UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/549,115
`
`08/04/2017
`
`ATSUSHI IISAKA
`
`731156.638USPC
`
`1066
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panason1e
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`ROBBINS” JERRY D
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2859
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`11/06/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`US PTOeACtion @ SeedIP .Com
`
`pairlinkdktg @ seedip .eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/549,115
`Examiner
`JERRY D ROBBINS
`
`Applicant(s)
`IISAKA et al.
`Art Unit
`2859
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on October 29, 2019.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—2,4—6 and 11—12 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 1—2 and 4—6 is/are rejected.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.'sp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10):] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 25 October 2019 is/are: a)- accepted or b)C] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)C] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:] All
`
`b)|:] Some**
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1.|:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`21:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3D Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) C] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20191101
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/549,115
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice ofPre-AIA 0r 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.
`
`Status of Amendment
`
`Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendment to application 15/549,115 received
`
`October 29, 2019. Claims 3 and 7—10 are canceled, claims 1—2 and 4—6 are amended, and claims
`
`11—12 are newly added.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 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 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Mitsutani U.S. PGPub 2011/0285350 A1 (hereinafter Mitsutani) in View of Phadke et al.
`
`US. Patent 7,719,808 B2 (hereinafter Phadke).
`
`Regarding Claim 1, Mitsutani teaches a power conversion device (Mitsutani, Figs. 3 and
`
`4; Element 42; “Charger”; Paras. [0054] — [0077]) for converting alternating current power
`
`(Mitsutani, Fig. 4, Element 402; Para. [0068], Lines 1—4; “AC electric power”) into direct current
`
`power (Mitsutani, Fig. 4, Elements PL2 and NL2; Para. [0058], Lines 16—19; “DC power”) to
`
`supply the direct current power to a load (Mitsutani, Fig. 1, Element 10—2; “BAT”; Para. [0082];
`
`Lines 1—2. Although power is supplied to charge three separate batteries, 10—1, 10—2 and 10—3,
`
`i.e. three separate loads, in this case the rejection is mainly directed to the charging operation of
`
`load/battery 10—2.).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: l5/549,l 15
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`Page 3
`
`Further, Mitsutani teaches the power conversion device comprising an input current
`
`sensor (Mitsutani, Fig. 3, Element 92; Para. [0055], Line 3) configured to detect an input current
`
`value of the alternating current power (Mitsutani, Para. [0059], Lines 3—5), an input voltage
`
`sensor (Mitsutani, Fig. 3, Element 91; Para. [0055], Lines 2—3) configured to detect an input
`
`voltage value of the alternating current power (Mitsutani, Para. [0059], Lines 1—2), a power
`
`converter (Mitsutani, Fig. 3, Element 80; Para. [0055], Line 2) configured to convert the input
`
`alternating current power into the direct current powers (Mitsutani, Para. [0057], Lines 6—9, and
`
`Para. [0058], Lines 16—19), an output current sensor (Mitsutani, Fig. 3, Element 95; Para. [0055],
`
`Line 3) configured to detect an output current value from the power converter (Mitsutani, Para.
`
`[0059], Lines 10—12), an output voltage sensor (Mitsutani, Fig. 3, Element 94; Para. [0055],
`
`Lines 2—3) configured to detect an output voltage value from the power converter (Mitsutani,
`
`Para. [0059], Lines 8—10).
`
`Mitsutani also teaches a controller (Mitsutani, Figs. 1 and 4, Element 46, “Charging
`
`ECU”, Para. [0040], Lines 1—10) configured to obtain an allowable current value of the
`
`alternating current power that can be accepted (Mitsutani, Para. [0073], Lines l—9), control the
`
`power converter (Mitsutani, Figs. 1, 3 and 4, Element 42, “Charger”) so that the input current
`
`value does not exceed the allowable current value, based on the input current value detected by
`
`the input current sensor (Mitsutani, Fig. 3; Element 92; Para. [0060], Lines 1—7, and Para. [0077],
`
`Lines 1—5, “outputs command signal CHPW” to microcomputer Element 88 of charger Element
`
`42).
`
`Although Mitsutani suggests the abnormality is based on input/output current/voltage
`
`detections and some type of efficiency determination of the conversion process, it does not
`
`explicitly teach detecting the abnormality based on efficiency of the power converter.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/549,115
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`Page 4
`
`Phadke et al., however, teaches calculate power conversion efficiency of the power
`
`converter based on the input current value, the input voltage value, the output current value, and
`
`the output voltage value (Phadke, Col. 4, Line 64 through Col. 5, Line 9), compare the calculated
`
`power conversion efficiency with a predetermined power conversion efficiency (Phadke, Col. 5,
`
`Lines 17—24), determine that an abnormality exists in the power conversion device (Phadke, Fig.
