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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 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 1 recites the limitation "the housing" in 14th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-6 depend on claim 1 and are therefore rejected. For the purposes of examination, it will be understood as “a housing”.
Claim 1 recites “in one housing” and “the one housing” in the 18th and 19th line respectively of the claim. It is unclear if this is a second housing or referring to “the housing” previously stated in the 14th line of claim 1. For the purposes of examination, it will refer to the previously recited housing in the 14th line of claim 1 (which is to be understood as “a housing” as recited in the above rejection for antecedent basis) and be considered as “disposed in the housing”. Claims 2-6 depend on claim 1 and are therefore rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avritch et al (US 2020/0064824 hereinafter “Avritch”) in view of Mochizuki et al (US 2009/0174584 hereinafter “Mochizuki”) and Albayrak et al (US 2010/0145525 hereinafter “Albayrak”).
In regards to claim 1:
Avritch teaches an on-vehicle control device (100) in which a plurality of control units (102) of multiple sections form a redundant section (Paragraph [0025] recites the LRUs can be provided with redundant information) and include a fail-safe calculation unit, wherein the control units in which the fail-safe calculation units are disposed are configured as a collective aggregate (Modules 1 - #n), the on-vehicle control device comprising: calculation boards (210) configured to perform calculation processing for the multiple sections, respectively; and output boards configured to output a calculation result of the calculation processing performed by the calculation boards (Paragraph [0027] recites the modules can include a processing circuit board to do calculations and analog or digital output boards), and a common unit including a common interface connected to the plurality of output boards respectively corresponding to the multiple sections is aggregated in a partial specific region of the aggregate (Paragraph [0027] recites the modules can control one or more outputs), wherein the common unit is configured to output, to a vehicle interface outside of a housing (Paragraph [0026] recites “For example, in the context of an aircraft, the communication links 110 can interface with an air data computer, cockpit instrumentation, a vehicle system bus, and/or other interfaces operable to command actions by the controller LRUs 102 and process data and status generated by the controller LRUs 102.”), a system output obtained by combining calculation outputs from the respective sections in the redundant system into one according to a logic required by the system (Paragraph [0023] recites the system can be part of an aircraft and output to an interface such as a flight control system, propulsion control system, environmental control system, or other such systems, whichever is required by the system).
Avritch does not teach the common unit including a relay circuit and a backboard that is fixed to a back portion of the housing, allowing circuit boards to be detachably fitted via a coupling mechanism, and connects a power source and a signal, wherein the control units of the multiple sections and the common unit are disposed in one housing.
Mochizuki teaches circuit boards (36), a single housing (32) comprising a backboard (34) that is fixed to a back portion of the housing (Shown in Figure 2), a coupling mechanism (17, unnumbered in Figure 2 but connects boards 36 to platform board 34), a power source (33), wherein the circuit boards are coupled to the backboard via a coupling mechanism and the signal from the circuit boards are transmitted through the coupling mechanism (Paragraphs [0065] – [0068] recites the structure of the housing and the circuit boards), and control units disposed in the housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the control device of Avritch to allow circuit boards to be detachably fitted via a coupling mechanism, and connects a power source and a signal: and the plurality of circuit boards that are electrically connected to the backboard via the coupling mechanism, the plurality of the circuit boards each being detachably fitted in order to supply power from the power supply to the connected boards via the platform board and to provide a data bus between the platform board and the connected boards as taught by Mochizuki in order to provide structural support to the circuit boards, allow them to be easily replaced and installed via the coupling mechanism, give the circuit boards power and to send signals and to house them all within a housing to store all the components together and protect them (Paragraphs [0065] – [0068] recites the supply of power to the circuit boards through the backboard and receives the data from the boards through the backboard).
Albayrak teaches a common unit comprising a relay circuit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the control device of Avritch to have a relay circuit as taught by Albayrak in order to electrically control a circuit to be on or off. The usage of relay circuits is known in the art and often combined with an actuator (shown in Figure 1 of Albayrak)
In regards to claim 2:
Avritch teaches the plurality of circuit boards that are electrically connected to the backboard via the coupling mechanism, the plurality of the circuit boards each being detachably fitted (Shown in Figure 2 of Mochizuki).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avritch in view of Mochizuki and Albayrak as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Vastmans et al (US 2016/0352417 hereinafter “Vastmans”).
In regards to claim 3:
Avritch does not teach the housing is a sub-rack.
Vastmans teaches a housing that is a sub-rack (150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the housing as a sub-rack in order to store the sub-rack with other sub-racks as part of a larger housing unit.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avritch in view of Mochizuki, Albayrak and Vastmans as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Sari (US 2021/0146938).
In regards to claim 4:
Avritch as modified teaches two calculation boards having the same configuration (Paragraph [0027] of Avritch recites the modules can be spare modules of one another), a control unit of a first section and a control unit of a second section each having the calculation board are disposed in the one sub-rack (Figure 2 of Mochizuki shows a plurality of calculation boards situated in a single housing, wherein a sub rack houses a plurality of housings), the calculation boards configured to perform the calculation processing for the sections, respectively (Paragraph [0027] of Avritch recites the modules having processing boards to perform calculations of their respective input), and the output boards configured to output the calculation result are provided (Paragraph [0027] of Avritch recites the modules having their own respective output board to provide the calculation result), a common interface for connecting the calculation result generated by control boards of the control unit of the first section and the control unit of the second section to the outside (Shown in Figure 2 of Mochizuki, the boards are connected to a common interface), and the common interface is mounted at one position of the aggregate (Shown in Figure 2 of Mochizuki, the backboard (34) is mounted at one position of the housing, wherein the housing houses the aggregate of components).
Avritch does not teach fail-safe calculation units of double sections, in which when one of the first section and the second section fails, a calculation result of the other section is used for control, are constituted.
Sari teaches fail-safe calculation units of double sections, in which when one of the first section and the second section fails, a calculation result of the other section is used for control, are constituted. (Paragraphs [0062] - [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the system of Avritch to include the fail-safe calculations of Sari in order to operate the system with information that is not from a malfunctioning source (Paragraphs [0062] – [0063]).
In regards to claim 5:
Avritch as modified teaches the calculation board and the output board constituting the control unit of the first section and the calculation board and the output board constituting the control unit of the second section are disposed in a laterally symmetrical manner in the sub-rack (Shown in Figure 2 of Mochizuki, boards are placed parallel and symmetrical to one another), and the common interface is disposed between the control unit of the first section and the control unit of the second section.
In regards to claim 6:
Avritch as modified teaches the calculation board and the output board constituting the control unit of the first section and the calculation board and the output board constituting the control unit of the second section are disposed so as to be vertically disposed in the same array in the sub-rack, and the common, and the common interface is disposed at an end portion of the sub-rack so as to be adjacent to each of the control unit of the first section and the control unit of the second section (Shown in Figure 2 of Mochizuki, the boards are connected to a common interface of the backboard (34) of Mochizuki and disposed vertically at an end portion of the housing). Furthermore, the rearrangement of parts is not inventive, and positioning boards based but not limited to space constraints and cooling needs is known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7 of Remarks, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art. New prior art has been used to address the amendment adding the relay circuit.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747 /HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747