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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the PTC heater with at least one PTC heating element, control unit, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to because the term “PTC” is not clearly defined. Examiner recommends writing out the term at the first occurrence, e.g., “(PTC: positive temperature coefficient)” so as to match what is done for PWM in para. 0017: “The control unit here can be a PWM controller (PWM: pulse width modulation)”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “METHOD FOR CONTRILLING A PTC HEATER AND PTC HEATER” on p. 1.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a PTC heater comprising a control unit for controlling at least one PTC heating element, checking for a critical imbalance state of the at least one PTC heating element, and reducing a target output of the at least one PTC heating element upon detecting the critical imbalance state.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 10:
the limitation “readjustment step” is being interpreted as “When the electrical input power and/or the target output does not correspond to the externally predetermined specification output, the control unit increases the electrical input power in a readjustment step… ”, and equivalents thereof [para. 0018].
Examiner notes that it seems method claims 7-10 match apparatus claims 17-20, and further notes that currently, claims 8-10 are each directly dependent on claim 7, while claim 18 is directly dependent on claim 17, claim 19 is directly dependent on claim 18, and claim 20 is directly dependent on claim 19, wherein:
claim 8 was previously dependent on claim 7,
claim 9 was previously dependent on claim 7 or 8,
claim 10 was previously dependent on claims 7 to 9.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 and claim 11 recite: “a control unit for controlling the at least one PTC heating element… controlling… the at least one PTC heating element to a target output via a control variable… the control unit keeps the target output constant over a predefined plateau duration…and checks the at least one PTC heating element for a critical imbalance state… the control unit detects the critical imbalance… the control unit reduces the target output”
In view of the specification reciting: “the control unit readjusts the electrical input power of the respective PTC heating element for reaching or respectively keeping the target output by an increasing of the control variable” in para. 0014 and “In the method, in the regulating step the control unit can reduce the input power via a reducing of the control variable. The control variable can be, for example, a current PWM signal. The control unit here can be a PWM controller (PWM: pulse width modulation). Basically, further current controllers and/or power controllers are also conceivable” in para. 0017, the limitation “control unit” is being interpreted as a PWM controller, a current controller, or a power controller, and equivalents thereof, capable of adjusting (i.e., setting, specifically including reducing or increasing) a control variable (i.e., modulating parameters of a current PWM signal, and thus an electrical input power) to control an output of at least one PTC heating element to a target output (i.e., by applying an adjusted electrical input power, such that the at least one PTC element emits a desired, constant thermal heating output to an environment over a predefined duration).
However, although the specification describes:
detecting a power imbalance between electrically delivered power [i.e., power delivered to the PTC heating element; para. 0007: “The present invention is based on the general idea of detecting a power imbalance between electrically delivered power and power removed on the air side, and of turning down the PTC heater accordingly”], and
power removed on the air side [i.e., corresponding to air temperatures after the PTC heating element; para. 0003: “However, the regulating temperature can disadvantageously be so high that the materials surrounding the respective PTC heating element can be damaged or respectively destroyed. In other words, the air temperatures after the PTC heating element can be so high that they lie above the permissible temperatures of individual components in the air path of the air-conditioning unit”], and
boundary conditions provided by voltage/temperature/air quantity [para. 0026: “The boundary conditions here can be provided by the voltage and/or the ambient temperature and/or an air quantity flowing through the respective PTC heating element”];
and defines critical imbalance state [para. 0008: “The critical imbalance state is defined here in that the respective PTC heating element regulates itself by an increasing of its resistance.”], the specification does not provide any corresponding structure for checking for or detecting the critical imbalance state of a PTC heating element, and specifically does not provide any structure for:
checking or detecting a resistance value of a PTC heating element,
detecting electrically delivered power,
detecting power removed on the air side,
detecting temperature,
detecting voltage,
detecting air quantity flowing;
see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below.
Therefore, the limitation “control unit” is further being interpreted as any structure capable of detecting a resistance value of a PTC heating element, detecting power, detecting temperature, detecting voltage, or detecting air quantity flowing.
