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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Embodiment I, Figure 1 is acknowledged. Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/7/2026.
Title of Invention
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 present title “Power Supply System” is overly broad and generic and fails to properly capture and identify the invention, particularly that said power supply is for a vehicle, comprises said rail comprising AC and DC power supplies and AC and DC power outputs.
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1
The claim limitation “DC device interface is used for connecting an energy storage device” is indefinite. First, it is unclear whether the claim is attempting to positively recite said “energy storage device” since the claim fails to positively recite said energy storage device. The claim limitation is directed to the “DC device interface” and being an apparatus claim should further limit the structure yet no structure is provided. Second, the use of the device is not germane to the patentability of an apparatus claim. If said energy storage is intended to be added to the structure of claim 1, it should be positively recited as such.
Furthermore, the claim limitations directed to “in a case… working state” is both indefinite and improperly narrative. These claim limitations attempt to improperly define the apparatus of claim 1 by way of its operation and fails to recite any identifiable structure. In addition, the claim limitation of “in a case” is unclear whether this is intended to be positively recited or an “if” type statement.
Furthermore said claimed “working states” are unclear as they are undefined nor recite any structure to be added to the apparatus claim.
The claim will be examined as best understood.
Regarding Claim 6
There is lack of proper antecedent basis for the claimed “the energy storage device” since it has not been positively recited and given the 112 issues with Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 15
The efficiency of the system fails to recite any structure germane to patentability for an apparatus claim. It is suggested applicant recite the intended structure, if any, to be added to the claim that results in the achieved efficiency in order for the limitation to be given patentable weight.
Because of the great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim(s) 6-11, 15 it is not proper to reject the present claim(s) on the basis of prior art. (See MPEP 2173.06 and In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
Regarding Claim 16
The claim limitations directed to “in a case… working state” is both indefinite and improperly narrative. These claim limitations attempt to improperly define the apparatus of claim by way of its operation and fails to recite any identifiable structure. In addition, the claim limitation of “in a case” is unclear whether this is intended to be positively recited or an “if” type statement.
Furthermore said claimed “working states” are unclear as they are undefined nor recite any structure to be added to the apparatus claim.
The claim will be examined as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li US 2024/0413650.
Li teaches:
1. A power supply system, comprising:
a mains interface (1321, FIG2D) configured to be connected to a mains power supply to provide a source of electrical energy for the power supply system;
a power rail (ie. 111-115 and 121-122, FIG2D as it corresponds to FIG4A, excluding said mains interface) electrically connected to the mains interface and mounted onto a carriage (See carriage mounted option, FIG5C and Specification @ [0296]);
at least one alternating current (AC) device interface mounted onto the power rail (1220, FIG2D), wherein the at least one AC device interface is used for connecting an AC power device (being AC outputs that is there function, [0206]) ; and
a plurality of direct current (DC) device interfaces mounted onto the power rail (1211, 1212 ports, FIG2E and/or Battery module interface 111).
2. The power supply system of claim 1, further comprising a solar interface configured to be electrically connected between a solar panel and the power rail so that the electrical energy flows from the solar panel to the power rail (DC power terminal 1311 and/or actual charging port of FIG10, [0320] noting the only structure claimed is that of the “solar interface” which lacks actual positive recitation of a photovoltaic panel and it is known that said DC power supply port such as 1311 could be used to interface with any DC source including solar).
3. The power supply system of claim 1, wherein the power rail further comprises a bidirectional inverter device electrically connected to the mains interface, wherein the bidirectional inverter device is configured to convert inputted AC power into DC power or convert inputted DC power into AC power (Inverter module 113, FIG2D and [0354]).
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.
Claim(s) 16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koeppe et al. US 2017/0358929.
16. A power supply system, comprising:
a mains interface (grid connection FIG1) configured to be connected to a mains power supply (utility grid) to provide a source of electrical energy for the power supply system;
a power bus (bus 50) electrically connected to the mains interface;
a plurality of direct current (DC) device interfaces (35), wherein a DC device interface of the plurality of DC device interfaces comprises a bidirectional DC converter (see [0044]), an end of the bidirectional DC converter is connected to the power bus, another end of the bidirectional DC converter is connected to an energy storage device (see 24), [(See 112 above noting further rejection made where NOT said case(s)] in a case where the DC device interface is configured to be in a first working state, electrical energy flows from the power bus to the energy storage device via the bidirectional DC converter, and, in a case where the DC device interface is configured to be in a second working state, the electrical energy flows from the energy storage device to the power bus via the bidirectional DC converter;
at least one alternating current (AC) device interface (40), wherein an AC device interface of the at least one AC device interface is electrically connected to the mains interface and the DC device interface and used for connecting an AC power device; and
a bidirectional inverter (40, [0045]) device electrically connected between the mains interface and the DC device interface and configured to convert inputted AC power into DC power or convert inputted DC power into AC power.
17. The power supply system of claim 16, further comprising a solar interface (35 and/or connection point between 14 and 35) configured to be electrically connected between a solar panel and the power bus so that the electrical energy flows from the solar panel to the power bus.
18. The power supply system of claim 16, wherein the DC device interface comprises a second DC device interface, the second DC device interface comprises a second bidirectional DC converter, an end of the second bidirectional DC converter is connected to the power bus, another end of the second bidirectional DC converter is connected to a second energy storage device, and the electrical energy flowing from the energy storage device to the power bus via the bidirectional DC converter flows from the power bus to the second energy storage device via the second bidirectional DC converter.
20. The power supply system of claim 16, wherein the electrical energy flowing from the energy storage device to the power bus via the bidirectional DC converter flows to the AC device interface via the bidirectional inverter device to supply power to the AC power device (See FIG1).
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li US 2024/0413650 in view of Gao et al. US 2023/0035744.
Li teaches use of batteries and rechargeable batteries and DC/DC converters however fails to teach:
4. The power supply system of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the plurality of DC device interfaces comprises a bidirectional DC converter electrically connected to the power rail.
5. The power supply system of claim 4, wherein the bidirectional DC converter is configured to convert inputted first DC power into second DC power or convert inputted second DC power into first DC power.
Gao teaches:
4. wherein at least one of the plurality of DC device interfaces comprises a bidirectional DC converter ([0352] and FIG3).
5. The power supply system of claim 4, wherein the bidirectional DC converter is configured to convert inputted first DC power into second DC power or convert inputted second DC power into first DC power [0352].
It would have been obvious to provide a bi-directional DC/DC converter as taught by Gao into the system of Li with the motivation of providing design flexibility in using properly sized components and matching said component voltages.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li US 2024/0413650.
Regarding Claim 13
Li fails to teach:
13. The power supply system of claim 1, wherein a voltage of the power rail is greater than or equal to 40 V and less than or equal to 60 V.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the operating voltage of the power rail as greater than or equal to 40V and less than or equal to 60V, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li US 2024/0413650 in view of Kanayama US 2012/0187905.
Li fails to teach:
14. The power supply system of claim 6, wherein power-line communication is implemented between the first DC device interface and the second DC device interface through the power rail.
Kanayama teaches wherein power-line communication is implemented between a first DC device interface and a second DC device interface through a power rail (see FIG1 and [0030, 0038]).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the DC POE interface functionality as known and taught by Kanayama into the system of Li with the motivation of adding desirable communication capability to increase the system functionality such as with chargeable DC loads and/or loads that further capable of acting as a power supply.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koeppe et al. US 2017/0358929 in view of Kanayama US 2012/0187905.
Koeppe fails to teach:
19. The power supply system of claim 18, wherein power-line communication is implemented between the DC device interface and the second DC device interface through the power bus.
Kanayama teaches wherein power-line communication is implemented between a first DC device interface and a second DC device interface through a power rail (see FIG1 and [0030, 0038]).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the DC POE interface functionality as known and taught by Kanayama into the system of Koeppe with the motivation of adding desirable communication capability to increase the system functionality such as with chargeable DC loads and/or loads that further capable of acting as a power supply.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CAVALLARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8541. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-18:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights