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 series of switches recited in claim 7 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show how the disconnection detection unit 600 is connected in the schematic shown in Fig. 1 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 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 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:
Switching unit in claim 1. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: paragraph 60 from the specification states “As an example of a typical switching element, an insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT), a metal-oxide semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET), a silicon carbide transistor (SiC transistor), or the like may be applied as the switching unit 300.”
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 § 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuda (JP 2008286164 A).
Claim 1. Fukuda discloses a high-voltage heater (heater 21, Fig. 1) including a disconnection detection unit (detection circuit 61, Fig. 1), the high- voltage heater comprising:
a high-voltage line (connection wire 51) having one end connected to a high-voltage supply unit (51 connected to the battery 50, Fig. 1), and the other end connected to ground;
a control unit configured to control a switching unit in response to a control signal of an input unit (microcomputer controls the switch circuits 42A by sending signals, par. 24-27);
the switching unit provided on the high-voltage line (Fig. 1) and configured to supply electric power to a heating unit by being switched in response to a switching signal of the control unit (in the switch circuit 42A an energization signal is set such that current flows from the battery to the heater, par. 26);
the heating unit provided between the switching unit and the high-voltage supply unit on the high-voltage line and configured to generate heat under the control of the switching unit (heater 21); and
the disconnection detection unit configured to detect a voltage between the switching unit and the heating unit on the high-voltage line and transmit the voltage to the control unit (disconnection device 60 detects the voltage at contact points 68A-C located between the heater and the FETs),
wherein the control unit determines that the heating unit is disconnected when the voltage detected by the disconnection detection unit (V1, par. 34) is lower than a reference voltage (Vcc, par. 34) when a high voltage is applied to the high-voltage line (when the heating unit is disconnected the detected voltage is half of the reference voltage Vcc, par. 34).
Claim 2. Fukuda discloses the high-voltage heater of claim 1, wherein the disconnection detection device comprises a high-voltage detection unit provided on the high-voltage line and configured to provide the control unit with a signal indicating whether the high voltage is applied to the high-voltage line (disconnection detection unit 61 is connected to the voltage line 23A-C at point 69A-C, Fig. 2), and
wherein the control unit determines whether the heating unit is disconnected only when the high-voltage detection unit receives a signal indicating that the high voltage is applied (61 detects if the heating unit is detected, par. 34).
Claim 3. Fukuda discloses the high-voltage heater of claim 2, wherein the control unit transmits the switching signal to the switching unit through a pulse width modulation signal (MCU sends PWM signals to the FET, Fig. 5, par. 26), and
wherein the control unit determines whether the heating unit is disconnected when the pulse width modulation signal is not applied or the pulse width modulation signal is low (when the signal is set low the FET turns off and heating stops, par. 26).
Claim 4. Fukuda discloses the high-voltage heater of claim 2, wherein the control unit determines whether the heating unit is disconnected only when the switching unit is turned off (when the controller sets the signal to low the FET turns off and heating stops; and controller performs disconnection detection when the signals are at a low level, par. 26-34).
Claim 5. Fukuda discloses the high-voltage heater of claim 1, wherein the disconnection detection unit is provided in the form of a plurality of resistors connected in series (resistors 65-67, Fig. 1), the disconnection detection unit has one end connected between the switching unit and the heating unit on the high-voltage line (connection 69A is between the FET and heater, Fig. 2), and
the other end connected to ground (GND shown in Fig. 2), and the disconnection detection unit transmits a voltage between an nth resistor and an (n-1) the resistor from one end to the control unit (controller detects the potential V1 between resistor 66 and 67, Fig. 2).
Claim 6. Fukuda discloses the high-voltage heater of claim 1, wherein the disconnection detection unit comprises a DC voltage sensor, the DC voltage sensor detects a high voltage applied between the switching unit and the heating unit on the high-voltage line (detection unit 61 detects the potential at 69A which is between the FET and the heater, Fig. 2), and
the disconnection detection unit provides the control unit with a signal indicating whether the high voltage is detected (the MCU 80 monitors the detected voltage in the disconnection detection unit 61, par. 34).
