`
`V i$ T {a
`
`A
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/316,687
`
`12/06/2016
`
`JUNJI MINATO
`
`PIPMB-56974
`
`1751
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`03/08/2019
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`TAN~R1CHARD
`
`2842
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/08/2019
`
`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):
`
`patdoeket@pearne.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/316,687
`Examiner
`RICHARD TAN
`
`Applicant(s)
`MINATO, JUNJI
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`2842
`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 Feb. 01,2019.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)D This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`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—4 and 9—10 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) fl is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 1—4 and 9—10 is/are rejected.
`
`E] Claim(s) _ 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
`
`is/are: a)C] accepted or b)Ej 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). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)C] Some**
`
`c)CI None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.[:] 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 20190304
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
`
`application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
`
`forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
`
`has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed Feb. 01,
`
`2019 has been entered.
`
`Applicant’s arguments/amendments filed Feb. 01, 2019 have been fully
`
`considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection. Claims 5-8 had been
`
`canceled.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`2.
`
`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 of this title, 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.
`
`3.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 3
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1, 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Sato et al. (2011/0049991) (hereinafter “Sato”) in view of Applicant admitted prior
`
`art shown in Application’s Fig.1 and 2 (hereinafter “AAPA”) and Hisashi Hamaya (JP
`
`2009-095232) (hereinafter “Hamaya”).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a power supply device (Fig.1 or 21, plefi
`
`refer to the whole reference for detailed) comprising: a first unidirectional converter (4 or
`
`50) that converts power to be supplied from an input power supply (71) to a first
`
`converted power by switching, and supplies the first converted power to a power
`
`storage device (40) in a single direction; a second unidirectional converter (9 or 51) that
`
`converts, by switching, the first converted power to be supplied from the first
`
`unidirectional converter or power to be supplied from the power storage device to a
`
`second converted power (power at terminal T2), and supplies the second converted
`
`power to a load device (72) in a single direction; a noise filter (34, 37 and/or 41) that
`
`reduces noise generated in the first unidirectional converter and the second
`
`unidirectional converter (ripple voltage at nodes N1, N2 and/or N3 generated by 4 and
`
`9, 1) 55, 56, 63 and 64); wherein the noise filter (34, 37 and/or 41) is provided between
`
`the first unidirectional converter (4 or 50) and the power storage device (40), between
`
`the power storage device (40) and the second unidirectional converter (9 or 51), and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 4
`
`wherein a branch point (N1, N2 and/or N3) at which a power line from the first
`
`unidirectional converter to the power storage device intersects a power line from the
`
`second unidirectional converter to the power storage device is nearer to the first
`
`unidirectional converter than to the power storage device; wherein the power supply
`
`device is configured to operate in: a first state in which the first unidirectional converter
`
`(4 or 50) supplies the first converted power to the power storage device (40); a second
`
`state in which the second unidirectional converter (9 or 51) converts the power to be
`
`supplied from the power storage device to the load (72); and a third state in which the
`
`first unidirectional converter (4 or 50) converts the power to be supplied from the input
`
`power supply (71) and the second unidirectional converter (9 or 51) converts the first
`
`converted power to be supplied from the first unidirectional converter to the load.
`
`Sato doesn’t disclose a shield that covers the first unidirectional converter, the
`
`second unidirectional converter, and the noise filter, and blocks electromagnetic noise;
`
`and wherein the power supply device is configured to operate in a first state in which the
`
`first unidirectional converter supplies the first converted power to the power storage
`
`device and the second unidirectional converter does not operate; a second state in
`
`which the first unidirectional converter does not operate and the second unidirectional
`
`converter converts the power to be supplied from the power storage device to the load.
`
`Hamaya discloses an example of a shield (42) that covers a first converter (Q11-
`
`Q16 or 34), a second converter (Q21 -Q26 or 36), and the noise filter (C1), and blocks
`
`electromagnetic noise (11 24).
`
`AAPA discloses a power supply device (AAPA’s Fig.2) is configured to operate
`
`in: a first state (first state arrow line between Power Supply and Power Storage Device
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 5
`
`in AAPA’s Fig.2) in which the first unidirectional converter (1, 2 and/or 3 in Fig.2)
`
`supplies the first converted power to the power storage device (Power Storage Device)
`
`and the second unidirectional converter (7) does not operate (since the first state arrow
`
`line shows only 1 operates, but not 7 during the first state); a second state (second state
`
`arrow line between Power Storage Device and Load Device) in which the first
`
`unidirectional converter does not operate (since the second state arrow line shows only
`
`7 operates, but not 1 during the second state) and the second unidirectional converter
`
`(7) converts the power to be supplied from the power storage device to the load (Load
`
`Device); and a third state (third state arrow line between Power Supply and Load
`
`Device) in which the first unidirectional converter converts the power to be supplied from
`
`the input power supply and the second unidirectional converter converts the first
`
`converted power to be supplied from the first unidirectional converter to the load.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato with the teaching of Hamaya
`
`and AAPA to provide a shield that covers the first unidirectional converter, the second
`
`unidirectional converter, and the noise filter, and blocks electromagnetic noise; and
`
`wherein the power supply device is configured to operate in a first state in which the first
`
`unidirectional converter supplies the first converted power to the power storage device
`
`and the second unidirectional converter does not operate; a second state in which the
`
`first unidirectional converter does not operate and the second unidirectional converter
`
`converts the power to be supplied from the power storage device to the load. The
`
`suggestion/motivation would have been to shield electromagnetic radiation as
`
`suggested by Hamaya (also by 11 in AAPA’s Fig.2) and control the function of the first
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 6
`
`unidirectional converter and the second unidirectional converter as taught by AAPA
`
`(Note: where using of DC-DC converter in place of DC-AC converter for the second
`
`unidirectional converter taught by Sato would have been a mere design choice
`
`depending on type of power supply required by the load device).
`
`Regarding claim 2, Sato in view of Hamaya and AAPA is used to reject claim 1
`
`above.
`
`Sato discloses wherein the noise filter (34, 37 and/or 41) is interposed on a
`
`current path between the first unidirectional converter (4 or 50) and the power storage
`
`device (40), and the noise filter is not interposed on a current path between the first
`
`unidirectional converter and the second unidirectional converter (9 or 51 ).
`
`Regarding claim 10, Sato in view of Hamaya and AAPA is used to reject claim 1
`
`above.
`
`Sato discloses a first line filter (1) coupled between the input power supply (71)
`
`and the first unidirectional converter (4 or 50); and a second line filter (12) coupled
`
`between the second unidirectional converter (9 or 51) and the load device (72).
`
`Sato doesn’t disclose wherein the shield covers the first line filter and the second
`
`line filter.
`
`AAPA discloses an example of the shield (11) covers the first line filter (4) and
`
`the second line filter (8).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato in view of Hamaya with the
`
`teaching of AAPA to provide the shield covers the first line filter and the second line
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 7
`
`filter. The suggestion/motivation would have been to cover electronic components with
`
`one shield.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Sato et al. (2011/0049991) (hereinafter “Sato”) in view of Hisashi Hamaya (JP 2009-
`
`095232) (hereinafter “Hamaya”), Applicant admitted prior art shown in Application’s
`
`Fig.1 and 2 (hereinafter “AAPA”) and Park et al. (2012/0166013) (“Park”).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Sato in view of Hamaya and AAPA is used to reject claim 1
`
`above.
`
`Sato doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein a current capacity of the noise filter is
`
`higher than any of a first maximum value of a current that flows from the first
`
`unidirectional converter and a second maximum value of a current that flows to the
`
`second unidirectional converter, and is lower than the total value of the first maximum
`
`value and the second maximum value.