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(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1 and claim 11, the recitation of “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function [i.e., the specification does not provide any corresponding structure for checking for or detecting a critical imbalance state of a PTC heating element, and specifically does not provide any structure for checking or detecting a resistance value of a PTC heating element] and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the specification is completely silent with regard to a structure, software, hardware, computer, etc. that is capable of performing the limitations recited in claims 1/11. “Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV.
Regarding claim 4 and claim 14, which recite that the control unit determines the critical imbalance state when “a control value of the control variable rises”, although the specification describes determining the critical imbalance state by detecting behaviour including a rising of the temperature/resistance of the PTC heating element [para. 0014], similar to claim 1/11, the specification does not provide any corresponding structure for detecting the control value.
Regarding claim 5 and claim 15, which recite that the control unit determines the critical imbalance state when “a control value of the control variable is maximum”, although the specification describes when the temperature of a PTC heating element rising, [para. 0015], similar to claims 1/11 and 4/14, the specification does not provide any corresponding structure for detecting the control value.
Regarding claim 6 and claim 16, which recite a balance state when “a control value of the control variable at the at least one PTC heating element is constant or falls”, although the specification describes a normal operation of the PTC heating element [para. 0016: “Here, a normal operation of the respective PTC heating element is present. Here, the respective PTC heating element emits the electrical input power entirely or almost entirely as the thermal heating output. In the balance state an - in a first approximation linear - correlation exists between the control variable of the control unit and the electrical input power.”], similar to claims 1/11, 4/14, and 5/15, the specification does not provide any corresponding structure for detecting the control value.
Regarding claim 7 and claim 17, which recite “the control unit checks in a verification step whether at least one of the electrical input power and the target output corresponds to an externally predetermined specification output”, although the specification describes how the externally predetermined specification output is used or set [paras. 0018-0019], similar to claims 1 and 4-6, the specification does not provide any corresponding structure for checking the electrical input power or the target output.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 11-20 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. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected because of dependency on a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 1 and claim 11, the recitation of “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function [i.e., the specification does not provide any corresponding structure for checking for or detecting a critical imbalance state of a PTC heating element, and specifically does not provide any structure for checking or detecting a resistance value of a PTC heating element]. Specifically, the specification is completely silent with regard to a structure, software, hardware, computer, etc. that is capable of performing the limitations recited in claims 1/11. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 4 and claim 14, which recite that the control unit determines the critical imbalance state when “a control value of the control variable rises”, although the specification describes detecting the critical imbalance state by detecting behaviour including a rising of the temperature/resistance of the PTC heating element [para. 0014], similar to claim 1/11, the specification does not provide any corresponding structure for detecting the control value.
Regarding claim 5 and claim 15, which recite that the control unit determines the critical imbalance state when “a control value of the control variable is maximum”, although the specification describes when the temperature of a PTC heating element rising, [para. 0015], similar to claims 1/11 and 4/14, the specification does not provide any corresponding structure for detecting the control value.
Regarding claim 6 and claim 16, which recite a balance state when “a control value of the control variable at the at least one PTC heating element is constant or falls”, although the specification describes a normal operation of the PTC heating element [para. 0016: “Here, a normal operation of the respective PTC heating element is present. Here, the respective PTC heating element emits the electrical input power entirely or almost entirely as the thermal heating output. In the balance state an - in a first approximation linear - correlation exists between the control variable of the control unit and the electrical input power.”], similar to claims 1/11, 4/14, and 5/14, the specification does not provide any corresponding structure for detecting the control value.
Regarding claim 7 and claim 17, which recite “the control unit checks in a verification step whether at least one of the electrical input power and the target output corresponds to an externally predetermined specification output”, although the specification describes how the externally predetermined specification output is used or set [paras. 0018-0019], similar to claims 1 and 4-6, the specification does not provide any corresponding structure for checking the electrical input power or the target output.
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 4 and claim 14, which recite “a control value of the control variable rises at the at least one PTC heating element”, the term control value renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what Applicant considers a control value. Although the specification discloses a temperature of the PTC heating element rising and an electrical resistance of the PTC heating element rising, the specification also discloses “the control unit readjusts the electrical input power of the respective PTC heating element for reaching or respectively keeping the target output by an increasing of the control variable” [para. 0014] and thus it is unclear which parameter Applicant considers the control value. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret the control value of claim 4/14 to indicate either resistance or temperature, or of any inherent, detectable parameter that may ‘rise’ (e.g., power, voltage, current, resistance, temperature, pulse, frequency, period, duration, etc.).
Regarding claim 5 and claim 15, which recite “a control value of the control variable is maximum at the at least one PTC heating element”, the term control value renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what Applicant considers a control value. Although the specification discloses “a control value of the control variable is maximum at the respective PTC heating element. In this case, the removed thermal heating output - as already described above – is less than the target output and the temperature of the respective PTC heating element rises” [para. 0015], it is unclear which parameter Applicant considers the control value. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret the control value of claim 5/15 to indicate either resistance or temperature, or of any inherent, detectable parameter that may be ‘maximum’ (e.g., power, voltage, current, resistance, temperature, pulse, frequency, period, duration, etc.).
Regarding claim 6 and claim 16,
line 2 recites “a critical imbalance state” which renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if this is meant to be distinct from the critical imbalance state recited in claim 1/11. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claims 6/16 as reciting “[[a]]the critical imbalance state” in line 2.
lines 2-3 recite “wherein in the testing step the control unit does not determine a critical imbalance state and a balance state” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a balance state” is being determined by the control unit. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claims 6/16 as reciting “wherein in the testing step the control unit does not determine a critical imbalance state and determines a balance state” in lines 2-3.
lines 4-5 recite “a control value of the control variable at the at least one PTC heating element is constant or falls”, the term control value renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what Applicant considers a control value. Although the specification discloses “In addition, in the testing step the control unit can not determine a critical imbalance state and, accordingly, a balance state, at the respective PTC heating element when the electrical input power corresponds to the target output and a control value of the control variable is constant or falls at the respective PTC heating element. Here, a normal operation of the respective PTC heating element is present.” [para. 0016], it is unclear which parameter Applicant considers the control value. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret the control value of claim 5/15 to indicate either resistance or temperature, or of any inherent, detectable parameter that may ‘be constant or fall’ (e.g., power, voltage, current, resistance, temperature, pulse, frequency, period, duration, etc.).
Regarding claim 7 and claim 17, which recite “the control unit checks in a verification step whether at least one of the electrical input power and the target output corresponds to an externally predetermined specification output”, although the specification describes how the externally predetermined specification output is used or set [paras. 0018-0019: “… the control unit checks in a verification step whether the electrical input power and/or the target output corresponds to an externally predetermined specification output… The externally predetermined specification output can be predetermined for example by a controller which is set by a user.”], it is unclear what parameter or variable or feature Applicant considers a ‘specification output’. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret externally predetermined specification output to indicate any inherent parameter that can be set by a user(e.g., power, voltage, current, resistance, temperature, pulse, frequency, period, duration, etc.).
Regarding claims 12-20,
The claims recite “The PTC heating according to…” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claims 12-20 as reciting “The PTC [[heating]]heater according to…” in line 1 so as to correspond to “A PTC heater” in claim 11, line 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shim (US 20230406068 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Shim is directed towards a conventional PTC heater for heating a vehicle interior [para. 0005: “FIG. 1 is a circuit diagram illustrating a schematic configuration of a PWM control type PTC heater device 10 in the related art…], and a disconnection detection unit [paras. 0007-8: “However, the technology for detecting the disconnection of the heating unit 17 of the PTC heater device 10 in the related art may perform the detection only when the PTC heater device 10 operates… The present invention has been made in an effort to solve the above-mentioned problems, and an object of the present invention is to provide a high-voltage heater including a disconnection detection unit, which is capable of checking whether a heating unit is disconnected by checking a voltage at a rear end of the heating unit when a high voltage is applied even in a case in which electric power is not supplied to the heating unit, and a disconnection detection method using the same.”], and teaches:
A method for regulating a PTC heater [i.e., a flowchart applied to a high-voltage heater; see annotated fig. 5 below]
with at least one PTC heating element [figs. 2, 3: heating unit 500] and
with a control unit for controlling the at least one PTC heating element [para. 0059: “The control unit 200 is configured to control a heating temperature of the heating unit 500 by receiving an air conditioning device control signal inputted from the input unit 120 through a signal line L2 and transmitting a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal to the switching unit 300 through a control line L3. The control unit 200 may be a typical micro controller unit (MCU) for a vehicle.”],
comprising:
controlling with the control unit
the at least one PTC heating element to a target output via a control variable [i.e., a voltage applied to the PTC heating element is modulated to control a temperature of the heating unit; para. 0004: “The PTC heater for a vehicle heats the vehicle interior by using electric power of a battery and controls a temperature of a heating unit by modulating a voltage applied to the PTC heater by using pulse width modulation (PWM).”; para. 0080: “The case in which the pulse width modulation signal is applied will be described below…”];
receiving via the at least one PTC heating element, with the target output of the control unit [i.e., the PTC heating element receives the modulated voltage]
an electrical input power [i.e., a power of the modulated electrical voltage input to the PTC heating element]
and emitting a thermal heating output to an environment [i.e., the expected temperature response of the heating unit corresponding to the applied modulated voltage];
in a testing step the control unit [see annotated fig. 5 below]
keeps the target output constant over
a predefined plateau duration [i.e., the duration which the modulated PWM signal is applied, according to a heating control instruction, e.g., an interior of a vehicle is set to a desired temperature, and thus the heater will be powered off when the goal interior temperature is reached] and
checks the at least one PTC heating element for
a critical imbalance state where the at least one PTC heating element regulates itself by an increasing of its resistance [i.e., due to an applied voltage inducing an increase of temperature and thus resistance of the PTC heating element, a ‘disconnection’ of the PTC heating element occurs; Shim discloses that when the PWM signal is applied, in order to determine disconnection of the heating element, either a detection/comparison of voltages or a detection/comparison of currents occurs]; and
[In this case, although Shim does not explicitly teach that the disconnection occurs due to an increasing of resistance of the PTC heating element, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the increasing of resistance until disconnection is an inherent feature of a PTC heating element. Furthermore, although Shim uses the term ‘disconnected’, in view of Shim’s disclosing comparing voltages/currents, suggesting that there exist a non-zero voltage/current value at the PTC heating element, it seems that the PTC heating element need not be completely disconnected, and correlates with known behavior of PTC heating elements, wherein a resistance thereof predictably changes according to a temperature of the PTC heating element, and thus, Shim teaches the critical imbalance state of claim 1, wherein the PTC element self regulates by increasing its resistance]
after the testing step, when the control unit detects the critical imbalance state of the at least one PTC heating element, the control unit
reduces the target output in a regulating step [i.e., the PWM signal is blocked, see annotated fig. 5 below].
Annotated Shim fig. 5:
PNG
media_image1.png
896
1167
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Shim teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Shim further teaches:
wherein after the regulating step the control unit passes again to the testing step.
In this case, the regulating step of claims 1/3 is performed after detecting of the critical imbalance state, wherein the PTC heating element regulates itself by an increasing of its resistance. However, Shim considers this feature of a PTC heating element as normal, and is directed towards a relatively extreme scenario, wherein the PTC heating element self regulates itself to an extent that a voltage/current at the PTC heating element is below reference value, thereby preventing burnout or damage [para. 0023: “In addition, in case that the disconnection of the heating unit is detected, the operation of the high-voltage heater may be restricted, which makes it possible to prevent burnout of the heating unit or damage to the circuit that may occur when the high-voltage heater operates in the state in which the heating unit is disconnected.”]. Thus, in view of Shim disclosing the conventional use of the PTC heater in an air conditioning system of a vehicle [para. 0058: “The input unit 120 may be an air conditioning device controller configured to control an air conditioning device by an operation of a vehicle occupant.”], after the testing step of Shim wherein a voltage/current is compared to a reference value, if the PTC heater does not warrant a blocking of the PWM signal, the flowchart shows that voltage/current are to be repeatedly compared, i.e., the flowchart passes again to the testing step while the PWM signal is applied [see fig. 5; para. 0081: “The step of comparing the detected voltage and the reference voltage is repeatedly performed.”; para. 0084: “The step of comparing the detected electric current and the reference current is repeatedly performed.”]. Furthermore, since the flowchart shows that the PWM sign is still applied, and Shim discloses the well-known practice of modulating a voltage applied to the PTC heater to control the temperature emitted [para. 0004], the method of Shim also allows for a regulating of the temperature by the occupant, e.g., to increase or decrease the temperature in the vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, Shim teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Shim further teaches:
wherein in the testing step the control unit determines the critical imbalance state at the at least one PTC heating element
when the electrical input power corresponds to the target output [i.e., a normal functioning of the PTC element, wherein the self-regulating nature of the PTC element to maintain a particular temperature, causes a resistance thereof to increase in response to a relative higher temperature induced by an applied voltage having a corresponding higher power, e.g., in order to produce a greater heating effect in the vehicle, a control unit may apply increased power to the PTC element] and
a control value of the control variable rises at the at least one PTC heating element [i.e., in response to the rising resistance, a detected current in the PTC heating element is below a reference current, see annotated fig. 5 above; para. 0020: “In addition, the disconnection detection method may further include: detecting, by the control unit, an electric current generated between the switching unit and the ground when the pulse width is high; comparing the detected electric current with a reference current detected by the control unit when the heating unit is normal; and determining, by the control unit, that the heating unit is disconnected when the detected electric current is lower than the reference current value.”].
Regarding claim 5, Shim teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Shim further teaches:
wherein in the testing step the control unit determines the critical imbalance state at the at least one PTC heating element
when the electrical input power is less than the target output [i.e., a normal functioning of the PTC element, wherein the self-regulating nature of the PTC element to maintain a particular temperature causes a resistance thereof to decrease in response to a relative lower temperature induced by an applied voltage of corresponding lower power, e.g., in order to produce a diminished heating effect in the vehicle, a control unit may apply reduced power to the PTC element] and
a control value of the control variable is maximum at the at least one PTC heating element [i.e., a detected voltage is above a reference voltage, including when the detected voltage is a ‘maximum’, see annotated fig. 5 above].
[i.e., in response to the rising resistance, a detected current in the PTC heating element is below a reference current, see annotated fig. 5 above; para. 0020: “In addition, the disconnection detection method may further include: detecting, by the control unit, an electric current generated between the switching unit and the ground when the pulse width is high; comparing the detected electric current with a reference current detected by the control unit when the heating unit is normal; and determining, by the control unit, that the heating unit is disconnected when the detected electric current is lower than the reference current value.”]
Regarding claim 6, Shim teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Shim further teaches:
wherein in the testing step the control unit does not determine a critical imbalance state and a balance state at the at least one PTC heating element
when the electrical input power corresponds to the target output [i.e., a normal functioning of the PTC element, wherein the self-regulating nature of the PTC element to maintain a particular temperature, wherein a resistance thereof is stable at the particular temperature, in response to an applied voltage having a corresponding particular power, e.g., in order to produce a particular heating effect in the vehicle, a control unit may apply the specific particular power to the PTC element] and
a control value of the control variable at the respective at least one PTC heating element is constant or falls [i.e., in response to the constant resistance, a detected current in the PTC heating element is constant, and above a reference current, see annotated fig. 5 above; para. 0020: “In addition, the disconnection detection method may further include: detecting, by the control unit, an electric current generated between the switching unit and the ground when the pulse width is high; comparing the detected electric current with a reference current detected by the control unit when the heating unit is normal; and determining, by the control unit, that the heating unit is disconnected when the detected electric current is lower than the reference current value.”].
Regarding claim 11,
Shim is directed towards a conventional PTC heater for heating a vehicle interior [para. 0005: “FIG. 1 is a circuit diagram illustrating a schematic configuration of a PWM control type PTC heater device 10 in the related art…], and a disconnection detection unit [paras. 0007-8: “However, the technology for detecting the disconnection of the heating unit 17 of the PTC heater device 10 in the related art may perform the detection only when the PTC heater device 10 operates… The present invention has been made in an effort to solve the above-mentioned problems, and an object of the present invention is to provide a high-voltage heater including a disconnection detection unit, which is capable of checking whether a heating unit is disconnected by checking a voltage at a rear end of the heating unit when a high voltage is applied even in a case in which electric power is not supplied to the heating unit, and a disconnection detection method using the same.”], and teaches:
A PTC heater [i.e., a flowchart applied to a high-voltage heater; see annotated fig. 5 below], comprising:
at least one PTC heating element [figs. 2, 3: heating unit 500] and a control unit for controlling the at least one PTC heating element [para. 0059: “The control unit 200 is configured to control a heating temperature of the heating unit 500 by receiving an air conditioning device control signal inputted from the input unit 120 through a signal line L2 and transmitting a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal to the switching unit 300 through a control line L3. The control unit 200 may be a typical micro controller unit (MCU) for a vehicle.”];
the control unit configured to control the at least one PTC heating element to a target output via a control variable [i.e., a voltage applied to the PTC heating element is modulated to control a temperature of the heating unit; para. 0004: “The PTC heater for a vehicle heats the vehicle interior by using electric power of a battery and controls a temperature of a heating unit by modulating a voltage applied to the PTC heater by using pulse width modulation (PWM).”; para. 0080: “The case in which the pulse width modulation signal is applied will be described below…”], wherein with the target output of the control unit the at least one PTC heating element receives [i.e., the PTC heating element receives the modulated voltage] an electrical input power [i.e., a power of the modulated electrical voltage input to the PTC heating element] and emits a thermal heating output to an environment [i.e., the expected temperature response of the heating unit corresponding to the applied modulated voltage];
in a testing step, the control unit [see annotated fig. 5 above] keeps the target output constant over a predefined plateau duration [i.e., the duration which the modulated PWM signal is applied, according to a heating control instruction, e.g., an interior of a vehicle is set to a desired temperature, and thus the heater will be powered off when the goal interior temperature is reached] and checks the at least one PTC heating element for a critical imbalance state where the at least one PTC heating element regulates itself by an increasing of its resistance [i.e., due to an applied voltage inducing an increase of temperature and thus resistance of the PTC heating element, a ‘disconnection’ of the PTC heating element occurs; Shim discloses that when the PWM signal is applied, in order to determine disconnection of the heating element, either a detection/comparison of voltages or a detection/comparison of currents occurs]; and
[In this case, although Shim does not explicitly teach that the disconnection occurs due to an increasing of resistance of the PTC heating element, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the increasing of resistance until disconnection is an inherent feature of a PTC heating element. Furthermore, although Shim uses the term ‘disconnected’, in view of Shim’s disclosing comparing voltages/currents, suggesting that there exist a non-zero voltage/current value at the PTC heating element, it seems that the PTC heating element need not be completely disconnected, and correlates with known behaviour of PTC heating elements, wherein a resistance thereof predictably changes according to a temperature of the PTC heating element, and thus, Shim teaches the critical imbalance state of claim 1, wherein the PTC element self regulates by increasing its resistance]
after the testing step, when the control unit detects the critical imbalance state of the at least one PTC heating element, the control unit reduces the target output in a regulating step [i.e., the PWM signal is blocked, see annotated fig. 5 below].
Regarding claim 13, Shim teaches the PTC heating according to Claim 11.
Shim further teaches:
wherein after the regulating step the control unit passes again to the testing step.
In this case, the regulating step of claims 11/13 is performed after detecting of the critical imbalance state, wherein the PTC heating element regulates itself by an increasing of its resistance. However, Shim considers this feature of a PTC heating element as normal, and is directed towards a relatively extreme scenario, wherein the PTC heating element self regulates itself to an extent that a voltage/current at the PTC heating element is below reference value, thereby preventing burnout or damage [para. 0023: “In addition, in case that the disconnection of the heating unit is detected, the operation of the high-voltage heater may be restricted, which makes it possible to prevent burnout of the heating unit or damage to the circuit that may occur when the high-voltage heater operates in the state in which the heating unit is disconnected.”]. Thus, in view of Shim disclosing the conventional use of the PTC heater in an air conditioning system of a vehicle [para. 0058: “The input unit 120 may be an air conditioning device controller configured to control an air conditioning device by an operation of a vehicle occupant.”], after the testing step of Shim wherein a voltage/current is compared to a reference value, if the PTC heater does not warrant a blocking of the PWM signal, the flowchart shows that voltage/current are to be repeatedly compared, i.e., the flowchart passes again to the testing step while the PWM signal is applied [see fig. 5; para. 0081: “The step of comparing the detected voltage and the reference voltage is repeatedly performed.”; para. 0084: “The step of comparing the detected electric current and the reference current is repeatedly performed.”]. Furthermore, since the flowchart shows that the PWM sign is still applied, and Shim discloses the well-known practice of modulating a voltage applied to the PTC heater to control the temperature emitted [para. 0004], the method of Shim also allows for a regulating of the temperature by the occupant, e.g., to increase or decrease the temperature in the vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, Shim teaches the PTC heating according to Claim 11.
Shim further teaches:
wherein in the testing step the control unit determines the critical imbalance state at the at least one PTC heating element when the electrical input power corresponds to the target output [i.e., a normal functioning of the PTC element, wherein the self-regulating nature of the PTC element to maintain a particular temperature, causes a resistance thereof to increase in response to a relative higher temperature induced by an applied voltage having a corresponding higher power, e.g., in order to produce a greater heating effect in the vehicle, a control unit may apply increased power to the PTC element] and a control value of the control variable rises at the at least one PTC heating element [i.e., in response to the rising resistance, a detected current in the PTC heating element is below a reference current, see annotated fig. 5 above; para. 0020: “In addition, the disconnection detection method may further include: detecting, by the control unit, an electric current generated between the switching unit and the ground when the pulse width is high; comparing the detected electric current with a reference current detected by the control unit when the heating unit is normal; and determining, by the control unit, that the heating unit is disconnected when the detected electric current is lower than the reference current value.”].
Regarding claim 15, Shim teaches the PTC heating according to Claim 11.
Shim further teaches:
wherein in the testing step the control unit determines the critical imbalance state at the at least one PTC heating element when the electrical input power is less than the target output [i.e., a normal functioning of the PTC element, wherein the self-regulating nature of the PTC element to maintain a particular temperature causes a resistance thereof to decrease in response to a relative lower temperature induced by an applied voltage of corresponding lower power, e.g., in order to produce a diminished heating effect in the vehicle, a control unit may apply reduced power to the PTC element] and a control value of the control variable is maximum at the at least one PTC heating element [i.e., a detected voltage is above a reference voltage, including when the detected voltage is a ‘maximum’, see annotated fig. 5 above].
[i.e., in response to the rising resistance, a detected current in the PTC heating element is below a reference current, see annotated fig. 5 above; para. 0020: “In addition, the disconnection detection method may further include: detecting, by the control unit, an electric current generated between the switching unit and the ground when the pulse width is high; comparing the detected electric current with a reference current detected by the control unit when the heating unit is normal; and determining, by the control unit, that the heating unit is disconnected when the detected electric current is lower than the reference current value.”]
Regarding claim 16, Shim teaches the PTC heating according to Claim 11.
Shim further teaches:
wherein in the testing step the control unit does not determine a critical imbalance state and a balance state at the at least one PTC heating element when the electrical input power corresponds to the target output [i.e., a normal functioning of the PTC element, wherein the self-regulating nature of the PTC element to maintain a particular temperature, wherein a resistance thereof is stable at the particular temperature, in response to an applied voltage having a corresponding particular power, e.g., in order to produce a particular heating effect in the vehicle, a control unit may apply the specific particular power to the PTC element] and a control value of the control variable at the at least one PTC heating element is constant or falls [i.e., in response to the constant resistance, a detected current in the PTC heating element is con