Claim 9. Fukuda discloses a disconnection detection method of the high-voltage heater (heater 21 with disconnection detection unit 61, Fig. 1) according to claim 1, the disconnection detection method comprising:
determining, by a high-voltage detection unit, whether a high voltage is applied to the high-voltage line (disconnection device 60 detects the voltage at contact points 68A-C located between the heater and the FETs);
determining, by the control unit, whether a pulse width modulation signal is applied when the high voltage is applied to the high-voltage line (microcomputer controls the switch circuits 42A by sending PWM signals which opens/closes the switches and is detected by the disconnection detection unit, par. 24-27);
comparing, by the control unit, a detected voltage detected by the disconnection detection unit with a reference voltage detected by the disconnection detection unit when the heating unit is normal when the pulse width modulation signal is not applied (reference potential Vcc, par. 34); and
determining, by the control unit, that the heating unit is disconnected when the detected voltage is lower than the reference voltage (when the heating unit is disconnected the detected voltage is half of the reference voltage Vcc, par. 34).
Claim 10. Fukuda discloses the disconnection detection method of claim 9, comprising:
detecting, by the control unit, whether a pulse width transmitted to the switching unit is high or low when the pulse width modulation signal is applied (MCU outputs a PWM signal to the switches which is detected by the disconnection unit and communicated back to the MCU, par. 24-27),
wherein the control unit determines whether the heating unit is disconnected when the pulse width is low (when the switch is in an off-state or PWM low the disconnection unit detects disconnection, par. 24-27).
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda as applied to claims 3 and 4 above, and further in view of Song (KR 101422676 B1).
Claim 7. Fukuda discloses the high-voltage heater of claim 4, wherein the switching unit is provided as a plurality of switching units connected in
Fukuda does not disclose a plurality of switching units connected in series.
Song discloses a heater with sensors that detect disconnection and a switching unit with two switches (810 and 820) in series (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuda to incorporate the teachings of Song and switches in series. Doing so would have the benefit of reducing noise and surges (page 7, par. 3, Song).
Claim 8. Fukuda does not disclose the high-voltage heater of claim 3, wherein the high-voltage heater further comprises:
an electric current sensing resistor provided between the ground and the switching unit on the high-voltage line; and
an electric current sensing unit configured to provide the control unit with an electric current between the electric current sensing resistor and the switching unit on the high-voltage line, and
wherein the control unit determines that the heating unit is disconnected in case that the electric current detected by the electric current sensing unit is lower than a reference current when the pulse width signal is high.
Song discloses a heater with a heating line detection unit 600 that detects the current in the heating line (page 2, par. 1) wherein the detection unit 600 has a resistor (Fig. 2). The detection unit determines if a signal consistently outputs a high or low signal and this indicates to the controller if disconnection occurred (page 7, par. 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuda to incorporate the teachings of Song and provide an electric current sensing unit. Doing so would have the benefit of sensing if the heater short circuited (page 7, par. 1, Song). Additionally, having redundant sensing systems for detecting disconnection is useful in case one sensor fails.
Claim 11. Fukuda does not disclose the disconnection detection method of claim 10, further comprising:
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 between the switching unit and the ground 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.
Song discloses a heater with a heating line detection unit 600 that detects the current in the heating line (page 2, par. 1) wherein the detection unit 600 has a resistor (Fig. 2). The detection unit determines if a signal consistently outputs a high or low signal and this indicates to the controller if disconnection occurred (page 7, par. 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuda to incorporate the teachings of Song and provide an electric current sensing unit. Doing so would have the benefit of sensing if the heater short circuited (page 7, par. 1, Song). Additionally, having redundant sensing systems for detecting disconnection is useful in case one sensor fails.
Claim 12. Fukuda discloses the disconnection detection method of claim 9, wherein the switching unit is provided as a
wherein the disconnection detection method comprises: detecting, by the control unit, an on/off state of the switching unit (microcomputer controls the switch circuits 42A by sending PWM signals which opens/closes the switches and is detected by the disconnection detection unit, par. 24-27); and
determining, by the control unit, whether the heating unit is disconnected only when at least one of the switching unit is turned off (disconnection unit detects disconnection after evaluating if the three switches all return a disconnection voltage, par. 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of “only when at least one…is turned off” includes –only when three of the switch are turned off--. If applicants desire to cite that disconnection is determined when only one switch unit is turned off then applicants should amended to say something along the lines of –the control unit determines whether the heating unit is disconnected when only one of the switching unit is turned off--).
Song discloses a heater with sensors that detect disconnection and a switching unit with two switches (810 and 820) in series (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukuda to incorporate the teachings of Song and switches in series. Doing so would have the benefit of reducing noise and surges (page 7, par. 3, Song).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761