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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/09/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, "at least two energy storage device modules" is introduced, and then in claim 2 it is referred to as "the two energy storage device modules". It should be either be "two" or "at least two" energy storage device modules.. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 4-6 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.
Claims 2 and 5-6 recites the limitation "safety switches" in the last line of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "wheel brake actuators" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(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, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Groh (2025/0091536 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Groh teaches a Redundant power supply system for a motor vehicle, comprising two redundant power supply paths (see fig 2-8 elements 42, 44). And each power supply path contains at least two energy storage devices interconnected in a H-schematic 2x2 energy storage devices arrangement (see fig 2 and para 0065)
Regarding Claim 2, Groh teaches the redundant power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the two energy storage device modules of each power supply path are decouplable by safety switches (see Groh fig 2 element 18 and para 0065-0066).
Regarding Claim 5, Groh teaches the redundant power supply system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a direct-current-to-direct-current (DC/DC) converter to provide power conversion required by the energy storage device modules (see Groh fig 3-8 elements 68, 70, 72, 74 and para 0069, 0071, 0081), and
safety switches to protect the at least two power supply paths of at least one or any further circuits (see Groh fig 3-8 elements 48, 60, 62 and para 0075).
Regarding Claim 6, Groh teaches the redundant power supply system according to claim 1, further comprising:
a direct-current-to-direct-current (DC/DC) converter which is configured to perform a charge balancing between upper and lower energy storage device modules connected in series in each of the at least two power paths (see fig 3-8 elements 28, 68, 70, 74 and para 0041 ”Moreover, it can be achieved by the energy converter that an energy flow from the respective sub-battery to the respective safety supply terminal or inversely can be controlled. This additionally allows to be able to at least partially realize a balancing with respect to the sub-batteries”, para 0071), and
safety switches configured to disconnect said DC/DC converter in case of failure (see fig 6 element 60, 62 para 0081-0082).
Regarding Claim 8, Groh teaches the redundant power supply system according to claim 6, wherein a number of smart safety switches is provided and configured to decouple the DC/DC converters, said, upper energy storage device modules and lower energy storage device modules, from the vehicle's board network and from one another in case of failure (see Groh para 0040, 0065, 0075).
Regarding Claim 11, Groh teaches a commercial vehicle comprising a redundant power supply system according to claim 1 (see Groh abstract, any motor vehicle can be used as a commercial vehicle).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Otremba (US 2026/0091769 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Otremba teaches a redundant power supply system comprising a configuration in a second or any further circuit, which comprises a singular power path, where in an event of failure in said second or further circuit, a required braking performance is ensured by front wheel brake actuators (see Otremba fig 1 and para 0073-0074 “in the event of a failure of the first energy storage unit 15, control of the brake modules 11.1, 11.2 can also still be maintained by the second control unit 29”, and para 0088-0089).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Regarding Claim 3, Groh teaches the redundant power supply system according to claim 1, but is silent on teaching the 2x2 energy storage device modules are configured to have different capacities.
However, Deokar teaches an adaptive battery pack that the individual battery modules have different capacities (see Deokar para 0057)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Groh to include the teachings of Deokar to allow the redundant power supply system to use a mixed battery pack, which could comprise a high density battery module along with a high current battery module thus allowing the battery system to provide high energy density along with high output current.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groh (US 2025/0091536 A1) and in view of Zhou "Automotive Smart Fuse" ("Zhou") and in further view of Nilsson (US 2022/0314950 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Groh teaches the redundant power supply system according to claim 1, further comprising switching elements which are provided in lines from the redundant power supply system to a braking system (see Groh para 0021 and 0023).
But Groh is silent on teaching a smart fuse.
However, Zhou teaches a smart fuse switch that is normally closed unless the current exceeds a limit for a period of time, thus it would normally be closed when the ignition is in an off state.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nilsson to include the smart fuse switch from Zhou to allow a vehicle to provide power to the brake components at all times including when the ignition is turned off.
But Groh and Zhou are silent on teaching the brake actuators used in the braking system.
However, Nilsson teaches a redundant brake system comprising electronic brake devices connected to switching elements to disconnect and connect to the redundant power storage modules (see Nilsson fig 2, 6 and para 0046, 0092).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Groh and Zhou to include the braking components from Nilsson to allow the system to provide power to each individual brake actuators.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groh (US 2025/0091536 A1) and in view of Zhou "Automotive Smart Fuse" ("Zhou") and in further view of Jing (US 2025/0340188 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Groh teaches the redundant power supply system according to claim 1, but is silent on teaching at least one of the energy storage device modules is configured to supply a brake control ECU, through a smart fuse, so that the brake control ECU controls at least one wheel brake, and the redundant power supply system is configured to supply at least one of a redundant hand control unit, a redundant foot brake sensor, and a redundant trailer control module.
However, Zhou teaches a smart fuse switch that is normally closed unless the current exceeds a limit for a period of time, thus it would normally be closed when the ignition is in an off state.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Groh to include the smart fuse switch from Zhou to allow a vehicle to provide power to the brake components at all times including when the ignition is turned off.
The combination of Groh and Zhou are silent on teaching at least one of the energy storage device modules is configured to supply a brake control ECU, so that the brake control ECU controls at least one wheel brake, and the redundant power supply system is configured to supply at least one of a redundant hand control unit, a redundant foot brake sensor, and a redundant trailer control module.
However, Jing teaches “a brake system with control redundancy includes a central controller and four wheel end brake apparatuses” with redundant power supplies and brake pedal sensors (see Jing para 0063, 0074-0075).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Groh and Zhou to include the teachings of Jing to allow the brake control units and sensors to continue to operate in the event of a component failure.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groh (US 2025/0091536 A1) and in view of Zhou "Automotive Smart Fuse" ("Zhou").
Regarding Claim 9, Groh teaches the redundant power supply system according to claim 1, wherein the redundant power supply system comprises a normally closed switch to ensure power for a foot brake sensor in an ignition OFF state.
However, Zhou teaches a smart fuse switch that is normally closed unless the current exceeds a limit for a period of time, thus it would normally be closed when the ignition is in an off state.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Groh to include the smart fuse switch from Zhou to allow a vehicle to provide power to the brake components at all times including when the ignition is turned off.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA J SWEET whose telephone number is (571)272-6776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 4:30.
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.
/JOSHUA JAMES SWEET/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights