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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues As indicated supra, the amended claims specify Applicant's use of a circuit arrangement for detecting a circuit defect, using an inductive circuit. The circuit arrangement is described, inter alia, generally in paragraph [0026] (as published), and more specifically at paragraphs [0038 - 0043] and in the drawings at (MK, W1, W2, 5). The concept of using the two electrical connecting lines in a redundant electrical transmission path (4) comprising two electrical connecting lines (L1, L2), connected in parallel via nodes (K1, K2), between the first and second electrical devices (2, 3) is found throughout the Detailed Description, with reference to the drawings. The comparator function is described, inter alia, at paragraphs [0006], [0015 - 0021], [0023], [0025 - 0026], [0041 - 0043], [0045], [0047], [0049] and [0051]. It is submitted that the circuits required to compare the signals in the two windings are well-known to those skilled in the art.
In this regard, the claims are directed to providing the relevant windings (Wi, W2) and the circuit (5) for evaluating an inductance dependent measurement signal of the secondary winding by comparing inductance dependent measurement signals (LM) of the secondary winding (W2) to a predetermined error threshold value.
As indicated in Applicant's Response of September 1, 2025, the specification clearly describes Applicant's claimed use of a diagnostic device to compare the claimed inductance-dependent measurement signals of a secondary winding to a comparison value, and in particular, the comparison value is an error threshold value.
As such, the specification describes a well-known approach for obtaining the claimed, "comparison value that can be used to distinguish between the error state and a non-error state", and clearly describes the operation as obtaining the desired comparison output.
It is submitted that the above descriptions present claim descriptions that extend beyond simply describing "a diagnostic device" combined with the purpose of the diagnostic device. Further, these claim descriptions find full support in the specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding at least the circuit of claim 1, the original specification fails to disclose what is considered applicant’s (circuit) diagnostic device. The (circuit) diagnostic device labelled 5, in Figures 1 and 2 are blank boxes. In addition, the original specification fails to provide any structure of applicant’s (circuit) diagnostic device so that one of ordinary skill in the art would know what applicant’s (circuit) diagnostic device is and the manner in which applicant is implementing the claim limitations. Examiner points out there are any number of possible configurations for the (circuit) diagnostic device and the specification is devoid of any structure of applicant’s (circuit) diagnostic device, suggesting no boundaries for applicant’s (circuit) diagnostic device. The disclosure fails to provide proper written description.
Applicants arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, 16-19 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, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure of a circuit to perform the claimed functions of evaluating an inductance-dependent measurement signal of the secondary winding (W2), by comparing inductance--dependent measurement signals (Lm) of the secondary winding (W2) to a predetermined error threshold value for distinguishing between the error state and a non--error state of the redundant electrical transmission path wherein the comparing the inductance--dependent measurement signals (Lm) of the secondary winding (W2) provides a comparison value that can be used to distinguish between the error state and a non-error state of the redundant electrical transmission path (4).
Page 11 of the specification only recites that A diagnostic device 5 is provided as a further means for detecting a defect, for example a line break, of one of the two connecting lines L1 or L2, which is connected to the secondary winding W2, serving as a measuring inductor L, and by way of which an inductance-dependent measurement signal L.sub.M, generated by the measuring inductor L, is evaluated for distinguishing between an error state and a non-error state of the redundant electrical transmission path 4. For this purpose, the inductance-dependent measurement signal L.sub.M is compared to an error threshold value.
There is no additional disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, of applicant’s circuit. The use of the term circuit is not adequate structure for performing the function because there is any number of possible configurations for evaluating an inductance-dependent measurement signal and compare the inductance-dependent measurement signals to a comparison value that can be used to distinguish between the error state and a non-error state. Furthermore the circuit is labelled (5) and is labelled in the Figures as a blank box.
As such, the specification does not provide adequate description of the structure such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is applicant’s circuit that performs the claimed functions and the manner in which applicant implements the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 6, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of evaluating the inductance-dependent measurement signal (Lm), by comparing inductance- -dependent measurement signals (LM) of the secondary winding (W2} to a predetermined error threshold value for distinguishing an error state from a non-error state of the redundant electrical transmission path (4) wherein the comparing the inductance-dependent measurement signal (Ly) of the measuring inductor (L) provides a comparison value that can be used to distinguish between an error state and a non-error state of the redundant electrical transmission path (4); indicating that a non-error state is present when the inductance-dependent measurement signal (L.sub.M), (L.sub.M) is smaller than the comparison value; and indicating that an error state is present in one of the connecting lines (L1, L2) when the inductance-dependent measurement signal (L.sub.M), (L.sub.M) is greater than the comparison value.
Page 11 of the specification only recites that A diagnostic device 5 is provided as a further means for detecting a defect, for example a line break, of one of the two connecting lines L1 or L2, which is connected to the secondary winding W2, serving as a measuring inductor L, and by way of which an inductance-dependent measurement signal L.sub.M, generated by the measuring inductor L, is evaluated for distinguishing between an error state and a non-error state of the redundant electrical transmission path 4. For this purpose, the inductance-dependent measurement signal L.sub.M is compared to an error threshold value. However it is noted that there is no additional disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, of the diagnostic device of the means. Therefore the full structure of the means for recognizing an error state of the redundant electrical transmission path is not adequately supported. The use of the term circuit, sensor, or device is not adequate structure for performing the function because there is any number of possible configurations for evaluating an inductance-dependent measurement signal and compare the inductance-dependent measurement signals to a comparison value, in particular an error threshold value, that can be used to distinguish between the error state and a non-error state. Furthermore the diagnostic device labelled (5) in the drawings are blank boxes.
As such, the specification does not provide adequate description of the structure such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand applicant’s circuit that performs the claimed functions and the manner in which the claim functions are performed.
Regarding claim 11, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of wherein evaluating the inductance-dependent measurement signal (LM) comprises: applying a known alternating voltage to a measuring inductor L, and evaluating alternating current generated thereby to provide the inductance-dependent measurement signal (LM), and using a reactance determined from an amplitude and phase position of the alternating current, serving as the comparison value, and wherein the comparison value provides an indication of presence or absence of a line break.
Par. 0045 of the USPGPUB specification only recites [0045] A first option for generating an inductance-dependent measurement signal L.sub.M is to apply a known alternating voltage to the measuring inductor L, and to evaluate the alternating current generated thereby, serving as the inductance-dependent measurement signal L.sub.M. Using the reactance determined from the amplitude and the phase position of the measured alternating current, serving as the comparison value, a comparison is carried out to the error threshold value. If the comparison value is smaller than the error threshold value, a non-error state of the transmission path 4, that is, no line break, is present, while an error state, that is, for example, a line break of one of the two electrical connecting lines L1 or L2 of the transmission path 4, is present in the case of a comparison value that is greater than the error threshold value.
There is no additional disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, of applicant’s circuit. The use of the term circuit is not adequate structure for performing wherein evaluating the inductance-dependent measurement signal (LM) comprises: applying a known alternating voltage to a measuring inductor L, and evaluating alternating current generated thereby to provide the inductance-dependent measurement signal (LM), and using a reactance determined from an amplitude and phase position of the alternating current, serving as the comparison value, and wherein the comparison value provides an indication of presence or absence of a line break.
Furthermore the circuit is labelled (5) in the Figures are blank boxes.
As such, the specification does not provide adequate description of the structure such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is applicant’s circuit that performs the claimed functions and the manner in which applicant implements the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 12, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of wherein evaluating the inductance-dependent measurement signal (LM) comprises providing a low-pass filter or high-pass filter incorporating the secondary winding W2, and wherein an output of the low-pass filter or high-pass filter provides an indication of presence or absence of a line break.
Par. 0025 of the PGPUB specification only recites [0025] Another method, according to one refinement, for generating the inductance-dependent measurement signal is to determine the attenuation behavior of a low-pass filter or high-pass filter created with the aid of the secondary winding, that is, for example, an RL or LC filter device. From the inductance-dependent measurement signal indicating the attenuation behavior, an attenuation value is ascertained, serving as the comparison value, and is compared to an accordingly suitable error threshold value.
There is no additional disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, of applicant’s circuit. The use of the term circuit is not adequate structure for performing the function because there is any number of possible configurations for evaluating the inductance-dependent measurement signal (LM) comprises providing a low-pass filter or high-pass filter incorporating the secondary winding W2, and wherein an output of the low-pass filter or high-pass filter provides an indication of presence or absence of a line break.
Furthermore the circuit labelled (5) in the Figures are blank boxes.
As such, the specification does not provide adequate description of the structure such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is applicant’s circuit that performs the claimed functions and the manner in which applicant implements the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 13, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of wherein evaluating the inductance-dependent measurement signal (LM) comprises creating an LC resonant circuit by way of so that a resonant behavior of the LC resonant circuit provides an error threshold value.
