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
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-19 of the Remarks, filed 10/30/2025, with respect to claims 1-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1-15 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1-10, 12-15 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the method” in line 7. This should read “the thermal management method” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 1).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the determined detection threshold value” in line 21. This should read “the determined corresponding detection threshold value” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (lines 12-13).
Claims 2-14 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 2-14 recites the limitation “The method” in line 1. This should read “The thermal management method” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 1).
Claims 4, 12-13 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 3.
Claims 7, 9 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 6.
Claim 9 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 7.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a first direction of change” in line 2. It is understood that the limitation “a first direction of change” recited in claim 2 (line 2) refers to the limitation “a first direction of change” recited previously in claim 1 (line 8). Therefore, the limitation “a first direction of change” recited in claim 2 (line 2) should be changed to “the first direction of change” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 8).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the determined detection threshold value” in lines 11-12. This should read “the determined corresponding detection threshold value” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 3 (lines 5, 8-9).
Claims 4, 12-13 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 3.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the determined detection threshold value” in lines 11-12. This should read “the determined corresponding detection threshold value” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 4 (lines 5, 8-9).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the detection threshold value” in line 2. This should read “the determined corresponding detection threshold value” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (lines 12-13).
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the detection threshold value determined” in lines 6-7. This should read “the determined corresponding detection threshold value” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (lines 12-13).
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the determined detection threshold value” in lines 21-22. This should read “the determined corresponding detection threshold value” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 15 (lines 12-13).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” (or “step”). Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“processing means for: activating a first phase of gradually regulating the setpoint in a first direction of change … activating a second phase of regulating the setpoint, in a second direction of change opposite to the first direction of change of the first phase” in claim 15 (lines 7 - 24). This limitation uses the term “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “activating a first phase of gradually regulating the setpoint in a first direction of change … activating a second phase of regulating the setpoint, in a second direction of change opposite to the first direction of change of the first phase” (Prong B); and the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “processing means” will be interpreted as “microprocessor” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0156: “the control unit may comprise one or more processing means such as a computing means or microprocessor”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 6-7, 9-10, 15 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “if the regulated value of the setpoint, generating a command to stop the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements for a predefined stoppage time” in lines 4-6. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because the “if the regulated value of the setpoint” appears to be an incomplete sentence. Thus, it is unclear under what condition, generating a command to stop the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements for a predefined stoppage time. For examination purposes, the limitation “if the regulated value of the setpoint, generating a command to stop the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements for a predefined stoppage time” as recited in claim 6 (lines 4-6) will be interpreted as “if the regulated value of the setpoint reaches the limit setpoint value, generating a command to stop the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements for a predefined stoppage time”.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 6.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the carrier” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 9 depends on claim 7; claim 7 depends on claim 6; claim 6 depends on claim 1; however, there is no “carrier” recited previously in claim 1, claim 6, claim 7, or claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a resumption setpoint” in line 6. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 9 depends on claim 7; however, claim 7 already recites “a resumption setpoint” in line 3. Therefore, it is unclear if the limitation “a resumption setpoint” recited in claim 9 (line 6) refers to the limitation “a resumption setpoint” recited in claim 7 (line 3), or the limitation “a resumption setpoint” recited in claim 9 (line 6) refers to a different resumption setpoint. For examination purposes, the limitation “a resumption setpoint” recited in claim 9 (line 6) will be interpreted as to refer to the limitation “a resumption setpoint” recited in claim 7 (line 3).
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the detection threshold value determined in the second regulating phase” in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “detection threshold value determined in the second regulating phase” recited previously. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 10 depends on claim 1; however, claim 1 does not require the step of determining a detection threshold value in the second regulating phase. Similarly, claim 10 does not require the step of determining a detection threshold value in the second regulating phase prior to the recitation of “the detection threshold value determined in the second regulating phase” in lines 10-11. For examination purposes, the limitation “the detection threshold value determined in the second regulating phase” recited in claim 10 (lines 10-11) will be interpreted as a detection threshold value in the second regulating phase.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the at least one subset of resistive elements” in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “at least one subset of resistive elements” recited previously in claim 15.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heck (DE 102016109039 A1, Published 08/17/2017, Translation is attached).
Regarding claim 1, Heck discloses a thermal management method to be applied in case of detection of overheating of an electrical heating device (electrical heating device 2, Heck Figs.1 & 2) for a motor vehicle (Heck Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 5 discloses: “The electrical device 2 For example, it may be an electrically operable heater, for example for a motor vehicle, a machine or another device.”, and Heck Translated Document on page 5 –paragraph 7 discloses: “The circuit design according to the invention and / or the introduction of Z can reliably ensure overheating detection.”), the electrical heating device (electrical heating device 2, Heck Figs.1 & 2) comprising a plurality of resistive elements (heating resistors 10, 30, 40; Heck Fig.2) configured to be supplied electrically by an electrical voltage source (power supply 1, Heck Fig.1), wherein an electrical supply (electrical supply that comes from the power supply 1, Heck Fig.1) of at least one subset of resistive elements (at least one of heating resistors 10, 30, 40; Heck Fig.2) is controlled using a pulse-width-modulated control signal (control signal from PWM drivers 14, 32, 42; Heck Fig.2) depending on a power setpoint (heating power P .sub.heating_soll, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 8 & last paragraph), or temperature setpoint, or current setpoint, or resistance setpoint, the method comprising:
activating a first phase of gradually regulating the setpoint (heating power P .sub.heating_soll, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 8 & last paragraph) in a first direction of change (Heck Translated Document on page 7 – first paragraph and on page 9 – paragraph 3 disclose reducing/lowering heating power requirement),
the first regulating phase (first phase of regulating heating power, as explained previously) comprising:
regulating the setpoint (heating power P .sub.heating_soll, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 8) in first predefined increments (100% of maximum heating power, 50% of maximum heating power, and 25% of maximum heating power because Heck Translated Document on page 7 – first paragraph and on page 9 – paragraph 3 disclose reducing/lowering heating power requirement and Heck Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph discloses: “P .sub.heating_soll (eg 25% P .sub.heating_max ,50% P .sub.heating_max , 100% P .sub.heating_max)”),
for each regulated setpoint value (for each of 100% of maximum heating power, 50% of maximum heating power, and 25% of maximum heating power, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph), determining, for a duty cycle of said the pulse-width-modulated control signal (variable Z is calculated from PWM duty cycle and PWM period, Heck Par.0036 or Translated Document on page 4 [last paragraph] to page 5 [paragraphs 1-7]), a corresponding detection threshold value (threshold value Z.sub.Ref, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraphs 6-8) (Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraphs 6-8 discloses Z.sub.Ref depends on R .sub.RHK_max_ref; Heck Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph discloses: “A more refined implementation is the use of multiple reference .sub.curves with different R .sub.RHK_max_ref , where each R .sub.RHK_max_ref is related to a certain P .sub.heating_soll (eg 25% P .sub.heating_max ,50% P .sub.heating_max , 100% P .sub.heating_max )”; it is noted that R .sub.RHK_max_ref is threshold value because Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 6 discloses: discloses: “In addition, the R .sub.RHK_max possible during normal heating operation can be .sub.determined from laboratory measurements, from which a reference value (threshold value) R .sub.RHK_max_refcan .sub.finally be derived.”) representative of overheating of the at least one subset of resistive elements (at least one of heating resistors 10, 30, 40; Heck Fig.2) (Heck Translated Document on page 6 paragraphs 4-6 discloses: “An overheating detection can be derived from the Z (t) calculated from the measured values of U.sub.HV (t) and I .sub.Heiz_Summe_mittel (t) as a qualitative statement with respect to R .sub.RHK ,because the following applies: Z becomes maximum when R .sub.RHK becomes maximum. In addition, the R .sub.RHK_max possible during normal heating operation can be .sub.determined from laboratory measurements, from which a reference value (threshold value) R .sub.RHK_max_refcan .sub.finally be derived.”), depending on the regulated setpoint value (for each of 100% of maximum heating power, 50% of maximum heating power, and 25% of maximum heating power, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph) (Heck Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph discloses: “A more refined implementation is the use of multiple reference .sub.curves with different R .sub.RHK_max_ref , where each R .sub.RHK_max_ref is related to a certain P .sub.heating_soll (eg 25% P .sub.heating_max ,50% P .sub.heating_max , 100% P .sub.heating_max )”,
in each iteration of the first regulating phase (first phase of regulating heating power, as explained previously), observing the duty cycle of the pulse-width-modulated control signal (variable Z is calculated from PWM duty cycle and PWM period, Heck Par.0036 or Translated Document on page 4 [last paragraph] to page 5 [paragraphs 1-7]) and comparing the observed duty cycle of the pulse-width-modulated control signal (variable Z is calculated from PWM duty cycle and PWM period, Heck Par.0036 or Translated Document on page 4 [last paragraph] to page 5 [paragraphs 1-7]) with the determined corresponding detection threshold value of the duty cycle of said the pulse- width-modulated control signal (threshold value Z.sub.Ref, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraphs 6-8) (Heck discloses compare Z with the threshold value because Heck Translated Document on page 5 –paragraph 9 discloses: “A reference curve Z .sub.ref = f (R .sub.RHK_max, L .sub.RHK, T, V) can be stored in a memory of the evaluation circuit, for example in an EEPROM of a microcontroller, to store, wherein a continuous comparison of Z .sub.measurement (ν) with the reference curve Z .sub.ref ( ν) is feasible. In this case,.sub.Zmeasurement (ν) <Z .sub.ref (ν) can be set as an error condition” and Heck Translated Document on page 6 paragraphs 6-7 discloses: “An overheating detection can be derived from the Z (t) calculated from the measured values of U.sub.HV (t) and I .sub.Heiz_Summe_mittel (t) as a qualitative statement with respect to R .sub.RHK ,because the following applies: Z becomes maximum when R .sub.RHK becomes maximum. In addition, the R .sub.RHK_max possible during normal heating operation can be .sub.determined from laboratory measurements, from which a reference value (threshold value) R .sub.RHK_max_refcan .sub.finally be derived. From this an error condition for overheating can be derived: Z .sub.measurement (R .sub.RHK , ν> Z.sub.Ref (R .sub.RHK_max_ref , ν)”); and
reiterating the first regulating phase (first phase of regulating heating power, as explained previously) as long as the observed duty cycle of the pulse-width- modulated control signal (variable Z is calculated from PWM duty cycle and PWM period, Heck Par.0036 or Translated Document on page 4 [last paragraph] to page 5 [paragraphs 1-7]) is beyond the determined detection threshold value (threshold value Z.sub.Ref, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraphs 6-8) (Heck Translated Document on page 6 paragraphs 6-7 discloses: “An overheating detection can be derived from the Z (t) calculated from the measured values of U.sub.HV (t) and I .sub.Heiz_Summe_mittel (t) as a qualitative statement with respect to R .sub.RHK ,because the following applies: Z becomes maximum when R .sub.RHK becomes maximum. In addition, the R .sub.RHK_max possible during normal heating operation can be .sub.determined from laboratory measurements, from which a reference value (threshold value) R .sub.RHK_max_refcan .sub.finally be derived. From this an error condition for overheating can be derived: Z .sub.measurement (R .sub.RHK , ν> Z.sub.Ref (R .sub.RHK_max_ref , ν)”); thus, the error happens when Z measurement is beyond the Z threshold, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 8 discloses when error happens, the cooling is taken into account, and Heck Translated Document on page 7 – paragraph 1 discloses lower the heating requirement as long as heating elements are not in thermally steady state, which means the observed duty cycle of the pulse-width- modulated control signal is beyond the determined detection threshold value, specifically, Heck Translated Document on page 7 – paragraph 1 discloses: “Depending on the heating power requirement, the most appropriate Z reference curve is then selected. If the heating requirement is lowered, the cooling time of the RHKs is taken into account. This means that as long as the RHKs are not yet in the thermally steady state, the diagnosis can be deactivated or a suitable transition function from one Z reference curve to the next Z reference curve is used.”; since suitable transition function from one Z reference curve to the next Z reference curve is used, this means reiterating the first regulating phase as long as the observed duty cycle of the pulse-width- modulated control signal is beyond the determined detection threshold value), (Examiner’s note: Claim 1 recites a thermal management method to be applied in case of detection of overheating of an electrical heating device for a motor vehicle. Limitation “reiterating the first regulating phase as long as the observed duty cycle of the pulse-width- modulated control signal is beyond the determined detection threshold value, and otherwise activating a second phase of regulating the setpoint, in a second direction of change opposite to the first direction of change of the first phase” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “reiterating the first regulating phase”) if a first condition (i.e. “as long as the observed duty cycle of the pulse-width- modulated control signal is beyond the determined detection threshold value”) happens; and step B (i.e. “activating a second phase of regulating the setpoint, in a second direction of change opposite to the first direction of change of the first phase”) if a second condition (i.e. “otherwise”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.).
