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 .
Response to Arguments
The claims filed in this application are nearly identical to those already presented, and rejected, in parent application 17/986,320 (see Non-Final 3/22/24). Pending claim 1 recites the same limitations as parent original claims 1 and 4, with the only apparent difference being the absence of the last three lines of parent original claim 1. This slight change does not overcome the art rejection of those claims.
The Applicant has not presented any arguments to indicate why the obviousness rejection (Eisenberger in view of Horitake), applied against the original parent claims, should not be applied to the pending claims.
This application even contains the same objection issues (title, drawing, claim language, claim numbering). It is unclear why the Applicant has not submitted these already corrected parts of the application. Filing a divisional does not negate the entirety of the prosecution history already conducted.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because item 12 (figures 1 and 6) is labeled as “DDC”. This is a DC/DC converter and should be labeled “DC/DC”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 title should indicate the aspect of “control apparatus” to which the claims are directed. Namely, a dual battery power supply for a vehicle with control over an interconnection switch.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the manner in which the states of the intersystem switch are defined.
Claim 1 recites “sets the intersystem switch to a closed state and sets a first voltage [] to be higher than a second voltage [] to be a first state…” and “sets the intersystem switch to an open state to be a second state”. The claim defines the intersystem switch as both an open/second state and the first voltage as higher/first state.
The ordinal numbering of the states is unnecessary and redundant. As written, the ordinal numbering adds confusion to the claim as the resulting grammar is unclear.
The Applicant successfully amended the claims to correct this issue in the parent application. If those same changes are not made here, explanation is requested.
The same issue appears in claim 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because the limitation of the “first control unit” should be grouped together. The claims include four lines directed to the second control unit in between first control unit limitations.
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because:
lines 2-3 are redundant to claim 1.
They each recites the second control unit “stops switching of the intersystem switch to be the open state”. It is unclear what is meant here. The control unit is not constantly switching intersystem switch states. It is almost always “stopped” – until an event happens that causes it to (for one time) change the intersystem switch state.
For the purpose of the art rejection, this phrase will be interpreted as “closing the intersystem switch”.
Claim 5 is an exact duplicate of claim 2. They both depend from claim 1 and recite the same limitations. The last few words missing from the end of claim 5 do not affect its scope. One of these claims should be further amended or canceled.
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim 6 depends from claim 4, but is separated from it by unrelated claim 5.
This numbering issue was noted in the parent application. It is unclear why the Applicant did not take a brand new set of claims as an opportunity to correct this.
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)(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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eisenberger (US 2004/0124709).
With respect to claim 3, Eisenberger discloses a control apparatus (fig 1-2; par 26-43) that is applicable to a power supply system, the power supply system including a first system (bus 7 and what it is connected to), a second system (bus 16 and what it is connected to), a connection path (18), and an intersystem switch (17), the first system including a first power supply (3) that is connected to a first load (4), the second system including a second power supply (6) that is connected to a second load (5), the connection path connecting the first and second systems to each other (shown in figure 2 and discussed throughout the reference), and the intersystem switch being provided on the connection path (see fig 2), the control apparatus comprising:
a first control unit that sets the intersystem switch to a closed state and sets a first voltage that is a voltage of the first power supply to be higher than a second voltage that is a voltage of the second power supply (par 28, 35) to be a first state in which power supply is performed from the first power supply to the first and second loads (par 35);
a second control unit that, in response to a reverse-direction current that is oriented from the second system to the first system flowing to the connection path in the first state, sets the intersystem switch to an open state to be a second state in which power supply is performed from the second power supply to the second load (par 38-39), wherein: and
the first control unit acquires drive amount information that indicates a drive amount of the first load and the second load (par 38, 40 – load usage will deplete the battery 3); and
the second control unit stops switching of the intersystem switch to be the open state when the reverse-direction current is determined to be flowing, in response to the drive amount switching from a state of being greater than a predetermined threshold to a state of being less than the predetermined threshold (par 43).
Eisenberger discloses a single control unit (processor 20) that executes the opening and closing of the intersystem switch. Thus, Eisenberger discloses two control “units”. The Examiner notes that the Applicant also discloses a single control unit (item 40) that performs multiple actions. That the claim names each action as a “unit” does not require that there are multiple structural components.
Eisenberger discloses the first voltage (12v) is set higher than the second voltage (6v). Also, Eisenberger discloses the first/closed intersystem switch state where switch 17 “will operate to connect the main battery 3 to the timed equipment 4 and to the protected equipment 5.” (par 35) and that (when closed) the intersystem switch “will permit current to pass through to the buss 16 [] and for charging the back-up battery 6.” The current flow from the first source (3) to the second source (6) indicates that the first voltage is higher than the second voltage.
Eisenberger discloses the control unit senses the battery voltage. Therefore, the reference teaches that the control unit acquires drive amount “information”. As the load(s) uses more power, the battery will become more depleted. This can be sensed as “information” that “indicates” a drive amount of the two loads.
Eisenberger then discloses a reverse-direction current override that forces the intersystem switch closed (even if a reverse-direction current is determined to be flowing). The override is activated if “the vehicle is re-started [] or if any adverse electrical conditions are corrected” (par 43, emphasis added). One of the Eisenberger adverse conditions is a low first battery voltage (par 39). As discussed above, a low voltage “indicates” high load usage, and a high voltage “indicates” low load usage. When the Eisenberger drive amount switches from higher than the threshold to lower than the threshold, this indicates that loads are turned off and the battery voltage has increased. This increase is the correction of the low-voltage adverse condition. As a result, Eisenberger re-closes (i.e. stops opening) the intersystem switch.
With respect to claim 4, Eisenberger discloses wherein:
the power supply system is mounted to a vehicle (par 27, lines 5-6);
the first load and the second load provide at least one function required for driving of the vehicle that includes a driving assistance function of the vehicle (par 27, they are communications equipment, on-board computers, GPS, etc.);
the vehicle is capable of traveling in a first mode in which the driving assistance function is used and traveling in a second mode in which the driving assistance function is not used (the Eisenberger vehicle can travel in both modes – the loads are not required for operating the vehicle, they are merely driver “assistance” functions);
the first control unit sets the first state in the first mode (when 17 is closed, all loads are powered);
the second control unit sets the second state in response to the reverse-direction current being determined to be flowing in the first mode (when 17 is opened, in response to a reverse current flow, load 4 is unpowered).
The claim broadly recites what the vehicle is “capable of”. The loads are broadly defined as “assistance” functions. Assistance loads are supplemental (they operate the GPS to help the driver know where they are going) – they are not required to actually operate the vehicle (turn it on, provide fuel to the engine, shift the transmission to drive, etc.). It is unclear what narrowing subject matter the Applicant intends to include in this claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenberger in view of Horitake (US 2017/0264104).
With respect to claim 1, Eisenberger discloses the control apparatus, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 3. Eisenberger does not expressly disclose the last limitation of claim 1. Horitake discloses a control apparatus (fig 1; par 31-49) that is applicable to a power supply system, the power supply system including a first system (the bus left of 180), a second system (the bus right of 180), a connection path (at 180), and an intersystem switch (180), the first system including a first power supply (110, 130) that is connected to a first load (120), the second system including a second power supply (160), the connection path connecting the first and second systems to each other (shown in figure 1), and the intersystem switch being provided on the connection path (see fig 1), the control apparatus comprising
a first control unit (par 35) that sets the intersystem switch to a closed state and sets a first voltage that is a voltage of the first power supply to be higher than a second voltage that is a voltage of the second power supply (obvious in par 38, 44-45; power from the alternator is provided to the secondary battery) to be a first state; wherein:
the first control unit sets a voltage that has a predetermined voltage difference relative to the second voltage as a target voltage and variably controls the first voltage based on the target voltage (par 38-41, 44);
the first control unit acquires drive information (par 41, “according to the SOC of the first battery”) that indicates a drive amount of the first load and the second load; and
when the drive amount indicated by the drive amount information is greater than a predetermined threshold, it sets the first voltage to be higher than that when the drive amount is less than the threshold (Horitake par 41).
The Examiner notes that the claim does not explicitly introduce the threshold as a distinct claimed limitation. The claim does not recite any structure to create/store the threshold or any structure to compare the drive amount to the threshold. The claim recites “when” hypotheticals that indicate certain functionalities that exist on either side of the threshold – but there is no requirement in the language of the claim that the prior art must disclose comparing values to a threshold before acting on the first voltage.
Both Eisenberger and Horitake disclose that the main battery state of charge “indicates” the drive amount of the two loads (the more the loads are used when the vehicle is off, the more they will deplete the first battery). The Examiner notes that the claim does not recite how the drive amount is sensed/detected or what the information actually states (only broadly what it “indicates”).
In response to this Eisenberger adverse/fault condition, relay 17 will open to stop discharge from the first battery and begin powering the second load solely from the second battery (par 40-42). This will then deplete the second battery. In the combination, with both batteries depleted, Horitake will use the alternator to recharge the batteries. This obviously includes setting the first voltage to be higher than when the drive amount is less than the threshold because charging the first battery will raise its voltage. And the voltage output by the alternator needs to be higher than the first battery in order to fully charge it.
Eisenberger and Horitake are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely vehicles with dual-voltage power supplies and an intersystem switch to selectively connect them. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Eisenberger to include the alternator voltage control taught by Horitake. The motivation for doing so would have been to keep the batteries charged (without any external power source, the Eisenberger batteries would deplete quickly). Furthermore, Eisenberger discloses the presence of an alternator in the vehicle to supply DC power to operate the equipment. Thus, supporting the interpretation that the skilled artisan would look to Horitake as a way to improve Eisenberger.
With respect to claims 2 and 5, Eisenberger discloses wherein:
the first control unit acquires drive amount information (redundant to claim1); and
the second control unit stops switching the intersystem switch to be the open state when the reverse-direction current is determined to be flowing, in response to the drive amount switching from a state of being greater than a predetermined threshold to a state of being less than the predetermined threshold (par 43).
Eisenberger and Horitake both disclose acquiring drive amount information, as discussed above. Eisenberger then discloses a reverse-direction current override that forces the intersystem switch closed (even if a reverse-direction current is determined to be flowing). The override is activated if “the vehicle is re-started [] or if any adverse electrical conditions are corrected” (par 43, emphasis added). One of the Eisenberger adverse conditions is a low first battery voltage (par 39). As discussed above, a low voltage “indicates” high load usage, and a high voltage “indicates” low load usage. When the Eisenberger drive amount switches from higher than the threshold to lower than the threshold, this indicates that loads are turned off and the battery voltage has increased. This increase is the correction of the low-voltage adverse condition. As a result, Eisenberger re-closes (i.e. stops opening) the intersystem switch.
With respect to claim 6, Eisenberger, modified by Horitake to have control over changing/setting the first voltage, teaches wherein:
the first control unit controls the first voltage to be a target voltage that is higher than the second voltage (see art rejection of claim 1 – Eisenberger normally has the first [12v] voltage be a target voltage higher than the second [6v]; Horitake teaches how to “control” this voltage with the alternator).
the control apparatus includes:
a voltage determining unit that determines that the first voltage has fallen below the target voltage in the first state (Eisenberger item 8; par 41), and
a mode control unit that switches a traveling mode of the vehicle from the first mode to the second mode in response to the first voltage being determined to have fallen below the target voltage (Eisenberger par 41-42).
Eisenberger discloses sensing the voltage at the first power supply (via 8) and opening the intersystem relay (17) if the voltage drops too low (i.e. switch from a first mode to a second mode). Horitake discloses controlling the first voltage to be higher than the second voltage (the Examiner notes that Eisenberger discloses that the first voltage is higher than the second – but there is no explicit “control” over this).
Eisenberger and Horitake are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely dual-voltage batteries with alternators. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Eisenberger to use its alternator to recharge the first battery, as taught by Horitake. The motivation for doing so would have been to use structure already disclosed by Eisenberger to keep the first battery operational and correct for any adverse conditions. By recharging the first battery, its voltage will return to around 12v. The “target voltage” is the value below 12v for which Eisenberger considers it a fault.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Rex Barnie can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights