Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/166,959

DISCHARGE APPARATUS FOR DISCHARGING ENERGY, APPLIANCE APPARATUS HAVING AN ELECTRICAL APPLIANCE AND A DISCHARGE APPARATUS, METHOD FOR OPERATING AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING A DISCHARGE APPARATUS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 09, 2023
Examiner
KESSIE, DANIEL
Art Unit
2836
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
ZF Friedrichshafen AG
OA Round
2 (Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
418 granted / 685 resolved
-7.0% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
75 currently pending
Career history
760
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
53.2%
+13.2% vs TC avg
§102
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
§112
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 685 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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) 1, 4, 6-12, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (US 2021/0257942in view of Baumeister et al. (US 2022/0089032) Re Claims 1, 12 and 18; Sakai discloses “a control board configured to control an electrical appliance for a vehicle” → Sakai teaches a control unit 103 that manages the operation of a motor M and brake B via motor drive circuit 101 and brake drive circuit 102 [¶[0024]–[0026], FIG. 8]. → The control unit receives commands from controller 111 and governs the actuator’s behavior, consistent with controlling an electrical appliance in a vehicular or robotic system [¶[0025], ¶[0034]]. “a carrier board having an electrically conductive interface” → Sakai’s controller 111, as shown in FIG. 8, includes integrated components such as the discharge instruction generation circuit 110, NOT/OR logic circuits, and signal routing to the discharge changeover switch 109 and discharge resistor 108. → This controller functions as a carrier board: it physically hosts and electrically interconnects these components, forming a conductive interface for signal and power flow [FIG. 8; ¶[0025], ¶[0026], ¶[0037]]. “an electrically conductive connecting device configured to electrically connect the electrically conductive interface to the control board” → Sakai shows electrical connections between controller 111 (carrier board) and control unit 103 (control board) via signal lines and logic circuits [FIG. 8]. → These connections inherently include electrically conductive paths (e.g., traces, wires, or connectors) that link the interface on controller 111 to the control board. “a discharge resistor (108) arranged in or on the carrier board and that is configured to be electrically connected to the electrically conductive interface and to discharge the energy when the interface is electrically connected to the control board” → Sakai teaches a discharge resistor 108 mounted within the controller 111 block (FIG. 8), electrically connected to the discharge changeover switch 109 and the brake drive circuit capacitor 106. → The resistor is activated by logic from the discharge instruction generation circuit 110 and discharges stored energy when triggered [¶[0026], ¶[0035], ¶[0037]]. Sakai does not disclose wherein the discharge resistor comprises at least one of: a conductor track structure in or on the carrier board; or at least one SMD component part in or on the carrier board. However, Baumeister discloses a discharge resistor comprises at least one SMD component part in or on the carrier board. (Par 0012,19) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled int art before the effective filing of the invention to have a resistor comprising at least one SMD component part in or on the carrier board in order to improved reliability since they are highly stable and reliable, often with better resistance to mechanical vibrations than through-hole components. Re Claim 4; Sakai disclosure have been discussed above. Lee does not disclose wherein the carrier board comprises an FR4 printed circuit board or an IMS printed circuit board. However, FR4 and IMS are standard PCB materials in automotive and power electronics and It would have been obvious to use them for thermal and electrical performance in Lee’s discharge circuit. Re Claims 6 and 20; Sakai discloses further comprising a control component part arranged in or on the carrier board. Logic circuits (NOT, OR), discharge instruction generation circuit 110, and signal routing within controller 111 [FIG. 8; ¶[0037]]. Re Claim 7 Sakai discloses further comprising the control board for controlling a switch for controlling the discharge resistor. Control unit 103 sends signals to discharge instruction generation circuit 110, which controls discharge changeover switch 109 [¶[0034], ¶[0037]]. Re Claims 8 and 15; Sakai discloses further comprising: a control monitoring device (802) electrically connected to the discharge resistor (108) and arranged in or on the carrier board and/or the control board, wherein the control monitoring device is configured to monitor control of the discharge resistor. (Fig. 8, Par 0096). Re Claim 9 and 16; Sakai disclosure has been discussed above. Sakai fails to teach: comprising: a temperature sensor arranged in or on the carrier board and/or the control board, wherein the temperature sensor is configured to sense a temperature. However, it would have been obvious to include a temperature sensor to monitor thermal conditions near the discharge resistor, especially in high-current applications. This enables thermal protection and feedback control—standard in safety-critical electronics. Re Claim 10 and 17; Sakai disclosure has been discussed above. Sakai fails to teach: further comprising: a current sensor arranged in or on the carrier board and/or the control board, wherein the current sensor is configured to sense a current intensity. However, including a current sensor to monitor discharge current would have been obvious to ensure safe operation, detect faults, and enable feedback control. This is a routine enhancement in discharge and protection circuits. Re Claim 11; Sakai discloses A motor M and inverter 104 used in an actuator, which may be part of a robotic or vehicular system [¶[0024], ¶[0025], FIG. 8]. Sakai fails to explicitly state that the appliance is a “drive device for moving a vehicle” or “inverter for a vehicle.” However, it would have been obvious to apply Sakai’s discharge apparatus to vehicle drive systems or inverters, given the shared need for braking, emergency stop, and energy discharge. The actuator structure and inverter are directly applicable to vehicular motion control. Claim(s) 2, 3, 13, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Baumeister and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20130063893.) Re Claims 2, 3, 13, 14 and 19; Sakai disclosure has been discussed above but does not mention any cooling device and further comprising a cooling device configured to dissipate or cool heat from the discharge resistor and wherein the cooling device comprises a passive cooling device and/or an active cooling device. Lee discloses a cooling device configured to dissipate or cool heat from the discharge device and Passive (e.g., heat sink) and active (e.g., fan) cooling are well-known techniques (Par 0022, Fig. 2) Therefore, given the high-temperature environment described, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include a passive or active cooling device to manage heat from the discharge resistor and improve safety. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant's request to cite a reference for the feature formerly in claim 5, now incorporated into the independent claims, the Examiner has cited a reference and provided a motivation to modify to support the obviousness rejection. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst. 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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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 KESSIE/ 03/30/2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 09, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 19, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603518
REDUNDANT POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597794
Battery Charging Method, Electronic Apparatus, Storage Medium, and Program Product
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597797
POWER FEEDING DEVICE, POWER FEEDING METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587026
DYNAMICALLY SELECTABLE POWER AND CHARGING CONFIGURATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587043
POWER FEED SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+25.0%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 685 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month