Regarding claim 2, Heck discloses the method set forth in claim 1, Heck also discloses wherein the first phase (first phase of regulating heating power, as explained previously in the rejection of claim 1) is a phase of derating the setpoint in a first direction of change (Heck Translated Document on page 7 – first paragraph and on page 9 – paragraph 3 disclose reducing/lowering heating power requirement), comprises:
limiting the setpoint in first predefined increments allowing a derating level i to be reached (100% of maximum heating power, 50% of maximum heating power, and 25% of maximum heating power because Heck Translated Document on page 7 – first paragraph and on page 9 – paragraph 3 disclose reducing/lowering heating power requirement and Heck Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph discloses: “P .sub.heating_soll (eg 25% P .sub.heating_max ,50% P .sub.heating_max , 100% P .sub.heating_max)”);
for each limited setpoint value (for each of 100% of maximum heating power, 50% of maximum heating power, and 25% of maximum heating power, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph), determining, for the duty cycle of the pulse-width- modulated control signal (variable Z is calculated from PWM duty cycle and PWM period, Heck Par.0036 or Translated Document on page 4 [last paragraph] to page 5 [paragraphs 1-7]), a corresponding detection threshold value (threshold value Z.sub.Ref, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraphs 6-8) (Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraphs 6-8 discloses Z.sub.Ref depends on R .sub.RHK_max_ref; Heck Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph discloses: “A more refined implementation is the use of multiple reference .sub.curves with different R .sub.RHK_max_ref , where each R .sub.RHK_max_ref is related to a certain P .sub.heating_soll (eg 25% P .sub.heating_max ,50% P .sub.heating_max , 100% P .sub.heating_max )”; it is noted that R .sub.RHK_max_ref is threshold value because Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 6 discloses: discloses: “In addition, the R .sub.RHK_max possible during normal heating operation can be .sub.determined from laboratory measurements, from which a reference value (threshold value) R .sub.RHK_max_refcan .sub.finally be derived.”) representative of overheating of the at least one subset of resistive elements (at least one of heating resistors 10, 30, 40; Heck Fig.2) (Heck Translated Document on page 6 paragraphs 4-6 discloses: “An overheating detection can be derived from the Z (t) calculated from the measured values of U.sub.HV (t) and I .sub.Heiz_Summe_mittel (t) as a qualitative statement with respect to R .sub.RHK ,because the following applies: Z becomes maximum when R .sub.RHK becomes maximum. In addition, the R .sub.RHK_max possible during normal heating operation can be .sub.determined from laboratory measurements, from which a reference value (threshold value) R .sub.RHK_max_refcan .sub.finally be derived.”), depending on the limited setpoint value (for each of 100% of maximum heating power, 50% of maximum heating power, and 25% of maximum heating power, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph) (Heck Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph discloses: “A more refined implementation is the use of multiple reference .sub.curves with different R .sub.RHK_max_ref , where each R .sub.RHK_max_ref is related to a certain P .sub.heating_soll (eg 25% P .sub.heating_max ,50% P .sub.heating_max , 100% P .sub.heating_max )”;
in each iteration of the derating first phase (first phase of regulating heating power, as explained previously in the rejection of claim 1), observing the duty cycle of the pulse- width-modulated control signal (variable Z is calculated from PWM duty cycle and PWM period, Heck Par.0036 or Translated Document on page 4 [last paragraph] to page 5 [paragraphs 1-7]) and comparing the observed duty cycle (variable Z is calculated from PWM duty cycle and PWM period, Heck Par.0036 or Translated Document on page 4 [last paragraph] to page 5 [paragraphs 1-7]) with the determined corresponding detection threshold value of the duty cycle of the pulse width-modulated control signal (threshold value Z.sub.Ref, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraphs 6-8) (Heck discloses compare Z with the threshold value because Heck Translated Document on page 5 –paragraph 9 discloses: “A reference curve Z .sub.ref = f (R .sub.RHK_max, L .sub.RHK, T, V) can be stored in a memory of the evaluation circuit, for example in an EEPROM of a microcontroller, to store, wherein a continuous comparison of Z .sub.measurement (ν) with the reference curve Z .sub.ref ( ν) is feasible. In this case,.sub.Zmeasurement (ν) <Z .sub.ref (ν) can be set as an error condition” and Heck Translated Document on page 6 paragraphs 6-7 discloses: “An overheating detection can be derived from the Z (t) calculated from the measured values of U.sub.HV (t) and I .sub.Heiz_Summe_mittel (t) as a qualitative statement with respect to R .sub.RHK ,because the following applies: Z becomes maximum when R .sub.RHK becomes maximum. In addition, the R .sub.RHK_max possible during normal heating operation can be .sub.determined from laboratory measurements, from which a reference value (threshold value) R .sub.RHK_max_refcan .sub.finally be derived. From this an error condition for overheating can be derived: Z .sub.measurement (R .sub.RHK , ν> Z.sub.Ref (R .sub.RHK_max_ref , ν)”).
Regarding claim 3, Claim 3 recites the method set forth in claim 1,
(Examiner’s note: If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim. In this case, the second regulating phase is not required to be carried out if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, as explained in details in the rejection of claim 1 above)
Regarding claim 4, Claim 4 recites the method set forth in claim 1,
(Examiner’s note: If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim. In this case, the second regulating phase is not required to be carried out if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, as explained in details in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Heck discloses the method set forth in claim 1, Heck also discloses further comprising
measuring a supply voltage (Heck Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 7 discloses: “wherein a measurement of the high-voltage voltage U .sub.HV , that is, the voltage applied to the heating resistors, is present.”), wherein the detection threshold value of the duty cycle of the pulse-width-modulated control signal is also determined depending on the measured supply voltage (it is noted that the reference Z value is threshold value, as explained in details in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, Heck discloses the reference Z is function of R .sub.RHK_max, and the value of R .sub.RHK_max depends on the voltage U .sub.HV. Therefore, the detection threshold value of the duty cycle of the pulse-width-modulated control signal is also determined depending on the measured supply voltage. Heck Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 9 discloses: “A reference curve Z .sub.ref = f (R .sub.RHK_max, L .sub.RHK, T, V)”, and Heck Translated Document on page 6 paragraphs 4-8 discloses: “An overheating detection can be derived from the Z (t) calculated from the measured values of U.sub.HV (t) and I .sub.Heiz_Summe_mittel (t) as a qualitative statement with respect to R .sub.RHK ,because the following applies: Z becomes maximum when R .sub.RHK becomes maximum. In addition, the R .sub.RHK_max possible during normal heating operation can be .sub.determined from laboratory measurements, from which a reference value (threshold value) R .sub.RHK_max_refcan .sub.finally be derived. From this an error condition for overheating can be derived: Z .sub.measurement (R .sub.RHK , ν > Z.sub.Ref (R .sub.RHK_max_ref , ν). For measuring and determining R .sub.RHK_max , the boundary conditions of worst case operationare set in heating mode: • .sub.Heating power: P .sub.heating_soll = P .sub.heating_max •.sub.Coolant flow rate: Q .sub.Medium = Q .sub.Medium_min • .sub.Coolant temperature: θ.sub.Medium = θ .sub.Medium_max”).
Regarding claim 6, Heck discloses the method set forth in claim 1, Heck also discloses further comprising:
during the first regulating phase (first phase of regulating heating power, as explained previously in the rejection of claim 1), comparing the regulated value of the setpoint with a limit setpoint value (Heck discloses comparing the regulated value of the setpoint with a limit setpoint value because Heck discloses the most appropriate Z reference curve is then selected depends on the heating power requirement, and the Z reference curve is the reference curve of 100% of maximum heating power, 50% of maximum heating power, and 25% of maximum heating power; to be more specific, Heck Translated Document on page 7 – first paragraph discloses: “Depending on the heating power requirement, the most appropriate Z reference curve is then selected.”, and Heck Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph discloses: “A more refined implementation is the use of multiple reference .sub.curves with different R .sub.RHK_max_ref , whereeach R .sub.RHK_max_ref is related to a certain P .sub.heating_soll (eg 25% P .sub.heating_max ,50% P .sub.heating_max , 100% P .sub.heating_max ).”); and
(see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above for the limitation “if the regulated value of the setpoint, generating a command to stop the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements for a predefined stoppage time”. In this case, this limitation will be interpreted as if the regulated value of the setpoint reaches the limit setpoint value, generating a command to stop the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements for a predefined stoppage time. Examiner’s note: Claim 6 recites the thermal management method to be applied in case of detection of overheating of an electrical heating device for a motor vehicle set forth in claim 1. Limitation “if the regulated value of the setpoint, generating a command to stop the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements for a predefined stoppage time” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step of generating a command to stop the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements for a predefined stoppage time if a condition of if the regulated value of the setpoint reaches the limit setpoint value happens (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections above). If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.).
Regarding claim 10, Heck discloses the method set forth in claim 1, Heck also discloses
wherein the resistive elements (heating resistors 10, 30, 40; Heck Fig.2) are resistive elements of positive temperature coefficient (Heck Translated Document on page 4 paragraph 6 teaches: “the PTC behavior of ohmic tubular heater resistors can be exploited, the heating resistors are formed here of a PTC material, so have PTC behavior. In this case, the resistive tube.sub.heater resistance R.sub.RHK is a function of "θ", for example, the temperature (R.sub.RHK = f (θ)). R.sub.RHK (t) is continuously calculated during heating operation.”; therefore, Heck teaches resistive elements are resistive elements of positive temperature coefficient), the setpoint is a power setpoint (heating power P .sub.heating_soll, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 8; therefore, the setpoint is power setpoint), and
wherein:
the first regulating phase (first phase of regulating heating power, as explained previously in the rejection of claim 1) is a derating phase in which the power setpoint is gradually decreased in the first predefined increments (100% of maximum heating power, 50% of maximum heating power, and 25% of maximum heating power because Heck Translated Document on page 7 – first paragraph and on page 9 – paragraph 3 disclose reducing/lowering heating power requirement and Heck Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph discloses: “P .sub.heating_soll (eg 25% P .sub.heating_max ,50% P .sub.heating_max , 100% P .sub.heating_max)”) as long as the observed duty cycle of the pulse-width-modulated control signal (variable Z is calculated from PWM duty cycle and PWM period, Heck Par.0036 or Translated Document on page 4 [last paragraph] to page 5 [paragraphs 1-7]) is higher than the detection threshold value (threshold value Z.sub.Ref, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraphs 6-8) determined in the first regulating phase (first phase of regulating heating power, as explained previously in the rejection of claim 1) (Heck Translated Document on page 6 paragraphs 6-7 discloses: “An overheating detection can be derived from the Z (t) calculated from the measured values of U.sub.HV (t) and I .sub.Heiz_Summe_mittel (t) as a qualitative statement with respect to R .sub.RHK ,because the following applies: Z becomes maximum when R .sub.RHK becomes maximum. In addition, the R .sub.RHK_max possible during normal heating operation can be .sub.determined from laboratory measurements, from which a reference value (threshold value) R .sub.RHK_max_refcan .sub.finally be derived. From this an error condition for overheating can be derived: Z .sub.measurement (R .sub.RHK , ν> Z.sub.Ref (R .sub.RHK_max_ref , ν)”); thus, the error happens when Z measurement is higher than the Z threshold, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 8 discloses when error happens, the cooling is taken into account, and Heck Translated Document on page 7 – paragraph 1 discloses lower the heating requirement as long as heating elements are not in thermally steady state, which means the observed duty cycle of the pulse-width- modulated control signal is higher the determined detection threshold value, specifically, Heck Translated Document on page 7 – paragraph 1 discloses: “Depending on the heating power requirement, the most appropriate Z reference curve is then selected. If the heating requirement is lowered, the cooling time of the RHKs is taken into account. This means that as long as the RHKs are not yet in the thermally steady state, the diagnosis can be deactivated or a suitable transition function from one Z reference curve to the next Z reference curve is used.”; since suitable transition function from one Z reference curve to the next Z reference curve is used, this means reiterating the first derating phase as long as the observed duty cycle of the pulse-width- modulated control signal is higher the determined detection threshold value),
(Examiner’s note: If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim. In this case, the second regulating phase is not required to be carried out if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, as explained in details in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Heck discloses the method set forth in claim 1, and also discloses:
wherein the first regulating phase and/or second regulating phase are/is iterated with a predefined period (It is noted that the limitation “the first regulating phase and/or second regulating phase” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of this was required during examination. In this case, Heck discloses first regulating phase is iterated with a predefined period because Heck discloses the first regulating phase is iterated as long as the heaters are not yet in the thermally steady state, as indicated by Heck Translated Document on page 6 [last paragraph] to page 7 [first paragraph]).
Regarding claim 13, Heck discloses
wherein the first and/or second predefined increments are variable (It is noted that the limitation “the first and/or second predefined increments” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of this was required during examination. In this case, Heck discloses the first predefined increments are variable because the setpoint is P1 = 100%, P2 = 50%, and P3 = 25%; thus the setpoint Pn = (0.5)(n-1) x 100%).
Regarding claim 14, Heck discloses the method set forth in claim 1, Heck also discloses wherein:
at least two subsets of separate resistive elements (heating resistors 10, 30, 40; Heck Fig.2) are controlled independently by pulse-width modulation (PWM drivers 14, 32, 42; Heck Fig.2) of the electrical supply (power supply 1, Heck Fig.1) (as indicated by Heck Translated Document on page 8 – last paragraph), and
for each subset (each of heating resistors 10, 30, 40; Heck Fig.2), a detection threshold value of the duty cycle of the pulse-width modulation control signal is defined independently, depending on a nature and/or a number of the resistive elements of the subset (Heck Translated Document on page 8 [last paragraph] to page 9 [first paragraph] discloses an implementation of overheating detection by detecting threshold value of threshold value of the duty cycle of the pulse-width modulation control signal is defined independently depending on number of resistive elements of the subset).
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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heck (DE 102016109039 A1, Published 08/17/2017, Translation is attached) in view of Emanuel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0014680 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Heck discloses the method set forth in claim 6, Heck does not disclose further comprising:
generating a command to resume the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements with a resumption setpoint set to a predetermined value lower than or equal to a permitted maximum setpoint value
Emanuel teaches a thermal management method to be applied in case of detection of overheating of an electrical heating device (heating device 1, Emanuel Figs.1A-1B & 2), in particular for a motor vehicle (Emanuel Abstract discloses: “The present invention relates to a PTC based heating device for a motor vehicle”), said device (heating device 1, Emanuel Figs.1A-1B & 2) comprising a plurality of resistive elements (“plurality of PTC heating elements”, Emanuel Par.0032) (Emanuel Par.0004 discloses: “In the state of the art it is known that so-called resistance heating elements or PTC (Positive Temperature Coefficient) heating elements can be used for this purpose.”, and Emanuel Par.0032 discloses: “The present invention relates to a motor vehicle heater which may be formed as a hot-water heater and comprises one or a plurality of PTC heating elements”) wherein at least one subset of resistive elements (“plurality of PTC heating elements”, Emanuel Par.0032) is controlled using a pulse-width-modulated control signal (Emanuel Par.0032 discloses: “A control is for example possible with the aid of pulse width modulation (PWM)”) depending on temperature setpoint (Emanuel Fig.4 and Pars.0049-0059 explains in detail the electrical supply of the heating elements depending on temperature setpoint), the method comprising:
generating a command to resume the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements with a resumption setpoint set to a predetermined value lower than or equal to a permitted maximum setpoint value (Emanuel Fig. 4 & Pars.0051-0059 teaches regulating the temperature by repeatedly comparing the temperature with the target temperature and the control signal will perform regulation action according to the comparison result; in the case when the temperature is higher than the target temperature, the supplementary circuit is shut-off and cooling will be provided to reduce the temperature, therefore, the resumption temperature would be lower than or equal to the maximum temperature)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Heck, by adding the teachings of generating a command to resume the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements with a resumption setpoint set to a predetermined value lower than or equal to a permitted maximum setpoint value, as taught by Emanuel, in order to keep regulating the temperature to reach the desired target temperature while prevent overheating.
Regarding claim 8, Heck discloses the method as set forth in claim 1, Heck does not disclose further comprising:
observing a temperature of a carrier of an electrical supply circuit of the resistive elements; and
determining depending on the observed temperature whether the at least one subset of resistive elements is in a minimum heating state; and
activating the first regulating phase when the minimum heating state of said at least one subset of resistive elements is determined.
Emanuel teaches a thermal management method to be applied in case of detection of overheating of an electrical heating device (heating device 1, Emanuel Figs.1A-1B & 2), in particular for a motor vehicle (Emanuel Abstract discloses: “The present invention relates to a PTC based heating device for a motor vehicle”), said device (heating device 1, Emanuel Figs.1A-1B & 2) comprising a plurality of resistive elements (“plurality of PTC heating elements”, Emanuel Par.0032) (Emanuel Par.0004 discloses: “In the state of the art it is known that so-called resistance heating elements or PTC (Positive Temperature Coefficient) heating elements can be used for this purpose.”, and Emanuel Par.0032 discloses: “The present invention relates to a motor vehicle heater which may be formed as a hot-water heater and comprises one or a plurality of PTC heating elements”) wherein at least one subset of resistive elements (“plurality of PTC heating elements”, Emanuel Par.0032) is controlled using a pulse-width-modulated control signal (Emanuel Par.0032 discloses: “A control is for example possible with the aid of pulse width modulation (PWM)”) depending on temperature setpoint (Emanuel Fig.4 and Pars.0049-0059 explains in detail the electrical supply of the heating elements depending on temperature setpoint), the method comprising:
observing a temperature of a carrier of an electrical supply circuit of the resistive elements (Emanuel Fig.5 & Pars.0062-0065 teaches steps of observing the temperature of the battery of the electrical supply circuit of the resistive elements); and
determining depending on the observed temperature whether the at least one subset of resistive elements is in a minimum heating state (Emanuel Par.0044 teaches: “the supplementary circuit 3 a can be used to preheat the battery until it reaches its operating temperature. For this purpose the supplementary circuit 3 a is included in the heating circuit by appropriate control of the valves 40 c and 40 d and has water flowing through it which is heated by the PTC heating element 20.”, and Emanuel Par.0063 teaches: “Then in the assessment step S210 it is assessed whether the operating temperature of the vehicle battery 10 has been reached. As long as the operating temperature of the battery 10 has not been reached (S210:N), the status of the heating device remains unchanged (loop S210:N->S210).”, Emanuel Par.0064 teaches: “When the battery operating temperature has been reached (S210:Y), the method continues to step S220. In step S220 the battery supplementary circuit 3 a is initially switched off in that the position of the valves 40 c and 40 d is changed appropriately. Then in step S230 the control device assesses whether a requirement on additional heat is needed in the circulation and whether the supplementary circuit 3 a of the battery can provide waste heat.”, and Emanuel Par.0065 teaches: “As long as no battery waste heat is available or required for heating (S230:N), the status of the heating device remains unchanged. Otherwise (S230:Y) the battery supplementary circuit 3 a is switched in again by the control device in step S240 through appropriate control of the valves 40 c and 40 d.”; therefore, Emanual teaches determining depending on the observed temperature whether said at least one subset of resistive elements is in a minimum heating state); and
activating the first regulating phase (the first phase is interpreted to be the phase of reducing temperature by gradually regulating temperature in order to bring the measured temperature to reach the temperature target value, thus, reducing the temperature is the first direction of change, Emanuel Fig.4 & Pars.0055-0059) when a minimum heating state of the at least one subset of resistive elements is determined (Emanuel Par.0044 teaches: “the supplementary circuit 3 a can be used to preheat the battery until it reaches its operating temperature. For this purpose the supplementary circuit 3 a is included in the heating circuit by appropriate control of the valves 40 c and 40 d and has water flowing through it which is heated by the PTC heating element 20.”, and Emanuel Par.0063 teaches: “Then in the assessment step S210 it is assessed whether the operating temperature of the vehicle battery 10 has been reached. As long as the operating temperature of the battery 10 has not been reached (S210:N), the status of the heating device remains unchanged (loop S210:N->S210).”, Emanuel Par.0064 teaches: “When the battery operating temperature has been reached (S210:Y), the method continues to step S220. In step S220 the battery supplementary circuit 3 a is initially switched off in that the position of the valves 40 c and 40 d is changed appropriately. Then in step S230 the control device assesses whether a requirement on additional heat is needed in the circulation and whether the supplementary circuit 3 a of the battery can provide waste heat.”, and Emanuel Par.0065 teaches: “As long as no battery waste heat is available or required for heating (S230:N), the status of the heating device remains unchanged. Otherwise (S230:Y) the battery supplementary circuit 3 a is switched in again by the control device in step S240 through appropriate control of the valves 40 c and 40 d.”; therefore, Emanual teaches activating the first regulating phase when a minimum heating state of said at least one subset of resistive elements is determined).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Heck, by adding the teachings of observing the temperature of a carrier of the electrical supply circuit of the resistive element, determining depending on the observed temperature whether the at least one subset of resistive elements is in a minimum heating state, and activating the first regulating phase when a minimum heating state of the at least one subset of resistive elements is determined, as taught by Emanuel, in order to monitor the carrier of the electrical supply circuit of the resistive elements, thus, prevent overheating of the carrier.
Regarding claim 9, Heck in view of Emanuel teaches the method as set forth in claim 7, Heck does not disclose wherein:
a temperature of the carrier is observed subsequently to the predefined stoppage time of the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements, and
wherein the command to resume the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements is generated with a resumption setpoint if a minimum heating state of the at least one subset of resistive elements is determined, depending on the observed temperature of the carrier.
Emanuel teaches a thermal management method as cited and explained previously in the rejection of claim 7, Emanuel also teaches:
a temperature of the carrier is observed subsequently to the predefined stoppage time of the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements (Emanuel Fig.5 & Par.0062 teaches step S200 is when the supplementary circuit 3 is in the shut-off position, and step S210 of observing temperature of the battery is subsequent to step S200 as shown in Emanuel Fig.5, Emanuel Par.0063 teaches: “Then in the assessment step S210 it is assessed whether the operating temperature of the vehicle battery 10 has been reached. As long as the operating temperature of the battery 10 has not been reached (S210:N), the status of the heating device remains unchanged (loop S210:N->S210).”, and Emanuel Par.0064 teaches: “When the battery operating temperature has been reached (S210:Y), the method continues to step S220. In step S220 the battery supplementary circuit 3 a is initially switched off in that the position of the valves 40 c and 40 d is changed appropriately. ”; therefore, Emanuel teaches the temperature of the carrier is observed subsequently to the predefined stoppage time of the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements), and
the command to resume the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements is generated with a resumption setpoint if a minimum heating state of the at least one subset of resistive elements is determined, depending on the observed temperature of the carrier (Emanuel Par.0044 teaches: “the supplementary circuit 3 a can be used to preheat the battery until it reaches its operating temperature. For this purpose the supplementary circuit 3 a is included in the heating circuit by appropriate control of the valves 40 c and 40 d and has water flowing through it which is heated by the PTC heating element 20.”, and Emanuel Par.0063 teaches: “Then in the assessment step S210 it is assessed whether the operating temperature of the vehicle battery 10 has been reached. As long as the operating temperature of the battery 10 has not been reached (S210:N), the status of the heating device remains unchanged (loop S210:N->S210).”, Emanuel Par.0064 teaches: “When the battery operating temperature has been reached (S210:Y), the method continues to step S220. In step S220 the battery supplementary circuit 3 a is initially switched off in that the position of the valves 40 c and 40 d is changed appropriately. Then in step S230 the control device assesses whether a requirement on additional heat is needed in the circulation and whether the supplementary circuit 3 a of the battery can provide waste heat.”, and Emanuel Par.0065 teaches: “As long as no battery waste heat is available or required for heating (S230:N), the status of the heating device remains unchanged. Otherwise (S230:Y) the battery supplementary circuit 3 a is switched in again by the control device in step S240 through appropriate control of the valves 40 c and 40 d.”; therefore, Emanuel teaches the command to resume the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements is generated with a resumption setpoint if a minimum heating state of the at least one subset of resistive elements is determined, depending on the observed temperature of the carrier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Heck in view of Emanuel, by adding the teachings of the temperature of the carrier is observed subsequently to the predefined stoppage time of the electrical supply of said at least one subset of resistive elements, wherein the command to resume the electrical supply of the at least one subset of resistive elements is generated with a resumption setpoint if a minimum heating state of the at least one subset of resistive elements is determined, depending on the observed temperature of the carrier, as taught by Emanuel, in order to monitor the carrier of the electrical supply circuit of the resistive elements, thus, prevent overheating of the carrier.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heck (DE 102016109039 A1, Published 08/17/2017, Translation is attached) in view of Nemesh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0222937 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Heck does not disclose:
wherein the first and/or second predefined increments are constant
In the same or similar field of endeavor, Nemesh teaches a heating control method:
wherein the first and/or second predefined increments are constant (It is noted that the limitation “the first and/or second predefined increments” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of this was required during examination. It is noted that the primary reference Heck discloses the first predefined increments regarding the power setpoint, and in this case, the secondary reference Nemesh teaches the power increments are constant because each step is different by 1/15 as shown in Nemesh Fig.2 and indicated by Nemesh Par.0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Heck, by adding the teaching of the first predefined increments are constant, as taught by Nemesh, in order to allow finer and more predictable control over the power and provide precise power regulation, thus, it helps maintain a more consistent power and temperature rise, and prevent overheating, degradation. Therefore, enhancing safety and providing efficient operation of heater device.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heck (DE 102016109039 A1, Published 08/17/2017, Translation is attached) in view of Graf et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0325602 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Heck discloses a control unit (control device 3, Heck Fig.1) for an electrical heating device (electrical heating device 2, Heck Figs.1 & 2) comprising:
a plurality of resistive elements (heating resistors 10, 30, 40; Heck Fig.2) configured to be electrically supplied by an electrical voltage source (power supply 1, Heck Fig.1),
the control unit (control device 3, Heck Fig.1) being configured to generate a pulse-width-modulated control signal (control signal from PWM drivers 14, 32, 42; Heck Fig.2) for controlling an electrical supply of the resistive elements (heating resistors 10, 30, 40; Heck Fig.2) depending on a power setpoint (Heck Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 8 discloses: “a PWM drive is used for power control of one or more heater resistors. This PWM control allows precise control of the desired heating power”), or a temperature setpoint, or a current setpoint, or a resistance setpoint; and
at least one processing means (microcontroller 24, Heck Fig.2) for:
activating a first phase of gradually regulating the setpoint (heating power P .sub.heating_soll, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 8 & last paragraph) in a first direction of change (Heck Translated Document on page 7 – first paragraph and on page 9 – paragraph 3 disclose reducing/lowering heating power requirement), the first regulating phase (first phase of regulating heating power, as explained previously) comprising:
regulating the setpoint (heating power P .sub.heating_soll, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 8) in first predefined increments (100% of maximum heating power, 50% of maximum heating power, and 25% of maximum heating power because Heck Translated Document on page 7 – first paragraph and on page 9 – paragraph 3 disclose reducing/lowering heating power requirement and Heck Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph discloses: “P .sub.heating_soll (eg 25% P .sub.heating_max ,50% P .sub.heating_max , 100% P .sub.heating_max)”),
for each regulated setpoint value (for each of 100% of maximum heating power, 50% of maximum heating power, and 25% of maximum heating power, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph), determining, for a duty cycle of the pulse-width-modulated control signal (variable Z is calculated from PWM duty cycle and PWM period, Heck Par.0036 or Translated Document on page 4 [last paragraph] to page 5 [paragraphs 1-7]), a corresponding detection threshold value (threshold value Z.sub.Ref, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraphs 6-8) (Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraphs 6-8 discloses Z.sub.Ref depends on R .sub.RHK_max_ref; Heck Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph discloses: “A more refined implementation is the use of multiple reference .sub.curves with different R .sub.RHK_max_ref , where each R .sub.RHK_max_ref is related to a certain P .sub.heating_soll (eg 25% P .sub.heating_max ,50% P .sub.heating_max , 100% P .sub.heating_max )”; it is noted that R .sub.RHK_max_ref is threshold value because Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 6 discloses: discloses: “In addition, the R .sub.RHK_max possible during normal heating operation can be .sub.determined from laboratory measurements, from which a reference value (threshold value) R .sub.RHK_max_refcan .sub.finally be derived.”) representative of overheating of the at least one subset of resistive elements (at least one of heating resistors 10, 30, 40; Heck Fig.2) (Heck Translated Document on page 6 paragraphs 4-6 discloses: “An overheating detection can be derived from the Z (t) calculated from the measured values of U.sub.HV (t) and I .sub.Heiz_Summe_mittel (t) as a qualitative statement with respect to R .sub.RHK ,because the following applies: Z becomes maximum when R .sub.RHK becomes maximum. In addition, the R .sub.RHK_max possible during normal heating operation can be .sub.determined from laboratory measurements, from which a reference value (threshold value) R .sub.RHK_max_refcan .sub.finally be derived.”), depending on the regulated setpoint value (for each of 100% of maximum heating power, 50% of maximum heating power, and 25% of maximum heating power, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph) (Heck Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph discloses: “A more refined implementation is the use of multiple reference .sub.curves with different R .sub.RHK_max_ref , where each R .sub.RHK_max_ref is related to a certain P .sub.heating_soll (eg 25% P .sub.heating_max ,50% P .sub.heating_max , 100% P .sub.heating_max )”),
in each iteration of the first regulating phase (first phase of regulating heating power, as explained previously), observing the duty cycle of the pulse-width-modulated control signal (variable Z is calculated from PWM duty cycle and PWM period, Heck Par.0036 or Translated Document on page 4 [last paragraph] to page 5 [paragraphs 1-7]) and comparing the observed duty cycle (variable Z is calculated from PWM duty cycle and PWM period, Heck Par.0036 or Translated Document on page 4 [last paragraph] to page 5 [paragraphs 1-7]) with the determined corresponding detection threshold value of the duty cycle of the pulse-width-modulated control signal (threshold value Z.sub.Ref, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraphs 6-8) (Heck discloses compare Z with the threshold value because Heck Translated Document on page 5 –paragraph 9 discloses: “A reference curve Z .sub.ref = f (R .sub.RHK_max, L .sub.RHK, T, V) can be stored in a memory of the evaluation circuit, for example in an EEPROM of a microcontroller, to store, wherein a continuous comparison of Z .sub.measurement (ν) with the reference curve Z .sub.ref ( ν) is feasible. In this case,.sub.Zmeasurement (ν) <Z .sub.ref (ν) can be set as an error condition” and Heck Translated Document on page 6 paragraphs 6-7 discloses: “An overheating detection can be derived from the Z (t) calculated from the measured values of U.sub.HV (t) and I .sub.Heiz_Summe_mittel (t) as a qualitative statement with respect to R .sub.RHK ,because the following applies: Z becomes maximum when R .sub.RHK becomes maximum. In addition, the R .sub.RHK_max possible during normal heating operation can be .sub.determined from laboratory measurements, from which a reference value (threshold value) R .sub.RHK_max_refcan .sub.finally be derived. From this an error condition for overheating can be derived: Z .sub.measurement (R .sub.RHK , ν> Z.sub.Ref (R .sub.RHK_max_ref , ν)”),
reiterating the first regulating phase (first phase of regulating heating power, as explained previously) as long as the observed duty cycle of the pulse-width-modulated control signal (variable Z is calculated from PWM duty cycle and PWM period, Heck Par.0036 or Translated Document on page 4 [last paragraph] to page 5 [paragraphs 1-7]) is beyond the determined detection threshold value (threshold value Z.sub.Ref, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraphs 6-8) (Heck Translated Document on page 6 paragraphs 6-7 discloses: “An overheating detection can be derived from the Z (t) calculated from the measured values of U.sub.HV (t) and I .sub.Heiz_Summe_mittel (t) as a qualitative statement with respect to R .sub.RHK ,because the following applies: Z becomes maximum when R .sub.RHK becomes maximum. In addition, the R .sub.RHK_max possible during normal heating operation can be .sub.determined from laboratory measurements, from which a reference value (threshold value) R .sub.RHK_max_refcan .sub.finally be derived. From this an error condition for overheating can be derived: Z .sub.measurement (R .sub.RHK , ν> Z.sub.Ref (R .sub.RHK_max_ref , ν)”); thus, the error happens when Z measurement is beyond the Z threshold, Heck Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 8 discloses when error happens, the cooling is taken into account, and Heck Translated Document on page 7 – paragraph 1 discloses lower the heating requirement as long as heating elements are not in thermally steady state, which means the observed duty cycle of the pulse-width- modulated control signal is beyond the determined detection threshold value, specifically, Heck Translated Document on page 7 – paragraph 1 discloses: “Depending on the heating power requirement, the most appropriate Z reference curve is then selected. If the heating requirement is lowered, the cooling time of the RHKs is taken into account. This means that as long as the RHKs are not yet in the thermally steady state, the diagnosis can be deactivated or a suitable transition function from one Z reference curve to the next Z reference curve is used.”; since suitable transition function from one Z reference curve to the next Z reference curve is used, this means reiterating the first regulating phase as long as the observed duty cycle of the pulse-width- modulated control signal is beyond the determined detection threshold value)
Heck does not explicitly disclose:
but otherwise activating a second phase of regulating the setpoint, in a second direction of change opposite to the first direction of change of the first phase.
Graf teaches apparatus for controlling resistive heating elements of vehicle by a pulse-width modulated (PWM) control signal (Graf Pars.0002, 0008):
but otherwise activating a second phase of regulating the setpoint, in a second direction of change opposite to the first direction of change of the first phase (Graf Par.0035 teaches: “a difference 312 between the set heating power and the predefined threshold 311. E.g., for larger (smaller) differences 312 between the set heating power and the predefined threshold 311, different pulse widths of the PWM control signal 286 can be implemented”, and Graf Par.0037 teaches: “Depending on the difference 312 to the predefined threshold 311 of 300 W, the supply current of the PTC heating element 252 on the supply line 273 is continuously varied to linearly increase the heating power of the PTC heating element 252.”; it is noted that the primary reference Heck discloses the first direction of change is decreasing of power, and in this case, Graf teaches increasing power; thus, Graf teaches a second phase of regulating the setpoint, in a second direction of change opposite to the first direction of change of the first phase).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Heck, by adding the teaching of activating a second phase of regulating the setpoint, in a second direction of change opposite to the first direction of change of the first phase when the set value is less than the threshold value, as taught by Graf, in order to prevent temperature overshoot, improves energy efficiency, and protect the car/vehicle components from thermal shock or overheating. By avoiding rapid, full-blast heating, the system maintains a more stable, precise, and consistent temperature, which reduces power consumption and prevents damage to components or overheating.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Borowicz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0349773 A1) discloses a method for controlling temperature-controlled pressure regulator includes receiving an input signal indicative of a value representative of a temperature setpoint, where the input signal is within an operating temperature range. The method includes regulating a heat output of a heat source via a control signal based on the received input signal, measuring a temperature of the heat source, comparing the temperature of the heat source to a first threshold, and modifying the control signal to the heat source when the measured temperature is greater than the first threshold, where the first threshold is greater than an upper limit of the operating temperature range.
Kenney et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0057857 A1) discloses a tankless liquid heater receiving liquid at an inlet and providing heated liquid at an outlet. The tankless liquid heater may include a heating element for heating liquid received from the inlet. A flow sensor indicates the flow rate of the liquid received by the heating element. The heater includes a temperature sensor measuring the temperature of liquid exiting the heating element. A controller of the heater regulates the amount of electrical current energizing the heating element responsive to the flow sensor and the temperature sensor, energizes the heating element when the flow rate of the liquid exceeds a predefined value and prevents energizing the heating element when the heated liquid exceeds a predefined temperature.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 02/07/2026