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 .
Abstract
1. The abstract of the disclosure, filed on 05/19/2023 is objected to because it contains improper format. Please delete (Fig.5).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
2. Claims 1, 2, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gross et al (USPN 2018/0113157).
Regarding claim 1, Gross discloses a monitoring device (10 shown in figure 1) for an at least partially electrically operated motor vehicle (see par. 0014), the monitoring device (10) comprising:
a housing (a housing 50) configured to be arranged on the motor vehicle (the housing 50 located within a vehicle interior, see par. 0015) and to accept at least one high voltage input connection (64, 66),
an access door (52) configured to provide access to a user interface (such as test points 54, see par. 0021),
at least one electric circuit (HVTS module 14, see par. 0026) a for monitoring the presence of high voltage (34) provided by the at least one high voltage input connection (64, 66), at least one high voltage interlock protection circuit (42, 56, see par. 0027), and
a microcontroller (a controller 26);
wherein the at least one electric circuit (14) for monitoring the presence of high voltage (34) (see par. 0026) and the at least one high voltage interlock protection circuit (42, 56) are provided within the housing (50),
wherein the microcontroller (the controller 26) controls the at least one electric circuit (14) for monitoring the presence of high voltage (34) and the at least one high voltage interlock protection circuit (42, 56) (see par. 0016, 0028), and
wherein the microcontroller (26) controls indication provided through the user interface (the voltmeter 74) based on the presence of high voltage within the at least one electric circuit (14) for monitoring the presence of high voltage (34).
Regarding claim 2, Gross discloses the access door (the cover 52) comprises a door switch (56) configured to break continuity in the at least one high voltage interlock protection circuit (42) upon opening of the access door (52) (e.g. see par. 0028).
Regarding claim 5, Gross discloses that the user interface (54) comprises at least one coupling device (64, 66), wherein the at least one coupling device (64, 66 is configured to connect to an external monitoring device (a voltmeter 74).
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.
3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al (USPN 2018/0113157) in view of Lindsey et al (USPN 2007/0120694).
Regarding claim 4, Gross discloses the user interface (54), but does not explicitly disclose at least one indication light as claimed.
Lindsey discloses a voltage testing module (120, see figure 2) comprises a user interface (290, 250, 161) comprises at least one indication light (261) controlled by a microcontroller (250) (see par. 0022, 0032).
It 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 to have modified the user interface of Gross to incorporate a indication light as disclosed by Lindsey in order to increase a safety and ensure a proper operation.
4. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al (USPN 2018/0113157) in view of Nguyen et al (USPN 2021/0003635).
Regarding claim 6, Gross discloses the user interface (54), but does not explicitly disclose a mode switch as claimed.
Nguyen discloses a high voltage testing module (see figure 6, 7) comprises a user interface (238) comprises a mode switch 304) controlled by a controller (392) (see par. 0058, 0068).
It 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 to have modified the user interface of Gross to incorporate a mode switch as disclosed by Nguyen in order to prevent unexpected energization of a system so that protecting an operator from electrocution. Thus, increasing a safety operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 3, 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2054. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-271-1838. 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.
/DANNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838