`
`5, Element 500; Col. 4, Lines 53—58, “efficiency degradation”) upon detecting that the calculated
`
`power conversion efficiency is greater than the predetermined power conversion efficiency
`
`(Phadke, Col. 4, Line 64 through Col. 5, Line 9, and Col. 5, Lines 17—24), and upon determining
`
`that the abnormality exists in the power conversion device, control turning on and off of a
`
`switching element including in the power converter so that the input current value reduces as the
`
`calculated power conversion efficiency increases (Phadke, Col. 4, Line 64 through Col. 5, Line
`
`24).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that
`
`although Mitsutani describes the process of adjusting the power converter based on input/output
`
`current/voltage to determine the most efficient conversion process to minimize charging time
`
`while assuring safety in the charging process, Mitsutani would inherently incorporate some type
`
`of conventional efficiency processing commonly understood in the art. The efficiency
`
`processing and fault reporting taught by Phadke, for controlling the power converter, teaches one
`
`of the many conventional power converter circuits utilized in the art for charging the battery(ies)
`
`of an electric/hybrid vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one
`
`taught by Phadke, to control the power converter of Mitsutani.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/549,115
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`Page 5
`
`Regarding Claim 2, The combined teaching of references Mitsutani and Phadke
`
`discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Mitsutani teaches
`
`wherein the controller is further configured to obtain the allowable current value based on a pilot
`
`signal supplied together with the alternating current power (Mitsutani, Fig. 4; Para. [0073], Lines
`
`1—9, “pilot signal CPLT”).
`
`Regarding Claim 4, The combined teaching of references Mitsutani and Phadke
`
`discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Mitsutani teaches
`
`wherein the controller is further configured to control the power converter to stop supplying of
`
`power to the load or to lower power supplied to the load upon determining that the abnormality
`
`exists in the power conversion device (Mitsutani, Para. [0043], Lines 1—9, and Para. [0044],
`
`Lines 4—7).
`
`Regarding Claim 5, The combined teaching of references Mitsutani and Phadke
`
`discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Mitsutani teaches
`
`wherein the controller is further configured to control the power converter to supply power to the
`
`load at a minimum allowable current value or below upon determining that the abnormality
`
`exists in the power conversion device (Mitsutani, Fig. 5, Control Signal CHPW; Para. [0080],
`
`Lines 6—14, “limited”, and Para. [0095], Lines 2—4. Mitsutani addresses this type of lowering the
`
`charging current as a normal operation and does not refer to it as detecting an abnormality as
`
`labeled in the claimed invention. Mitsutani uses signal CHPW to adjust or raise/lower the
`
`charging current based on the need determination, but uses signal CHRQ to turn off the converter
`
`when a true abnormality is detected.).
`
`Regarding Claim 6, The combined teaching of references Mitsutani and Phadke
`
`discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Mitsutani teaches the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/549,115
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`Page 6
`
`controller is further configured to control the power converter to supply greater power to the load
`
`than power supplied when the calculated power conversion efficiency is greater than the
`
`predetermined power conversion efficiency (Mitsutani, Fig. 5, Control Signal CHPW; Para.
`
`[0080], Lines l—6. Mitsutani uses signal CHPW to adjust or raise/lower the charging current
`
`based on the need determination.), but does not explicitly teach comparing different power
`
`conversion efficiencies which are determined or looked up.
`
`Phadke, however, teaches wherein upon detecting that the calculated power conversion
`
`efficiency is smaller than the predetermined power conversion efficiency (Phadke, Col. 4, Line
`
`64 through Col. 5, Line 9, and Col. 5, Lines 17—24).
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that
`
`although Mitsutani describes the process of adjusting the power converter based on input/output
`
`current/voltage to determine the most efficient conversion process to minimize charging time
`
`while assuring safety in the charging process, Mitsutani would inherently incorporate some type
`
`of conventional efficiency processing commonly understood in the art. The efficiency
`
`processing and fault reporting taught by Phadke, for controlling the power converter, teaches one
`
`of the many conventional power converter circuits utilized in the art for charging the battery(ies)
`
`of an electric/hybrid vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`
`choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one
`
`taught by Phadke, to control the power converter of Mitsutani.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`Claims 11-12 are 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/549,115
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`Page 7
`
`Regarding Claim 11: Though the prior art discloses a power conversion device for
`
`converting alternating current power into direct current power using input and output current and
`
`voltage sensors to calculate a power conversion efficiency and then compare the calculated result
`
`with a predetermined power conversion efficiency to determine whether or not an abnormality
`
`exists and if so to adjust the input current, it fails to teach or suggest the aforementioned
`
`limitations of claim 11, and further including the combination of:
`
`wherein the controller is further configured to set an upper limit value of the input
`
`current value that is smaller than the allowable current value so that the input current
`
`value reduces as the calculated power conversion efficiency increases.
`
`Regarding Claim 12: Though the prior art discloses a power conversion device for
`
`converting alternating current power into direct current power using input and output current and
`
`voltage sensors to calculate a power conversion efficiency and then compare the calculated result
`
`with a predetermined power conversion efficiency to determine whether or not an abnormality
`
`exists and if so to adjust the input current, it fails to teach or suggest the aforementioned
`
`limitations of claim 12, and further including the combination of:
`
`wherein the controller is further configured to, upon determining that the
`
`abnormality exists in the power conversion device, set an upper limit value of the input
`
`current value to reduce the input current value as the calculated power conversion
`
`efficiency increases, the upper limit value being smaller than the allowable current value.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/549,115
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`Page 8
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Drawings
`
`Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 and replacement sheets, filed October 29, 2019, with
`
`respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The
`
`objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 103
`
`Applicant's arguments filed October 29, 2019, have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`Applicant’s Arguments
`
`Applicant argues, Mitsutani fails to teach or suggest a controller configured to, upon
`
`determining that the abnormality exists in the power conversion device, control turning on and
`
`off of a switching element including in the power converter so that the input current value
`
`reduces as the calculated power conversion efficiency increases. Mitsutani describes an
`
`electronic control unit that detects an abnormality (S 8) in a charger based on a supply power PM
`
`(S6) or a guard correction value PCB (S7). See Figure 8. When an abnormality is detected, the
`
`system is shut down (S9). The abnormality is not determined based on a power conversion
`
`efficiency. Rather the abnormality is detected based on the supply power PM or the guard
`
`correction value PCB. Thus, the electronic control unit does not determine that an abnormality
`
`exists upon detecting that a calculated power conversion efficiency is greater than a
`
`predetermined power conversion efficiency; and, upon determining that an abnormality exists,
`
`control turning on and off of a switching element including in a power converter so that an input
`
`current value reduces as a power conversion efficiency increases. Accordingly, Mitsutani fails to
`
`teach or suggest a controller configured to, upon determining that the abnormality exists in the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/549,115
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`Page 9
`
`power conversion device, control turning on and off of a switching element including in the
`
`power converter so that the input current value reduces as the calculated power conversion
`
`efficiency increases.
`
`Phadke fails to cure the deficiencies of Mitsutani. Phadke describes a controller that
`
`calculates an overall efficiency of a power converter. See column 4, line 53 to column 5, line 9.
`
`When the controller determines that the efficiency drops below a predetermined amount,
`
`the controller generates a fault signal. The controller also includes a look up table of efficiencies
`
`for a power converter under normal operating conditions and various loads, input line conditions
`
`and operating temperatures. See column 5, lines 10—24. By monitoring the operating efficiency of
`
`the power converter and comparing the monitored efficiency with one or more values in the
`
`lookup table, the controller can detect the component failure and, for example, provide a fault
`
`signal to a system hosting the power converter. When a device or component of the power
`
`converter fails, the power converter may continue to operate but at a reduced efficiency. The
`
`controller of Phadke does not determine that an abnormality exists upon detecting that the
`
`efficiency is greater than the predetermined amount. Rather, the controller determines when the
`
`
`efficiency is below a predetermined amount to generate the fault signal, and/or detects a
`
`component failure by comparing the efficiency to the lookup table. In addition, the controller
`
`
`does not, upon determining that an abnormality exists in the power conversion device, control
`
`turning on and off of a switching element including in the power converter so that an input
`
`current value reduces as the efficiency increases. Instead, the controller provides the fault
`
`signal when the controller detects a component failure. Further, although Phadke describes that
`
`the power converter may continue to operate at a reduced efficiency when a device or component
`
`of the power converter fails, Phadke does not teach or suggest to control turning on and off of a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/549,115
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`Page 10
`
`
`switching element including in the power converter so that the input current value reduces as the
`
`calculated power conversion efficiency increases. Accordingly, Phadke fails to teach or suggest a
`
`controller configured to, upon determining that the abnormality exists in the power conversion
`
`device, control turning on and off of a switching element including in the power converter so that
`
`the input current value reduces as the calculated power conversion efficiency increases.
`
`Examiner’s Response
`
`The Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s opinion that Mitsutani does not teach a
`
`controller to determine an abnormality where the controller controls switching to adjust the
`
`efficiency. Mitsutani clearly teaches the controller controlling the switching of the input stage
`
`and output stage by monitoring each of the input and output currents and voltages. Further
`
`Mitsutani clearly teaches adjusting the efficiency based on the detection of an abnormality by
`
`using these input/output currents/voltages. Since Mitsutani is not explicit in some of the
`
`teachings, secondary reference Phadke was brought into combination to teach the details of the
`
`determination of the power converter efficiencies and how they are used to compare to expected
`
`efficiencies and the actions taken as a result of those comparisons.
`
`Conclusion
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time
`
`policy as set forth in 37 CFR l.l36(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO
`
`MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after
`
`the end of the THREE—MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period
`
`will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/549,115
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`Page ll
`
`CFR l.l36(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event,
`
`however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing
`
`date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to JERRY D ROBBINS whose telephone number is (571)272—7585.
`
`The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30AM — 5:30PM M—F.
`
`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, Drew A. Dunn can be reached on 571—272—23 12. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571—273—8300.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/549,115
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`Page 12
`
`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.
`
`/JERRY D ROBBINS/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2859
`
`