`
`However, which would have been a design choice depending upon power
`
`input/output of the battery, the first unidirectional converter and the second
`
`unidirectional converter, for example if the power output of the battery is lower than
`
`required power on the DC bus (Sato’s N1 and N3 in Fig.1 or 21) then DC-DC converter
`
`(Sato’s 20 in Fig.1 or 52 in fig.21) has to be a boost converter to increase the DC power
`
`at the output of the battery, otherwise it is required to use a buck converter as taught by
`
`Park (32 in Park’s Fig.1A, 1) 57) and the design of the noise filter would have been
`
`selected as shown in Park (Note: Park’s noise filter is similar to the Application’s Fig.4)
`
`to obtain the claimed limitation.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 8
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato in view of Hamaya and
`
`AAPA with the teaching of Park to provide wherein a current capacity of the noise
`
`filter is higher than any of a first maximum value of a current that flows from the first
`
`unidirectional converter and a second maximum value of a current that flows to the
`
`second unidirectional converter, and is lower than the total value of the first maximum
`
`value and the second maximum value since such a selection is in fact arrived by a
`
`normal design procedures depending on power rating of the battery and/or the first and
`
`second unidirectional converter.
`
`Regarding claim 4, Sato in view of Hamaya and AAPA is used to reject claim 1
`
`above.
`
`Sato doesn’t disclose wherein the noise filter has a common mode choke coil.
`
`Park discloses an example of a noise filter which has a common mode choke coil
`
`(choke coil of DC noise filter shown in Fig.1A; Note: Application’s Fig.4 shows similar
`
`noise filter circuit).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato in view of Hamaya and
`
`AAPA with the teaching of Park to use a noise filter as taught by Park in between the
`
`battery (40 in Sato’s Fig.1 or 21) and converter (20 in Sato’s Fig.1 or 52 in Sato’s Fig.
`
`21). The suggestion/motivation would have been to choose noise filter depending on
`
`particular power and/or output provided by the battery or the converter as examples
`
`shown in Sato and Park.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 9
`
`6.
`
`Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al.
`
`(2011/0049991) (hereinafter “Sato”) in view of Hisashi Hamaya (JP 2009-095232)
`
`(hereinafter “Hamaya”), Applicant admitted prior art shown in Application’s Fig.1 and 2
`
`(hereinafter “AAPA”) and Ang (8,860,363).
`
`Regarding claim 9, Sato in view of Hamaya and AAPA is used to reject claim 1
`
`above.
`
`Sato discloses the input power supply is an AC power supply (71 ), the first
`
`unidirectional converter is configured of an AC-DC converter (4 or 50; 11 6).
`
`Sato doesn’t disclose wherein the power supply device is mounted to a vehicle,
`
`the input power supply is an AC power supply outside the vehicle; the first unidirectional
`
`converter is configured of an AC-DC converter and a DC-DC converter; and the second
`
`unidirectional converter is configured of a DC-DC converter.
`
`Ang discloses an example of wherein the power supply device (100 in Fig.1) is
`
`mounted to a vehicle (column 5, line 62-66), the input power supply (260) is an AC
`
`power supply outside the vehicle; a first converter (200) is configured of an AC-DC
`
`converter and a DC-DC converter; and the second unidirectional converter (170) is
`
`configured of a DC-DC converter.
`
`AAPA discloses an example of a first unidirectional converter (1 in AAPA’s Fig.2)
`
`is configured of an AC-DC converter and DC-DC converter.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato in view of Hamaya with the
`
`teaching of Ang and AAPA to provide wherein the power supply device is mounted to a
`
`vehicle, the input power supply is an AC power supply outside the vehicle; the first
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 10
`
`unidirectional converter is configured of an AC-DC converter and a DC-DC converter;
`
`and the second unidirectional converter is configured of a DC-DC converter. The
`
`suggestion/motivation would have been to use the power supply device in a vehicle to
`
`supply power to the battery as taught by Ang and AAPA; and use a AC-DC converter
`
`and a DC-DC converter in place of the AC-DC converter of Sato would have been
`
`obvious design choice since which doesn’t change the feature of AC-DC converter of
`
`Sato to convert AC to DC; and use a DC-DC converter in place of the DC-AC converter
`
`of Sato to provide power to DC load as taught by Ang.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to RICHARD TAN whose telephone number is (571 )270-
`
`7455. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, ROBERT PASCAL can be reached on 571 -272—1 769. The fax phone
`
`number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-
`
`273-8300.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 11
`
`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 -272-1 000.
`
`/ Richard Tan/
`
`Primary Examiner 2842
`
`