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 Amendment
The amendment filed 11/5/25 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application and no new claims were added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objections to Claim 8, 112(a) written description, 112(b) and 103 rejections of Claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
No argument was made with regard to the 112(a) enablement rejection and that rejection remains. It is noted that enablement and written description are different standards.
The objections to Claims 3 and 5 remain for the reasons below: An objection is regarding a matter of form, not substance, so support in the specification does not overcome an objection. See MPEP 706.01. However, based on applicant’s response to the objection it appears this is likely more than a matter of form because the reference in question is not the reference sum resistance based on the cited sections of the specification. What the reference actually is then appears to be unclear and should be addressed in a future amendment to avoid potential 112b rejections.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims refer to “a reference” and “the reference values” without specifying which “reference” is being referred to. Appropriate correction is required. See response to arguments above for more information.
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 1-10 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding Claim 1: Claim 1 states in part "A method for ascertaining a cable temperature and/or connector temperature". MPEP 2164.01(a) cites In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), referred to as the Wands factors to assess whether any necessary experimentation required by the specification is "reasonable" or is "undue."
The examiner cites Wands factor (A) the breadth of the claim: The temperature of the connectors and cable cannot be separately determined using the method of claim 1, as only the sum resistance is measured, and not the individual resistances (Claim 1; [0038-0041).
Only the aggregate temperature of the cable with both connectors can be ascertained.
Examiner cites Wands factor (B) the nature of the invention:
- The resistance of the cable and both connectors is measured in Claim 1 (Claim 1c; [0006]). Neither the resistance of the cable nor the resistance of any connector is measured on its own.
-The examiner finds the method of Claim 1 will only work if the cable and both connectors are made of the same material; the method depends on the linear relationship of resistance with temperature for a single conduction material ([0039]).
Examiner cites Wands factor (F), the limited amount of direction provided by the inventor.
-The inventor claims "a method for ascertaining a cable temperature and/or connector temperature" but provides no direction as to how temperature can be measured of the cable alone, or of a connector alone.
- The equations used in [0040, 0041] contain the term K which is not defined in the claims or the specification.
- The applicant provides no information on "differentiating between the resistance R1 of a connector of the DC voltage source, a resistance R2 of a connection cable, and a resistance R3 of a connector of the power electronics system," and does not define what is meant by "differentiating" nor any method involving this.
Examiner cites Wands factor (C), the state of the prior art:
Examples of prior art for finding a temperature using a single temperature dependent resistor includes Heinen (US-4799046).
Examiner also cites Wands factor (G), the existence of working examples: An example of finding temperature based on resistance with multiple resistors that include Cho et al. (US-9915569).
Based on the current disclosure there is not enough guidance provided to determine the temperature values of just the cable, or just the connectors. Only the aggregate temperatures of both connectors and the cable can be determined, and then only when the cable and connectors comprise the same material, as they need to have the same temperature coefficient ([0014, 0039]).
Claims 2-9 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 enablement requirement, for depending on Claim 1.
dependent on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7: Claim 7 states in part "a temperature calculation of the connection cable (36) is performed using the temperature coefficient for the conductive material which the leads of the connection cable (36) are made of". Claim 7 has the same issues cited in Claim 1: the voltage drop is across Rsum and as the resistances and the heat capacities of the cable and connectors are different, it is not possible to determine the temperature of the cable alone. It is also not possible to determine the temperature unless the cable and both connectors are comprised of the same material.
Regarding Claim 10: Claim 10 states in part "determining the temperature from repeated determination of the sum resistance during operation and calculating an average temperature of the connection cable". Claim 10 has the same issues cited in Claim 1: the voltage drop is across Rsum and as the resistances and heat capacities of the cable and connectors are different, it is not possible to determine the temperature of the cable alone, or the terminals of a DC voltage source alone, or at least one input of a power electronics module alone. Only the aggregate temperature of the combination of both connectors and cable can be determined when all three are comprised of the same material. Additionally as reviewed in view of the Wands factors like Claim 1 above, there is no provided information on “differentiating between the resistance R1 of a connector (12,14) of the DC voltage source (16), a resistance R2 of a connection cable (36), and a resistance R3 of a connector of the power electronics system (18)” and never defines what is meant by “differentiating” nor any method involving this.
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 KRISTINA M DEHERRERA whose telephone number is (303)297-4237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5 MT.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at 571-272-4483. 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.
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 2/3/26
Prosecution Insights