Par. 0049 of the PGPUB specification only recites [0049] A further method for generating the inductance-dependent measurement signal L.sub.M involves creating an LC resonant circuit by way of the measuring inductor L, so that the resonant behavior thereof is indicated by way of the inductance-dependent measurement signal L.sub.M, and from this the resonance frequency is ascertained, serving as the comparison value, so as to be compared to an accordingly suitable error threshold value.
There is no additional disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, of applicant’s circuit. The use of the term circuit is not adequate structure for performing the function because there is any number of possible configurations for evaluating the inductance-dependent measurement signal (LM) comprises creating an LC resonant circuit by way of so that a resonant behavior of the LC resonant circuit provides an error threshold value.
Furthermore the circuit is labelled (5) in the Figures are blank boxes.
As such, the specification does not provide adequate description of the structure such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is applicant’s circuit that performs the claimed functions and the manner in which applicant implements the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 14, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of wherein evaluating the inductance-dependent measurement signal (LM) comprises generating a time curve when switching the secondary winding on and/or off to detect build-up events and/or decay events.
Par. 0050 of the PGPUB specification only recites [0050] Finally, it is also possible to detect and evaluate signal deformations of a control signal, which is applied to the measuring inductor L and has multiple frequency components, by means of the inductance-dependent measurement signal L.sub.M. In particular, the time curve when switching the secondary winding on and/or off can be detected for this purpose and be evaluated with respect to the build-up events and/or decay events.
There is no additional disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, of the applicant’s circuit. The use of the term circuit is not adequate structure for performing the function because there are any number of possible configurations for wherein evaluating the inductance-dependent measurement signal (LM) comprises generating a time curve when switching the secondary winding on and/or off to detect build-up events and/or decay events.
Furthermore the circuit is labelled (5) in the Figures are blank boxes.
As such, the specification does not provide adequate description of the structure such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is applicant’s circuit that performs the claimed functions and the manner in which applicant implements the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 16, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of wherein the circuit (5) for evaluating an inductance-dependent measurement signal of the secondary winding (W2) comprises: applying a known alternating voltage to a measuring inductor L, and evaluating alternating current generated thereby to provide the inductance-dependent measurement signal (LM), and using a reactance determined from an amplitude and phase position of the alternating current, serving as the comparison value, and wherein the comparison value provides an indication of presence or absence of a line break.
Par. 0045 of the PGPUB specification only recites [0045] A first option for generating an inductance-dependent measurement signal L.sub.M is to apply a known alternating voltage to the measuring inductor L, and to evaluate the alternating current generated thereby, serving as the inductance-dependent measurement signal L.sub.M. Using the reactance determined from the amplitude and the phase position of the measured alternating current, serving as the comparison value, a comparison is carried out to the error threshold value. If the comparison value is smaller than the error threshold value, a non-error state of the transmission path 4, that is, no line break, is present, while an error state, that is, for example, a line break of one of the two electrical connecting lines L1 or L2 of the transmission path 4, is present in the case of a comparison value that is greater than the error threshold value.
There is no additional disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, of the applicant’s circuit. The use of the term circuit not adequate structure for performing the function because there is any number of possible configurations for the circuit (5) for evaluating an inductance-dependent measurement signal of the secondary winding (W2) comprises: applying a known alternating voltage to a measuring inductor L, and evaluating alternating current generated thereby to provide the inductance-dependent measurement signal (LM), and using a reactance determined from an amplitude and phase position of the alternating current, serving as the comparison value, and wherein the comparison value provides an indication of presence or absence of a line break.
Furthermore the circuit is labelled (5) in the Figures are blank boxes.
As such, the specification does not provide adequate description of the structure such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is applicant’s circuit that performs the claimed functions and the manner in which applicant implements the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 17, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of wherein the diagnostic device (5) for evaluating an inductance-dependent measurement signal of the secondary winding (W2) comprises providing a low-pass filter or high-pass filter incorporating the secondary winding W2, and wherein an output of the low-pass filter or high-pass filter provides an indication of presence or absence of a line break.
Par. 0025 of the PGPUB specification only recites [0025] Another method, according to one refinement, for generating the inductance-dependent measurement signal is to determine the attenuation behavior of a low-pass filter or high-pass filter created with the aid of the secondary winding, that is, for example, an RL or LC filter device. From the inductance-dependent measurement signal indicating the attenuation behavior, an attenuation value is ascertained, serving as the comparison value, and is compared to an accordingly suitable error threshold value.
There is no additional disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, of the applicant’s circuit. The use of the term circuit is not adequate structure for performing the function because there is any number of possible configurations for wherein circuit (5) for evaluating an inductance-dependent measurement signal of the secondary winding (W2) comprises providing a low-pass filter or high-pass filter incorporating the secondary winding W2, and wherein an output of the low-pass filter or high-pass filter provides an indication of presence or absence of a line break.
Furthermore the circuit is labelled (5) in the Figures are blank boxes.
As such, the specification does not provide adequate description of the structure such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is applicant’s circuit performs the claimed functions and the manner in which applicant implements the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 18, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of wherein the circuit (5) for evaluating an inductance-dependent measurement signal of the secondary winding (W2) comprises creating an LC resonant circuit by way of so that a resonant behavior of the LC resonant circuit provides an error threshold value.
Par. 0049 of the PGPUB specification only recites [0049] A further method for generating the inductance-dependent measurement signal L.sub.M involves creating an LC resonant circuit by way of the measuring inductor L, so that the resonant behavior thereof is indicated by way of the inductance-dependent measurement signal L.sub.M, and from this the resonance frequency is ascertained, serving as the comparison value, so as to be compared to an accordingly suitable error threshold value.
There is no additional disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, applicant’s circuit. The use of the term circuit is not adequate structure for performing the function because there is any number of possible configurations for the circuit (5) for evaluating an inductance-dependent measurement signal of the secondary winding (W2) comprises creating an LC resonant circuit by way of so that a resonant behavior of the LC resonant circuit provides an error threshold value.
Furthermore the circuit is labelled (5) in the Figures are blank boxes.
As such, the specification does not provide adequate description of the structure such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is applicant’s circuit that performs the claimed functions and the manner in which applicant implements the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 19, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of wherein the circuit (5) for evaluating an inductance-dependent measurement signal of the secondary winding (W2) comprises generating a time curve when switching the secondary winding on and/or off to detect build-up events and/or decay events.
Par. 0050 of the PGPUB specification only recites [0050] Finally, it is also possible to detect and evaluate signal deformations of a control signal, which is applied to the measuring inductor L and has multiple frequency components, by means of the inductance-dependent measurement signal L.sub.M. In particular, the time curve when switching the secondary winding on and/or off can be detected for this purpose and be evaluated with respect to the build-up events and/or decay events.
There is no additional disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, of applicant’s circuit. The use of the term circuit is not adequate structure for performing the function because there is any number of possible configurations for wherein circuit (5) for evaluating an inductance-dependent measurement signal of the secondary winding (W2) comprises generating a time curve when switching the secondary winding on and/or off to detect build-up events and/or decay events.
Furthermore the circuit is labelled (5) in the Figures are blank boxes.
As such, the specification does not provide adequate description of the structure such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is applicant’s circuit that performs the claimed functions and the manner in which applicant implements the claim limitations.
Examiner’s Note:
Claims 1-9,11-14,16-19 stand rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as outlined above. No prior art rejection has been applied to these claims because the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach the following features recited in these claims:
Regarding claim 1, circuit for evaluating an inductance-dependent measurement signal of the secondary winding (W2), by comparing inductance--dependent measurement signals (Lm) of the secondary winding (W2) to a predetermined error threshold value for distinguishing between the error state and a non--error state of the redundant electrical transmission path wherein the comparing the inductance--dependent measurement signals (Lm) of the secondary winding (W2) provides a comparison value that can be used to distinguish between the error state and a non-error state of the redundant electrical transmission path (4).
Regarding claim 6, evaluating the inductance-dependent measurement signal (Lm), by comparing inductance- -dependent measurement signals (LM) of the secondary winding (W2} to a predetermined error threshold value for distinguishing an error state from a non-error state of the redundant electrical transmission path (4) wherein the comparing the inductance-dependent measurement signal (Ly) of the measuring inductor (L) provides a comparison value that can be used to distinguish between an error state and a non-error state of the redundant electrical transmission path (4); indicating that a non-error state is present when the inductance-dependent measurement signal (L.sub.M), (L.sub.M) is smaller than the comparison value; and indicating that an error state is present in one of the connecting lines (L1, L2) when the inductance-dependent measurement signal (L.sub.M), (L.sub.M) is greater than the comparison value.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858