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.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kubota (US 2024/0317090 A1).
RE claim 1, Kubota teaches an electric apparatus (Figs.1-6, 15 and 16) comprising:
an electricity storage device (B) (battery, see Figs.1, 3) and a rotary electric machine;
an electric power control unit (2, 3) that is connected to the electricity storage device (B) (¶ 59) and the rotary electric machine (M) and controls electric power transfer of each of the electricity storage device (B) and the rotary electric machine (M); and
an electric power source connection member 4a that connects the electric power control unit (2, 3) to an external electric power source 4 (Fig.6), wherein
the rotary electric machine (M) comprises:
a first coil (β1);
a second coil (β2); and
a stator core 11 on which a slot shared by the first coil (β1) and the second coil (β2) is formed (Fig.15),
the electric power control unit (2, 3) comprises:
a first full-bridge circuit (HC3) that is connected to both ends of the first coil (β1);
a second full-bridge circuit (HC4) that is connected to both ends of the second coil (β2);
a first connection-disconnection device 8a that is connected between one end of the first coil (β1) and the first full-bridge circuit (HC3) (at point P5, see ¶ 72 and Fig.16); and
a second connection-disconnection device 8b that is connected between one end of the second coil (β2) and the second full-bridge circuit (H4C) (at point P7, see ¶ 73 and Fig.16), and
the electric power source connection member 4a is connected to both ends of each of the first connection-disconnection device 8a and the second connection-disconnection device 8b (see ¶ 72 and Fig.16) such that magnetic fluxes are cancelled each other when a current supplied from the external electric power source 4 to the first coil (β1) and the second coil (β2) that are magnetically coupled flows (¶ 62).
Furthermore, it is noted that the limitation “magnetic fluxes are cancelled each other when a current supplied from the external electric power source to the first coil and the second coil that are magnetically coupled flows” appeared to be a method of operating the device.
MPEP 2112.02: “PRIOR ART DEVICE ANTICIPATES A CLAIMED PROCESS IF THE DEVICE CARRIES OUT THE PROCESS DURING NORMAL OPERATION. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”.
RE claim 2/1, Kubota teaches the electric apparatus according to wherein the rotary electric machine comprises
a third coil (α1) and a fourth coil (α2) that share the slot of the stator core 11 (Fig.15), and
the electric power control unit comprises:
a third full-bridge circuit (HC1) that is connected to both ends of the third coil (α1);
a fourth full-bridge circuit (HC2) that is connected to both ends of the fourth coil (α2);
a third connection-disconnection device 8 that is connected between positive electrodes of the third fill-bridge circuit (HC1) and the fourth fill-bridge circuit (HC2) (Fig.16); and
a fourth connection-disconnection device 8 that is connected between negative electrodes of the third full-bridge circuit (HC1) and the fourth full-bridge circuit (HC2).
RE claim 3/1, Kubota teaches the electricity storage device (B) is charged by the external electric power source 4, each of the first connection-disconnection device 8a and the second connection- disconnection device 8b is set to be in a disconnection state (method of operating, see below), and the first full-bridge circuit (HC3) and the second full-bridge circuit (HC4) set a flow direction in the first coil (β1) and the second coil (β1) of the current supplied from the external electric power source 4 such that the magnetic fluxes of the first coil and the second coil that are magnetically coupled cancel each other out (¶ 62).
Furthermore, it is noted that the limitation “disconnection device 8b is set to be in a disconnection state, and the first full-bridge circuit and the second full-bridge circuit set a flow direction in the first coil and the second coil of the current supplied from the external electric power source such that the magnetic fluxes of the first coil and the second coil that are magnetically coupled cancel each other out” also appeared to be limitation direct to a method of operating the device.
MPEP 2112.02: “PRIOR ART DEVICE ANTICIPATES A CLAIMED PROCESS IF THE DEVICE CARRIES OUT THE PROCESS DURING NORMAL OPERATION. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”.
RE claim 4/1, Kubota teaches the electric power control unit stops a switching operation of the first full-bridge circuit (HC3) or the second full-bridge circuit (HC4) when a voltage of the external electric power source is equal to or more than a predetermined voltage (such limitation appeared to be limitation direct to a method of operating the device. MPEP 2112.02: “PRIOR ART DEVICE ANTICIPATES A CLAIMED PROCESS IF THE DEVICE CARRIES OUT THE PROCESS DURING NORMAL OPERATION. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
RE claim 5/1, the prior-art does not teach, inter alia, an electric power source connection-disconnection device that is connected between the electric power source connection member and the first connection- disconnection device or the second connection-disconnection device, wherein the electric power source connection-disconnection device is set to be in a connection state when a voltage of the external electric power source is less than a predetermined voltage, and the electric power source connection-disconnection device is set to be in a disconnection state when the voltage of the external electric power source is equal to or more than the predetermined voltage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM 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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270-5112. 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.
/THOMAS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights