DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 because, in the interest of clarity, Fig. 6 should be labelled “Comparative Example” (or the like) to clearly delineate it is not an alternate embodiment of the present invention nor prior art. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. 36 recites that “FIG. 4B illustrates the current flow IOFF2,” but it should illustrate IOFF1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, and 18 and are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 10 and 18 use the unit “gH” instead of “pH,” in reference to the wiring harness inductances
Appropriate correction is required.
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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 9, 10 and 18, the phrase “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The abbreviation e.g. stands for the Latin phrase exempli gratia, which means "for example,” and thus the claims are indefinite. In the interest of compact prosecution, the parenthetical limitations will be ignored as it is unclear if they are required limitations.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
Claims 5 and 16 recite the limitation, “the first and second paths include parallel paths between the first and second wiring harness sections.” It is indefinite because the parallel paths are disposed inside the HCU and not between the wiring harness. Based on the Specification, the wiring harness comprises the external wiring components between terminals (“In the illustrated embodiments, the wiring harness 22 includes four sections 24A-24D” Para. 23), but as claimed, the limitation seems to be referring to the parallel paths of the first and second diodes that are inside the HCU and thus it is unclear where the wiring harness ends and terminals begin. In the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation will be construed to merely require parallel wiring between the current paths of the HCU.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (EP 2804779), and further in view of Phadke (US 2016/0365801).
Regarding Claim 1, Han discloses A heater control unit for coupling an exhaust aftertreatment system heater to a power supply, comprising (Examiner Note: The preamble of a claim will be treated as a claim limitation to the extent that it limits the structure of the claimed invention (MPEP 2111.02-I). When the body of the claim defines a structurally complete invention, the preamble is considered to be a mere statement of intended use, and not limiting the scope of the claim. Id. Here, the preamble only serves to limit the field of the invention, and does not provide any limiting structure, and thus will not be given patentable weight.) :
a switch [Switch 1, Fig. 21] responsive to a control signal [Controller 100, Fig. 21] and switchable between on and off states, the switch configured to control current flow about a first path [Path from Battery 5 to Load 6, Fig. 21] between a first wiring harness section coupled to the power supply [Battery source 5, Fig. 21] and a second wiring harness section coupled the heater [Load 6, Fig. 21], wherein the switch enables current flow about the first path when in the on state [Path from Battery 5 to Load 6, Fig. 21] (Examiner Note: Han discloses a bi-directional switch gear (1) controls the operation of the heating circuit through connection with the vehicle battery, where current travels from the positive terminal of the battery to the load, and returns to the negative terminal of the battery. As closing the switch allows current to flow about a path coupled between the power supply and heater (i.e. the inductive load), it is understood to disclose this limitation.);
one or more capacitors; [C1, Fig. 21]
a second diode [D3, Figs. 9, 21, paras. 46-47] coupled in series with the one or more capacitors [C1, Figs. 9, 21] (Examiner Note: While illustrated with the entire heating circuit (11) in Fig. 21, the second diode is understood to be disclosed by the polarity reversing unit of Fig. 9. Han discloses a reverse polarity unit consisting of a diode series coupled with a capacitor (C1) and thus understood to disclose this limitation.), the series-connected second diode and one or more capacitors configured to provide current flow about a third path between the first wiring harness section and a third wiring harness section coupled to the power supply, wherein when the switch is in the off state the second diode enables current flow about the third path [LC Oscillation loop of Fig. 21] (Examiner Note: As Han does not disclose 3 wiring harnesses, the third path will be understood to refer to any additional circuit paths that are coupled to power supply. As the reverse polarity unit (C1, D3, L2 & K9, Figs. 9, 21) creates an additional path coupled to power supply and allows current flow across the capacitor, it is understood to disclose this limitation.) through the one or more capacitors [C1, Fig. 21] in the second direction [LC Oscillation loop of Fig. 21] (Examiner Note: The second direction will be understood to refer to the reversed polarity path as the MOSFET diode (62) enables discharging of the capacitor bank when the polarity is flipped and allows current flow through the negative terminal. As the direction of current flow through the capacitor (C1) when the bi-directional switch gear (1) is activated is opposite to the direction of the LC oscillation loop, it is understood to teach a diode that enables current flow about a second direction.), and blocks current flow about the third path through the one or more capacitors in the first direction. (Examiner Note: Han discloses a polarity reversing unit comprising forms an LC oscillation loop with the charge element C1, the unidirectional semiconductor element D3, the current storage element L2. As the LC oscillation loop flows in the reverse current direction, the diode (D3) is understood to block flow in the first direction and allow current flow in the second direction across the charge element C1. Accordingly, Han is understood to disclose a diode (D3) in series with a capacitor (C1) along a third path coupled to power supply (LC oscillation loop, Fig. 21) that allows current flow in the reversed polarity direction and thus understood to disclose this limitation.)
Han does not disclose a first diode coupled in series with the one or more capacitors, series-coupled first diode and one or more capacitors configured to provide current flow about a second path between the first and second wiring harness sections, wherein when the switch is in the off state the first diode enables current flow about the second path through the one or more capacitors in a first direction, and blocks current flow about the second path through the one or more capacitors in a second direction opposite the first direction. (Examiner Note: While Han discloses an energy transfer unit that provides a charge/discharge path for the capacitors along diodes, it performs the charging step when the switch is coupled to power supply and thus does not disclose this limitation.)
However, Phadke teaches a first diode [Diode D2, Fig. 2, paras. 36-37, 48] coupled in series with the one or more capacitors [Capacitors C1 & C3, Fig. 2], series-coupled first diode and one or more capacitors configured to provide current flow about a second path between the first and second wiring harness sections [Path 210-215-220-205, Fig. 2] (Examiner Note: Phadke is understood to teach a second path as the path 210-205 is an additional circuit path that is coupled between the load and power supply.), wherein when the switch is in the off state the first diode enables current flow about the second path [Power switch Q1, Fig. 2, para. 44] (Examiner Note: Phadke teaches that when the power switch Q1 is turned off, leakage inductance is transferred through the diode D2 to the series connection of the snubber capacitors (C1, C3). As the power switch is off, and allows the current to flow about a path different than the first path, it is understood to teach this limitation.) through the one or more capacitors in a first direction [Direction 210, Fig. 2] (Examiner Note: As the first direction is understood to be the same direction as the current flow when power is on, Phadke is understood to teach this limitation as the diode D2 allows current to flow in the direction 210 which is the same direction as the current flow from the power source to the transformer.), and blocks current flow about the second path through the one or more capacitors in a second direction opposite the first direction [Para. 48] (Examiner Note: Forward-biased diodes inherently block current flow about the opposite direction, and as the diode is positioned in the first direction, it will necessarily block current flow to at least one of the capacitors in the opposite direction. Furthermore, Phadke specifically teaches that once the energy is transferred to the snubber capacitors (C1, C3) they may be disconnected from the transformer as the diode D2 blocks discharge of the stored energy, and thus understood to teach blocking a path opposite to the first direction.)
Phadke is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to power control circuits, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Han with the teachings of Phadke in order to provide recovery of leakage inductance when power is no longer supplied to the load. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Phadke could be combined with Han because they both relate to power control circuits with DC power supply. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Phadke because the snubber circuit provides recovery of leakage inductance, which protects damage of circuit elements and reduces resonance in the system. Phadke provides further motivation as it teaches that in comparison to traditional flyback converter designs, “[t]he enclosed embodiments also allow for high frequency operation, e.g., frequencies in excess of 500 kHz, while simultaneously achieving significant efficiency improvements. This may help to reduce the size of a power converter and thus assist in achieving ultra-compact designs for future power adapters.” (Para. 26) Accordingly Claim 1 is rejected as obvious over Han in view of Phadke.
Regarding Claim 11, Han discloses A heater control unit for coupling an exhaust aftertreatment system heater to a power supply (Examiner Note: As discussed above, the preamble is considered intended use and thus not considered for patentability.), comprising:
a control input [Controller 100, Fig. 21] configured to receive a control signal;
a first polarity supply terminal [Circuit connected at Positive terminal of Battery 5, Fig. 21] configured to be coupled to a first polarity terminal of the power supply [Positive terminal of Battery 5, Fig. 21] (Examiner Note: As a terminal is construed as any electrical connection between components, the control circuit of Han is connected to the negative terminal of the power source (battery 5) and thus discloses a first polarity terminal configured for coupling with the power supply.);
a second polarity supply terminal [Circuit connected at Negative terminal of Battery 5, Fig. 21] configured to be coupled to a second polarity terminal of the power supply [Negative terminal of Battery 5, Fig. 21] (Examiner Note: As a terminal is construed as any electrical connection between components, the control circuit of Han is connected to the negative terminal of the power source (battery 5) and thus discloses a second polarity terminal configured for coupling with the power supply.) ;
a switched power output terminal [Circuit connected at the Load (6)] configured to be coupled to a first terminal of the heater [Terminal of Load 6, Fig. 21] (Examiner Note: As the switched output terminal is understood as the coupling of the control circuit to the external load as this path provides current flow to the heater when the switch is closed, Han is understood to disclose a switched power output terminal.);
a switch [Switch 1, Fig. 21] coupled to the control input [Coupled to Controller 100, Fig. 21] and switchable between on and off states, wherein the switch is configured to control current flow about a first path [Path from Battery 5 to Load 6, Fig. 21] between the first polarity supply terminal and the switched power output terminal, and enables current flow about the first path when in the on state (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Han discloses a first path that allows current to flow about a path coupled between the power supply and heater (i.e. the inductive load). As the coupling of the load (6) to the circuit is along the first path, the first path is between the first polarity terminal and switched output terminal.);
one or more capacitors [Capacitor C1, Fig. 21];
a second diode [D3, Figs. 9, 21, paras. 46-47] including an anode and a cathode coupled in series with the one or more capacitors [C1, Fig. 21] (Examiner Note: As Han discloses a simple diode in series with a capacitor, the anode and cathode of the diode are necessarily in series and thus the anode and cathode are in series with the capacitor as well.), the series-coupled second diode and one or more capacitors defining a third path [LC Oscillation loop of Fig. 21] including the one or more capacitors between the first polarity supply terminal [Circuit connected at Positive terminal of Battery 5, Fig. 21] and the second polarity supply terminal [Circuit connected at Negative terminal of Battery 5, Fig. 21] (Examiner Note: As the first and second polarity terminals are understood as the connection points between the circuit and the positive and negative terminals of the battery (5), Han discloses a path between these terminals, as the entirety of the circuit (and thus any current path) is disposed between the terminal of the power supply in a closed loop.), wherein when the switch is in the off state the second diode enables current flow about the third path [LC Oscillation loop of Fig. 21] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Han is understood to disclose a third path as the reverse polarity unit (C1, D3, L2 & K9, Figs. 9, 21) creates an additional path coupled to power supply and allows current flow across the capacitor.) in the second direction through the one or more capacitors, and blocks current flow about the third path in the first direction through the one or more capacitors. (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Han is understood to disclose diode allowing current in a second direction, and blocking in the first direction, as Han discloses a forward biased diode that is oriented in the direction opposite to the current flow when the switch is on, and thus configured to allow current flow in a direction opposite to the first direction.)
Han does not disclose a first diode including an anode and a cathode coupled in series with the one or more capacitors, the series-coupled first diode and one or more capacitors defining a second path including the one or more capacitors between the first polarity supply terminal and the switched power output terminal, wherein when the switch is in the off state the first diode enables current flow about the second path in a first direction through the one or more capacitors, and blocks current flow about the second path in a second direction opposite the first direction through the one or more capacitors. (Examiner Note: As discussed in Claim 1 above, Han discloses additional paths with capacitors and diodes, and further discloses the first polarity supply and switched output terminals, but does not specifically disclose a diode that allows current flows along the second path in the first direction when the switch is opened.)
However, Phadke teaches a first diode [Diode D2, Fig. 2] including an anode and a cathode coupled in series with the one or more capacitors [Capacitors C1 & C3, Fig. 2] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Phadke discloses a simple diode in series with a capacitor, and thus, the anode and cathode of the diode are necessarily in series with each other and the capacitor as well), the series-coupled first diode and one or more capacitors defining a second path including the one or more capacitors between the first polarity supply terminal and the switched power output terminal, wherein when the switch is in the off state the first diode enables current flow about the second path [Path 210-215-220-205, Fig. 2] (Examiner Note: Phadke is understood to teach a second path as the path 210-205 is an additional circuit path that is coupled between the load and power supply. Phadke teaches that when the power switch Q1 is turned off, leakage inductance is transferred through the diode D2 to the series connection of the snubber capacitors (C1, C3). As the power switch is off, and allows the current to flow about a path different than the first path, it is understood to teach this limitation.) in a first direction [Direction 210, Fig. 2] (Examiner Note: As the first direction is understood to be the same direction as the current flow when power is on, Phadke is understood to teach this limitation as the diode D2 allows current to flow in the direction 210 which is the same direction as the current flow from the power source to the transformer.), through the one or more capacitors, and blocks current flow about the second path in a second direction opposite the first direction through the one or more capacitors. [Para. 48] (Examiner Note: Forward-biased diodes inherently block current flow about the opposite direction, and as the diode is positioned in the first direction, it will necessarily block current flow to at least one of the capacitors in the opposite direction. Furthermore, Phadke specifically teaches that once the energy is transferred to the snubber capacitors (C1, C3) they may be disconnected from the transformer as the diode D2 blocks discharge of the stored energy and thus understood to teach blocking a path opposite to the first direction.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Han with the teachings of Phadke in order to provide recovery of leakage inductance when power is no longer supplied to the load. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Phadke could be combined with Han because they both relate to power control circuits with DC power supply. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Phadke because the snubber circuit provides recovery of leakage inductance, which protects damage of circuit elements and reduces resonance in the system. Phadke provides further motivation as it teaches that in comparison to traditional flyback converter designs, “[t]he enclosed embodiments also allow for high frequency operation, e.g., frequencies in excess of 500 kHz, while simultaneously achieving significant efficiency improvements. This may help to reduce the size of a power converter and thus assist in achieving ultra-compact designs for future power adapters.” (Para. 26) Accordingly Claim 11 is rejected as obvious over Han in view of Phadke.
Regarding Claim 12, Han in view of Phadke discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11. Hans further discloses wherein:
the first polarity supply terminal [Circuit connected at Positive terminal of Battery 5, Fig. 21] is a positive supply terminal configured to be coupled to a positive terminal of the power supply (Examiner Note: As discussed above, the first polarity terminal is coupled to the positive terminal of the battery (5), and thus discloses this limitation.);
the second polarity supply terminal [Circuit connected at Negative terminal of Battery 5, Fig. 21] is a negative supply terminal configured to be coupled to a negative terminal of the power supply (Examiner Note: As discussed above, the second polarity terminal is coupled to the negative terminal of the battery (5), and thus discloses this limitation.);
the one or more capacitors [Capacitor C1, Fig. 21] each include a first terminal coupled to the positive supply terminal, and a second terminal (Examiner Note: Hans discloses a capacitor (C1) that is coupled to the positive supply through the circuit of Fig. 21, and thus understood to disclose this limitation.);
the second diode [Diode D3, Fig. 21] includes an anode coupled to the negative supply terminal [Indirectly coupled to negative terminal of battery 5 through Circuit of Fig. 21] and a cathode coupled to second terminal of each of the one or more capacitors [Capacitor C1, Fig. 21]. (Examiner Note: As claimed, the claims do not require direct coupling of the anode/cathode to the terminals. Han discloses a diode coupled to a terminal of the capacitor (C1) and indirectly coupled to the negative supply terminal through the circuit of Fig. 21 and thus discloses this limitation. Furthermore, this limitation is understood to perform the current blocking function along the first direction provided by the diode (62), and as Hans discloses a diode performing current blocking along the first direction, it is understood to disclose this limitation.)
Han does not disclose the first diode includes an anode coupled to the second terminal of each of the one or more capacitors and a cathode coupled to the switched power output terminal
However, Phadke teaches the first diode [Diode D2, Fig. 2] includes an anode coupled to the second terminal of each of the one or more capacitors [Capacitor C3, Fig. 2] and a cathode coupled to the switched power output terminal (Examiner Note: Phadke discloses a diode (D2) with the anode coupled to the capacitor (C3) and indirectly coupled to the terminal to load (Vout understood as the switched output terminal) and thus discloses this limitation. Furthermore, this limitation is understood to provide the current blocking function along the second direction provided by the diode (52) during the first IOFF stage, and as the diode of Phadke performs current blocking in the second direction between the capacitor and output terminal, it is understood to teach this limitation.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Phadke with Han in order to provide bi-directional current blocking. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Phadke could be combined with Han because they both relate to power control circuits with DC power supply. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Phadke because the specific diode arrangement provides freewheeling diodes for redirecting transient current for both polarities, providing improved protection to the switching and semiconductor elements. Accordingly Claim 12 is rejected as obvious over Han in view of Phadke.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (EP 2804779) in view of Phadke (US 2016/0365801), and further in view of Kalnoskas (Power Electronic Tips NPL)
Regarding Claim 2, Han in view of Phadke discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Han in view of Phadke do not disclose wherein one or both of the first and second diodes comprise a MOSFET configured as a diode.
However, Kanoskas teaches wherein one or both of the first and second diodes comprise a MOSFET configured as a diode. [p. 1-2] (Examiner Note: Kanoskas teaches that for a battery charging circuit, a MOSFET can be configured as a diode rather than using a standard diode and has the advantage of functioning like an ideal diode, helping increase the efficiency and life of the battery.)
Kanoskas is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to semiconductor circuit components, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Kanoskas with Han in order to provide improved efficacy of diode biasing. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Kanoskas could be combined with Han with predictable results because they both relate to diode biasing/blocking components. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kanoskas because the MOSFET diode provides improved diode biasing characteristics in the charging circuit that reduces voltage drop across the diode, and improves the efficiency and life of the battery. Accordingly, Claim 2 is rejected as obvious over Han, in view of Phadke and Kanoskas.
Regarding Claim 13, Han in view of Phadke discloses all of the limitations of claim 11.
Han in view of Phadke do not disclose wherein one or both of the first and second diodes comprise a MOSFET configured as a diode.
However, Kanoskas teaches wherein one or both of the first and second diodes comprise a MOSFET configured as a diode. [p. 1-2] (Examiner Note: Kanoskas teaches that for a battery charging circuit, a MOSFET can be configured as a diode rather than using a standard diode and has the advantage of functioning like an ideal diode, helping increase the efficiency and life of the battery.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Kanoskas with Han in order to provide improved efficacy of diode biasing. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Kanoskas could be combined with Han with predictable results because they both relate to diode biasing/blocking components. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kanoskas because the MOSFET diode provides improved diode biasing characteristics in the charging circuit that reduces voltage drop across the diode, and improves the efficiency and life of the battery. Accordingly, Claim 13 is rejected as obvious over Han, in view of Phadke and Kanoskas.
Claims 3 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (EP 2804779) in view of Phadke (US 2016/0365801), and further in view of Tanigawa (US 6083369)
Regarding Claim 3, Han in view of Phadke discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Han and Phadke do not disclose wherein the one or more capacitors comprises a plurality of capacitors coupled in parallel.
However, Tanigawa teaches wherein the one or more capacitors comprises a plurality of capacitors coupled in parallel. [Capacitor Bank C1, Fig. 8, Col. 21 L 19-28] (Examiner Note: Tanigawa teaches a plurality of capacitors in parallel that form a capacitor bank for storing energy to be discharged in the heater and thus discloses this limitation.)
Tanigawa is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to power control circuits, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Tanigawa with Han in order to provide greater protection from inductive kickback. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Tanigawa could be combined with Han with predictable results because they both relate power circuits with capacitor banks. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Tanigawa because parallel capacitors provide increased capacitance with the same voltage as a larger capacitor, allowing for more charge to be stored, and thus providing greater protection from inductive kickback. Accordingly, Claim 4 is rejected as obvious over Han, in view of Phadke and Tanigawa.
Regarding Claim 14, Han in view of Phadke discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11. Han and Phadke do not disclose wherein the one or more capacitors comprises a plurality of capacitors coupled in parallel.
However, Tanigawa teaches wherein the one or more capacitors comprises a plurality of capacitors coupled in parallel. [Capacitor Bank C1, Fig. 8, Col. 21 L 19-28] (Examiner Note: Tanigawa teaches a plurality of capacitors in parallel that form a capacitor bank for storing energy to be discharged in the heater and thus discloses this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teachings of Tanigawa with Han in order to provide greater protection from inductive kickback. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Tanigawa could be combined with Han with predictable results because they both relate power circuits with capacitor banks. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Tanigawa because parallel capacitors provide increased capacitance with the same voltage as a larger capacitor, allowing for more charge to be stored, and thus providing greater protection from inductive kickback. Accordingly, Claim 14 is rejected as obvious over Han, in view of Phadke and Tanigawa.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. in view of Phadke, and further in view of Hashimoto (US 2015/0218995)
Regarding Claim 4, Han in view of Phadke discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Han and Phadke do not disclose wherein the switch comprises a plurality of discrete switches responsive to the control signal and coupled in parallel.
However, Hashimoto teaches wherein the switch comprises a plurality of discrete switches [Relays R1 & R2, Fig. 1] responsive to the control signal and coupled in parallel. [Paras. 72-75] (Examiner Note: Hashimoto discloses a plurality of electrical heating control (EHC) relays (R1, R2) responsive to a control signal from the ECU (Electrical control unit 200) that controls supplying electrical power to the EHC.)
Hashimoto is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to power control circuits, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Han with the parallel relay switches of Hashimoto in order to provide an economical configuration for parallel “OR” logic control of power supply. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Hashimoto could be combined with Han with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to electrical power supply circuits. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Hashimoto because Hashimoto teaches that the parallel relays provides a “relatively simple and inexpensive configuration,” for switching electric power and further provides advanced “OR” logic control of power supply. (Para. 75) Accordingly, Claim 4 is rejected as obvious over Han in view of Phadke and Hashimoto.
Regarding Claim 15, Han in view of Phadke discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11.
Han and Phadke do not disclose wherein the switch comprises a plurality of discrete switches responsive to the control signal and coupled in parallel.
However, Hashimoto teaches wherein the switch comprises a plurality of discrete switches [Relays R1 & R2, Fig. 1] responsive to the control signal and coupled in parallel. [Paras. 72-75] (Examiner Note: Hashimoto discloses a plurality of electrical heating control (EHC) relays (R1, R2) responsive to a control signal from the ECU (Electrical control unit 200) that controls supplying electrical power to the EHC.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Han with the parallel relay switches of Hashimoto in order to provide an economical configuration for parallel “OR” logic control of power supply. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Hashimoto could be combined with Han with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to electrical power supply circuits. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Hashimoto because Hashimoto teaches that the parallel relays provide a “relatively simple and inexpensive configuration,” for switching electric power and further provides advanced “OR” logic control of power supply. (Para. 75) Accordingly, Claim 15 is rejected as obvious over Han in view of Phadke and Hashimoto.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. in view of Phadke and Zhang (US 10,027,223)
Regarding Claim 5, Han in view of Phadke discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Han and Phadke do not disclose the series-coupled first diode and one or more capacitors are coupled in parallel with the switch, and the first and second paths include parallel paths between the first and second wiring harness section (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(b) rejection above, this limitation is construed as the second and third circuit paths coupled to the MOSFET diodes (52, 62) during IOFF.)
However, Zhang teaches the series-coupled first diode [Diode D, Fig. 15] and one or more capacitors [Capacitor C1, Fig. 15] are coupled in parallel with the switch [Switch Q1, Fig. 15], and the first and second paths include parallel paths between the first and second wiring harness section. [Fig. 15, Col. 14. L 13-19] ( Zhang teaches “a diode D and capacitor C1 are in parallel with inductor L1, … [that] provides a second circuit path, in parallel to the first circuit path between the first terminal and the second terminal, to charge the output capacitor,” and thus understood to teach this limitation.)
Zhang is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to capacitive charging circuits, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Han with the teachings of Zhang to provide capacitor charging while disconnected from the power supply. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Zhang could be incorporated with Han with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to capacitive charging circuit components. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to provide parallel current paths for leakage inductance to travel the capacitors. Furthermore, the parallel charging paths provide a path for the load to travel without kicking back and causing damage to switching and semiconductor components. Accordingly, Claim 5 is rejected as obvious over Han in view of Phadke and Zhang.
Regarding Claim 16, Han in view of Phadke discloses all the limitations of Claim 11.
Han and Phadke do not disclose wherein the series-coupled first diode and one or more capacitors are coupled in parallel with the switch, and the first and second paths include parallel paths between the first polarity supply terminal and the switched power output terminal.
However, Zhang teaches the series-coupled first diode [Diode D, Fig. 15] and one or more capacitors [Capacitor C1, Fig. 15] are coupled in parallel with the switch [Switch Q1, Fig. 15], and the first and second paths include parallel paths between the first polarity supply terminal and the switched power output terminal. [Fig. 15, Col. 14. L 13-19] ( Zhang teaches “a diode D and capacitor C1 are in parallel with inductor L1, … [that] provides a second circuit path, in parallel to the first circuit path between the first terminal and the second terminal, to charge the output capacitor,” and thus understood to teach this limitation.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Han with the teachings of Zhang to provide capacitor charging while disconnected from the power supply. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Zhang could be incorporated with Han with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to capacitive charging circuit components. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Zhang to provide parallel current paths for leakage inductance to travel the capacitors. Furthermore, the parallel charging paths provide a path for the load to travel without kicking back and causing damage to switching and semiconductor components. Accordingly, Claim 16 is rejected as obvious over Han in view of Phadke and Zhang.
Claims 6-10, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (EP 2804779) in view of Phadke and Gonze (US 2013/0291515)
Regarding Claim 6, Han in view of Phadke discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Han and Phadke do not disclose a wiring harness to couple the heater control unit to the exhaust aftertreatment system heater and power supply, wherein the wiring harness includes: the first wiring harness section to couple the switch and the one or more capacitors to a first polarity terminal of the power supply; the second wiring harness section to couple the switch and the first diode to a first terminal of the heater; and the third section to couple the second diode to a second polarity terminal of the power supply. (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(b) rejection above, the parenthetical information has been removed for clarity. While Han and Phadke both relate to power management circuits controlling an inductive load with the first and second diodes, a capacitor and a switch, they do not specifically disclose the configuration of the wiring harnesses with the exhaust aftertreatment heater as claimed.)
However, Gonze teaches a wiring harness (Examiner Note: As Han in view of Phadke discloses all of the claimed circuit elements, the claims are understood to merely require a wiring harness connecting the control circuit (50) to the claimed terminals below.) to couple the heater control unit [Control circuit 50, Fig. 1] to the exhaust aftertreatment system heater [Heater 52, Fig. 1] and power supply [Primary Power 42, Fig. 1], wherein the wiring harness includes:
the first wiring harness section [Wiring from Circuit 50 to power 42, Fig. 1] to couple the switch and the one or more capacitors to a first polarity terminal [DC +12 of Power Supply 42, Fig. 2] of the power supply [Paras. 20-26] (Examiner Note: Gonze teaches a wiring harness between the control circuit (50) and the power supply and thus teaches the first wiring harness.);
the second wiring harness section [Wiring from Control circuit 50 to Heater 52, Fig. 1] to couple the switch and the first diode to a first terminal of the heater (Examiner Note: Gonze teaches the “electrical heater 52 is selectively connected to the secondary energy storage devices 44 by the circuit 50,” and thus understood to teach this limitation. (Para. 24) Gonze teaches a second wiring harness connecting the circuit (50) to the heater and thus teaches this limitation.); and
the third section [Wiring from Control circuit 50 to negative terminal of Power supply 42, Fig. 1] to couple the second diode to a second polarity terminal of the power supply. [Paras. 20-26] (Examiner Note: Gonze teaches an exhaust aftertreatment system where the, “secondary energy storage devices 44 are selectively connected to the primary energy storage device 42 and the vehicle generator 46 through a circuit 50.” (Para. 20) As the secondary energy devices (capacitors 44, Fig. 2) has a wiring harness coupled to the negative terminal of the primary energy device, and part of the circuit 50, it is understood to teach the third wiring harness connecting the circuit 50 to the negative terminal.)
Gonze is in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to power control circuits, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the circuit of Han with the teachings of Gonze in order to configure the control circuit for parallel DC operation. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Gonze could be combined with Han with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to heating control circuits. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Gonze in order to configure the power supply circuit of Han for parallel DC operation with multiple power sources and the inductive load. Accordingly, Claim 6 is rejected as obvious over Han in view of Phadke and Gonze.
Regarding Claim 7, Han in view of Phadke and Gonze discloses all the limitations of Claim 6. Gonze further teaches wherein each of one or more of the first, second and third wiring harness sections is defined by an inductance (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(b) rejection above, the parenthetical information is ignored, so the claims merely require the wiring harness is defined by any inductance, without any specified range or criteria. Accordingly, this limitation is inherently met as all electrical components have an inductance, and thus all can be defined by an inductance value. As Gonze teaches a wiring harness, which all can be defined by an inductance, it teaches this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 8, Han in view of Phadke and Gonze discloses all the limitations of Claim 6. Gonze further teaches the exhaust aftertreatment heater [Heater 52, Fig. 1] and the power supply [Power supply 42, Fig. 1] coupled to the heater control unit [Circuit 50, Fig. 1] by the first [Wiring from Circuit 50 to power 42, Fig. 1], second [Wiring from Control circuit 50 to Heater 52, Fig. 1] and third [Wiring from Control circuit 50 to negative terminal of Power supply 42, Fig. 1] wiring harness sections. [Paras. 20-26] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Gonze teaches a first, second and third wiring harness coupling the HCU (control circuit 50) to the heater (52) and power supply (42).)
Regarding Claim 9, Han in view of Phadke and Gonze discloses all of the limitations of Claim 8. Gonze further teaches wherein the wiring harness further includes a wiring harness section to couple the second polarity terminal of the power supply to a second terminal of the heater. [Para. 24] (Examiner Note: Gonze teaches a control circuit (50) that is coupled to the positive and negative terminals of the heater, secondary power supply and primary power supply, but does not specifically disclose a distinct 4th wiring harness)
Han, Phadke and Gonze do not disclose wherein the wiring harness further includes a fourth wiring harness.
However, under MPEP 2144.VI-B, the duplication of parts is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results, and therefore the claimed limitation is obvious.
It would have been obvious to modify the wiring harness disclosed by Gonze such that there is a fourth wiring harness directly coupling the negative terminal of the heater to the negative terminal of the power supply because duplication of parts is an obvious matter of design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that an additional wiring harness provides any unexpected results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a fourth wiring harness section would function the same as 3 wiring harnesses for providing a path for current flow, and that various wiring harness arrangements are common in the art. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a fourth wiring harness section directly linking the negative terminals of the heater and power supply to work equally as well as the wiring harness disclosed in the prior art, and thus this limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Accordingly, Claim 9 is rejected as obvious over Han in view of Phadke and Gonze.
Regarding Claim 10, Han in view of Phadke and Gonze discloses all of the limitations of Claim 8. Gonze further teaches, the fourth wiring harness section is defined by an inductance (Examiner Note: As discussed above, this limitation is inherently met as all electrical components can be defined by an inductance generally.)
Regarding Claim 17, Han in view of Phadke discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11.
Han and Phadke do not disclose a wiring harness to couple the heater control unit to the exhaust aftertreatment system heater and power supply, wherein the wiring harness includes: a first wiring harness section to couple the first polarity supply terminal to a first polarity terminal of the power supply; a second wiring harness section to couple the switched power output terminal to a first terminal of the heater; and a third section to couple the second polarity supply terminal to a second polarity terminal of the power supply.
However, Gonze teaches a wiring harness to couple the heater control unit to the exhaust aftertreatment system heater and power supply, wherein the wiring harness includes:
a first wiring harness section [Wiring from Circuit 50 to power 42, Fig. 1] to couple the first polarity supply terminal to a first polarity terminal of the power supply [Paras. 20-26] (Examiner Note: As discussed in Claim 6 above, Gonze teaches a wiring harness between the control circuit (50) and the power supply and thus teaches the first wiring harness.);
a second wiring harness section [Wiring from Control circuit 50 to Heater 52, Fig. 1] to couple the switched power output terminal to a first terminal of the heater (Examiner Note: As discussed in Claim 6 above, Gonze teaches the “electrical heater 52 is selectively connected to the secondary energy storage devices 44 by the circuit 50,” and thus understood to teach this limitation. (Para. 24) Gonze teaches a second wiring harness connecting the circuit (50) to the heater and thus teaches this limitation.); and
a third section [Wiring from Control circuit 50 to negative terminal of Power supply 42, Fig. 1] to couple the second polarity supply terminal to a second polarity terminal of the power supply [Paras. 20-26] (Examiner Note: Gonze teaches an exhaust aftertreatment system where the, “secondary energy storage devices 44 are selectively connected to the primary energy storage device 42 and the vehicle generator 46 through a circuit 50.” (Para. 20) As the secondary energy devices (capacitors 44, Fig. 2) has a wiring harness coupled to the negative terminal of the primary energy device, and part of the circuit 50, it is understood to teach the third wiring harness connecting the circuit 50 to the negative terminal.).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the circuit of Han with the teachings of Gonze in order to configure the control circuit for parallel DC operation. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Gonze could be combined with Han with a reasonable expectation of success as they both relate to heating control circuits. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Gonze in order to configure the power supply circuit of Han for parallel DC operation with multiple power sources and the inductive load. Accordingly, Claim 17 is rejected as obvious over Han in view of Phadke and Gonze.
Regarding Claim 18, Han in view of Phadke and Gonze discloses all of the limitations of Claim 17. Gonze further teaches, wherein each of one or more of the first, second and third wiring harness sections is defined by an inductance. (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(b) rejection above, the parenthetical information is ignored, so the claims merely require the wiring harness is defined by any inductance, without any specified range or criteria. Accordingly, this limitation is inherently met as all electrical components have an inductance, and thus all can be defined by an inductance value. As Gonze teaches a wiring harness, which all can be defined by an inductance, it teaches this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 19, Han in view of Phadke and Gonze discloses all of the limitations of Claim 17. Gonze further teaches the exhaust aftertreatment heater [Heater 52, Fig. 1] and the power supply [Power supply 42, Fig. 1] coupled to the heater control unit [Circuit 50, Fig. 1] by the first [Wiring from Circuit 50 to power 42, Fig. 1], second [Wiring from Control circuit 50 to Heater 52, Fig. 1] and third [Wiring from Control circuit 50 to negative terminal of Power supply 42, Fig. 1] wiring harness sections. [Paras. 20-26] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Gonze teaches a first, second and third wiring harness coupling the HCU (control circuit 50) to the heater (52) and power supply (42).)
Regarding Claim 20, Han in view of Phadke and Gonze discloses all of the limitations of Claim 19. Gonze further teaches wherein the wiring harness further includes a wiring harness section to couple the second polarity terminal of the power supply to a second terminal of the heater.
Han, Phadke and Gonze do not disclose wherein the wiring harness further includes a fourth wiring harness.
However, under MPEP 2144.VI-B, the duplication of parts is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results, and therefore the claimed limitation is obvious.
It would have been obvious to modify the wiring harness disclosed by Gonze such that there is a fourth wiring harness directly coupling the negative terminal of the heater to the negative terminal of the power supply because duplication of parts is an obvious matter of design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that an additional wiring harness provides any unexpected results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a fourth wiring harness section would function the same as 3 wiring harnesses for providing a path for current flow, and that various wiring harness arrangements are common in the art. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a fourth wiring harness section directly linking the negative terminals of the heater and power supply to work equally as well as the wiring harness disclosed in the prior art, and thus this limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Accordingly, Claim 20 is rejected as obvious over Han in view of Phadke and Gonze.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm.
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.
/J.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights