Status of Claims
In the communication filed on 12/02/2025, claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1-8 are amended. No claims are new. Claims 9-13 are presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The prior objections to the Drawings are partially withdrawn due to the amendments. The prior drawing objection is maintained for not illustrating the claimed feature “fault signal”. This “fault signal” is necessary to be included in the drawings to allow one to understand the claimed invention. Additional drawing objections are also included infra for lacking depictions of various actions of the claimed method.
The prior objections to the Specification are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The prior objections to the Claims are partially withdrawn. The prior claim objections are maintained for not defining the abbreviations “Cy” and “Cx”. These objections are not addressed by the applicant’s response or the amendments.
The prior interpretation of the term “residual current detection means” under U.S.C. 112 (f) is no longer applicable due to the amendments.
The prior rejections under U.S.C. 112(a) are withdrawn due to the amendments.
The prior rejections under U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn due to the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Initially, the applicant argues (pp. 9, 3rd para.) that “none of the operations or steps of the method taught in Haindl … are performed unless a crash signal has first been received”. This argument does not point out any claim language that patentably distinguishes claim 1 from Haindl. The examiner asserts that this condition of the Haindl method does not negate Haindl’s anticipation of the claim 1 subject matter. Put differently, this condition of Haindl’s method does not distinguish the instant application’s current claims from Haindl’s method.
Additionally, the applicant argues (pp. 10, 1st-2nd para.) that “determining whether the energy content of a Y-capacitor is greater than a predetermined threshold, as explicitly taught in Haindl, is not "determining an existence of a residual current …," as recited in amended independent claim 1” and “the existence of a residual current could occur at any energy content level below the predetermined threshold and the method/system of Haindl would not be able to provide any determination of an existence of such a residual current”. The examiner asserts that the threshold taught by Haindl is analogous to the thresholds disclosed by the instant application, including the “upper limit” for impedance (¶ [12]) and the “limit which characterizes the maximum rate of change” (¶ [13]). In each of these scenarios, a current detected outside of these ranges would not be identified as a “residual current” by the instant application’s disclosed method, even though a lower-amplitude current may feasibly be present. Thus, the applicant’s argument with respect to Haindl’s “predetermined threshold” could similarly be applicable to the instant application. Therefore, absent of an amended claim limitation to distinguish from Haindl, the examiner asserts that Haindl’s characteristics argued by the applicant are within claim 1’s current breadth.
Further, the applicant argues (pp. 10, 3rd para. – pp. 11, 1st para.) that “Haindl teaches away from "wherein the discharging is triggered by the determining the existence of the residual current", as recited in the amended independent claim 1” because “Haindl explicitly teaches that the Y-capacitor discharge is triggered only if both a crash signal has been received and the energy content of the Y-capacitor exceeds the predetermined threshold”. The examiner asserts that Haindl’s conditions (crash signal, exceeds the predet. threshold) for its method are not teaching away from the claimed limitation. The examiner finds Haindl to not teach against the discharging being triggered by the existence of the residual current. Rather, Haindl simply provides more conditions for the existence of a residual current. These conditions are discussed supra in more detail with the examiner concluding these conditions of Haindl’s method do not distinguish the instant application’s current claims from Haindl’s method.
Thus, the applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 are respectfully refuted.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 7 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
The scope of amended claim 7 (filed 12/02/2025) has changed from the prior claim 7 (filed 12/14/2022) examined in the prior action (09/03/2025). Specifically, the amended claim 7 has removed a limitation (“wherein disconnection of a high voltage source… and/or discharging of a Cx capacitance … is prevented). Thus, any new considerations in claim 7’s rejection are acceptable in a proper final rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 02/16/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“fault signal” (claim 5)
The following claimed method actions should be shown in the drawings. The current drawing Fig. 2 is lacking detail for many of the claimed actions of the method.
“discharging of a second Cy capacitance” (claim 2)
“a high-voltage source of the vehicle high-voltage electrical system is disconnected” (claim 4)
“a fault signal is emitted” (claim 5)
“a first Cx capacitance … is discharged” (claim 6)
“measuring an impedance across which the residual current flows” and “the discharging … is carried out only if … impedance range” (claim 7)
“measuring a rate of change” and “the existence of the residual current is determined if … above a limit” (claim 8)
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should define the abbreviation “Cy”.
Claim 6 should define the abbreviation “Cx”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haindl et al. (EP 3640076 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Haindl discloses a method (Fig. 4 flowchart; title: “apparatus and method for discharging a Y-capacitor”) for discharging a vehicle high-voltage (HV) electrical system (“system 100” including “battery module 101” and “vehicle module 102”; Fig. 1; ¶ [37]: example “system voltage: Usys = 450V”), which is galvanically isolated (Figs. 2-3 show “HV+” and “HV-” isolated from “chassis”) from a ground potential (“chassis”; Fig. 2), in the presence of a residual current (based on presence of “energy content” of either “Cy+_ext” or “Cy-_ext” per ¶ [52]; a differential voltage across a Y-capacitor is thus also present per ¶ [36-37]; residual current is thus present in “Riso+_ext” or “Riso-_ext” with the presence of a differential voltage across from either “HV+” or “HV-” to “chassis” per note 1, included infra), the method comprising the following.
Haindl further discloses determining (Fig. 4, step 502) an existence of a residual current (residual current through “Riso+_ext” coincides with “energy content” detected in “Cy+_ext”; alternatively, residual current through “Riso-_ext” coincides with “energy content” in “Cy-_ext”; Fig. 2; see note 1) flowing between a first HV potential (“HV+”) of the vehicle high-voltage electrical system (“100”) and the ground potential (“chassis”) or between a second HV potential (“HV-”) of the vehicle high-voltage electrical system (“100”) and the ground potential (“chassis”).
Haindl further discloses discharging (Fig. 4, step 503; per ¶ [52], can discharge only one of set of Cy capacitances) only a first Cy capacitance (combo of “Cy+_int” and “Cy+_ext” discharged through “R0” and “Iso-switch+”; Fig. 2), which exists between the ground potential (“chassis”) and the first HV potential (“HV+”) or the second HV potential from which or to which the residual current flows (“energy content” in “Cy+_ext” coincides with “residual current” through “Riso+_ext”; see note 1).
Haindl further discloses the discharging (Fig. 4, step 503) is triggered by the determining the existence of the residual current (Fig. 4, step 502; “residual current” is inherent with “energy content in a Y-capacitor” in Haindl’s circuit, per note included infra).
NOTE 1:
Haindl explicitly teaches detecting the presence of “energy content” (¶ [51], Fig. 4 step 503) in one of the Y-capacitors (“Cy+_ext” or “Cy-_ext”; Fig. 2). Haindl further teaches that a differential voltage across a capacitor is inherently present with stored energy content in the capacitor (¶ [36-37]). Haindl further teaches that the applicable “main relay” (“Main+” or “Main-”) is kept in a closed state (¶ [40]), such that the corresponding HV potential (“HV+” or “HV-”) is also present on the corresponding insulation resistance (“Riso+_ext” or “Riso-_ext”).
It is widely known in the art that a current is inherently present between two nodes when there is a differential voltage present across the two nodes connected by a current-conducting path. The current conducting path may be in the form of a resistance, even a parasitic resistance path in the case of an insulation/isolation fault.
Thus, by inherency, the “energy content” in one of the external Y-capacitors (“Cy+_ext” or “Cy-_ext”) coincides with “residual current” through the corresponding insulation resistance (“Riso+_ext” or “Riso-_ext”) in the system taught by Haindl.
Regarding Claim 2, Haindl discloses discharging of a second Cy capacitance (combo of “Cy-_int” and “Cy-_ext”; Fig. 2) which exists between the ground potential (“chassis”) and the second HV potential (“HV-”) from which or to which no residual current flows (“energy content” below a “predetermined threshold”; ¶ [51]), is prevented (“Iso-switch-” and/or “Main- relay” in open-state; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3 (see note 2), Haindl discloses after discharging (Fig. 4, step 503) the first Cy capacitance (combo of “Cy+_int” and “Cy+_ext” discharged through “R0” and “Iso-switch+”; Fig. 2), the second Cy capacitance (combo of “Cy-_int” and “Cy-_ext”; Fig. 2) is discharged. is discharged (when the combo of “Cy-_int” & “Cy-_ext” is not to be actively discharged, it is because the combo of “Cy-_int” & “Cy-_ext” has “energy content below the “predetermined threshold”; thus, the combo of “Cy-_int” & “Cy-_ext” is in a discharged state both during and after the discharging of the combo of “Cy+_int” and “Cy+_ext”; see note 3).
NOTE 2: The scope of amended claim 3 (filed 12/02/2025) has changed from the prior claim 3 (filed 12/14/2022) examined in the prior action (09/03/2025). Specifically, the amended claim 3 is now dependent on claim 2. Further, the “other capacitance” is revised to the “second Cy capacitance”, which is limited by claim 2. Thus, any new considerations in this rejection are acceptable in a proper final rejection.
NOTE 3: In the claim language “the … capacitance is discharged”, the word “discharged” may be interpreted as either an adjective or a vowel. As an adjective, this claim simply requires “the other Cy capacitance” to be in a discharged state sometime after “discharging the Cy capacitance … linked to the residual current flow”.
Regarding Claim 4, Haindl discloses after discharging (Fig. 4, step 503) the first Cy capacitance (combo of “Cy+_int” and “Cy+_ext” discharged through “R0” and “Iso-switch+”; Fig. 2), a high-voltage source (“power source” within “101” of Fig. 1; drawn as a battery in Fig. 2) of the vehicle high-voltage electrical system (“100”) is disconnected (when “Cy-_ext” is not to be discharged, relay “Main-” is open both during and after the discharging of “Cy+_ext”; ¶ [52]).
Regarding Claim 6, Haindl discloses after discharging (Fig. 4, step 503) the first Cy capacitance (combo of “Cy+_int” and “Cy+_ext” discharged through “R0” and “Iso-switch+”; Fig. 2), a first Cx capacitance (“C_DC_link”; Fig. 2) which exists between the first HV potential (“HV+”) and the second HV potential (“HV-”) is discharged (“C_DC_link” has its own active discharge circuit shown in Fig. 2; per ¶ [40], the “X-capacitor C_DC_link” is discharged in response to a vehicle request, like the “Cy+_ext”; thus, sometime after the “Cy+_ext” is discharged, the “X-capacitor C_DC_link” is also either discharging or in a discharged state).
NOTE 4: In the claim language “a … capacitance is discharged”, the word “discharged” may be interpreted as either an adjective or a vowel. As an adjective, this claim simply requires the “Cx capacitance” to be in a discharged state sometime after “discharging the Cy capacitance … linked to the residual current flow”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haindl et al. (EP 3640076 A1) in view of Karrer et al. (US 2010/0308841 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Haindl does not disclose “a fault signal is emitted if the existence of the residual current is determined.”
Karrer discloses a fault signal is emitted (¶ [43]: “a corresponding warning signal may be given”) if the existence of the residual current (¶ [43]: “inadmissibly low insulation resistance or of a fault current that is too high”) is determined (by the “circuit arrangement for monitoring the electrical insulation” per ¶ [1], shown in figure).
Karrer further teaches emitting the fault signal so the driver of the vehicle can be notified of a fault current that is too high (¶ [43]), which improves safety for the driver and any passengers (¶ [35]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Haindl to emit a fault signal if a residual current is determined, as taught by Karrer, to improve safety for the driver and any passengers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haindl et al. (EP 3640076 A1) in view of Morimoto (US 2007/0176604 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Haindl discloses the determining of the existence of the residual current flowing (through “Riso+_ext”; Fig. 2) between the first HV potential (“HV+”) of the vehicle high-voltage electrical system (“100”) and the ground potential (“chassis”) or flowing (through “Riso-_ext”; Fig. 2) between the second HV potential (“HV-”) of the vehicle high-voltage electrical system (“100”) and the ground potential (“chassis”).
Haindl further discloses measuring an impedance (“insulation resistance measurement circuit” of Fig. 1 is used to measure “Riso+_ext” and “Riso-_ext” of Fig. 2) across which the residual current flows (flows through “Riso+_ext” and “Riso-_ext” of Fig. 2).
Haindl further discloses the discharging (Fig. 4, step 503) of only the first Cy capacitance (combo of “Cy+_int” and “Cy+_ext” discharged through “R0” and “Iso-switch+”; Fig. 2) is carried out only if the associated residual current is detected (from “HV+” to “chassis”).
Haindl does not disclose this discharging upon detection of the associated residual current occurs “only if the measured impedance lies in an impedance range which characterizes the impedance of a human body”.
Morimoto teaches measuring an impedance (“ground-fault resistance value Rx”, including the resistor “108” and the resistance “111” generated by the ground fault; Figs. 6-7; ¶ [10]: “ground fault resistance” measured by supplying “constant direct current I” by “constant-current source 109” and measuring the resulting voltage across the resistance with “voltmeter 110”) across which the residual current flows (current “I2” through “111”; Fig. 6; ¶ [11])
Morimoto further teaches the residual current (“I2”) is detected only if the measured impedance (“Rx”, i.e. the parallel combo of “108” and “111”) lies in an impedance range (¶ [16]: “when the ground-fault resistance value Rx is below 200 kΩ”) which characterizes the impedance of a human body (¶ [16]: “in order to detect a ground fault which allows a human-body sensible current of 3 mA to flow”; ¶ [20]: “electric current … through the ground-fault resistance value Rx and the vehicle body 107, to the human body touching the vehicle body 107”).
Morimoto further teaches the residual current is detected if the measured impedance is in a range characteristic of a human body to improve the precision of detecting a residual current that may give a human an electric shock (¶ [20-21]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed by Haindl to detect the residual current if the measured impedance is in a range characteristic of a human body, as taught by Morimoto, to improve the precision of detecting a residual current that may give a human an electric shock Thus, when combined with the discharging features of Haindl’s method, the impedance range condition of Morimoto enables the method to more accurately respond to a residual current through a human, thus reducing risk of damage to the human and improving safety.
Thus, the combination of Haindl and Morimoto teaches measuring an impedance across which the residual current flows, the discharging of only the first Cy capacitance (taught by Haindl to occur only if a residual current is detected from “HV+”) is carried out only if the measured impedance lies in an impedance range which characterizes the impedance of a human body (incorporated from Morimoto as a method to detect a residual current).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haindl et al. (EP 3640076 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0180452 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Haindl discloses the determining of the existence of the residual current flowing (through “Riso+_ext”; Fig. 2) between the first HV potential (“HV+”) of the vehicle high-voltage electrical system (“100”) and the ground potential (“chassis”) or flowing (through “Riso-_ext”; Fig. 2) between the second HV potential (“HV-”) of the vehicle high-voltage electrical system (“100”) and the ground potential (“chassis”).
Haindl does not disclose “measuring a rate of change of a voltage between the ground potential and the first HV potential or the second HV potential, wherein the existence of the residual current is determined if the absolute value of the rate of change lies above a limit which characterizes the maximum rate of change which occurs during an active insulation measurement”.
Lee teaches measuring a rate of change of a voltage (voltage across “CDC_Y1” measured by “DC voltage measuring device 210” in Fig. 1; rate of change is calculated by “differential operator 224” in Fig. 2; ¶ [55]: “time derivative value of the voltage across the capacitor”) between the ground potential (“GND”; Fig. 1) and the first HV potential (positive side of “HV battery 300” connected to “CDC_Y1” through “DC relay 150”; Fig. 1).
Lee further teaches wherein the existence of the residual current is determined (Fig. 5, step S110: “leakage current estimate > protection level [A]”) if the absolute value of the rate of change (¶ [55-56]: “time derivative value of the voltage across the capacitor” which relates to a “leakage current estimate” by a “Y-capacitor coefficient”) lies above a limit (a maximum differential voltage associated with “protection level [A]” by a “Y-capacitor coefficient”; Figs. 4-5; because only a multiplicative coefficient changes the “time derivative value of the voltage” to a ”leakage current estimate”, the “protection level” in Amps also means there is a “protection level” which is a differential voltage value) which characterizes the maximum rate of change (¶ [59]: “protection level … may be a standardized value for a commercialized power supply for the electrically charged vehicle”) which occurs during an active insulation measurement (any values under the “protection level” are interpreted to be acceptable during the active insulation measurements performed by “controller 200”; Fig. 1; ¶ [59-60]).
Lee further teaches this method of detecting a residual current based on a measured rate of change of an HV potential referenced to ground for the advantage of reducing the cost of manufacturing the system by eschewing the need for a current sensor (¶ [34]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method disclosed by Haindl to determine whether a residual current exists if the absolute value of the rate of change lies above a limit which characterizes the maximum rate of change which occurs during an active insulation measurement, as taught by Lee, to reduce the cost of the system used to perform the method by eschewing the need for a current sensor.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Regarding claim 7, the applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this action. See MPEP § 706.07(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 Daniel P McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM Eastern.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/DANIEL P MCFARLAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859