the dependent claims 8-13 are depending on the rejected independent claim 7.
Regarding clam 8, the claim limitation “the first DC/DC converter” should be consistent with the claim 7 as stated above.
Regarding clam 9, the claim limitation “the first DC/DC converter” should be consistent with the claim 7 as stated above.
Regarding clam 10, the claim limitation “the first DC/DC converter” should be consistent with the claim 7 as stated above.
Regarding clam 11, the claim limitation “the second DC/DC converter is located between the MCU and the first DC/DC converter and the battery pack” is not clear since the term “the first DC/DC converter” has insufficient antecedent basis and also according to Application’s Fig.3, the second DC/DC converter (900) is not located between the MCU (710) and the first DC/DC converter (800) and the battery pack (battery pack connected to bidirectional DC/DC converter).
Regarding clam 12, the claim limitation “the first DC/DC converter” should be consistent with the claim 7 as stated above.
Double Patenting
4. 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
5. Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting (as best understood) as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,218,544. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 1-6, respectively are anticipated in the claims 1-6 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,218,544.
6. Claims 7-9, 11 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting (as best understood) as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,218,544. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims 7-9, 11 and 13 are anticipated in the claims 1-6, respectively of the U.S. Patent No. 12,218,544.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD TAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7455. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached on 571-270-3684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Richard Tan/Primary Examiner 2849