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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: proper headings are not currently present.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
CLAIM 13:
In line 2, replace “electric load (L)” before “connecting” with --the device--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5-11, 13, 14, 19, and 20 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.
In re Claim 1, lines 7-9 recite “switching off the switch (S), when the output current (IA) exceeds an overcurrent threshold (IA_S) and/or a predetermined period of time (TD) has elapsed since performing the first switching-on of the switch (S)” and lines 14-19 recite “second switching-on of the switch (S), when the output voltage difference (ΔUA) is negative and has an absolute value which is less than an upper output voltage difference threshold (ΔUA S1), and/or the switch (S) was switched off after the predetermined period of time (TD) and the detected output current (IA) has not exceeded the overcurrent threshold (IAS) since the first switching-on at least until the switching-off”. Pages 17 and 18 of the instant specification describe the embodiment of Figures 6A and 6B as switching off the switch (S), when the output current (IA) exceeds an overcurrent threshold (IA_S) and second switching-on of the switch (S), when the output voltage difference (ΔUA) is negative and has an absolute value which is less than an upper output voltage difference threshold (ΔUA S1). Pages 20 and 21 of the instant specification describe the embodiment of Figures 7A and 7B as switching off the switch (S), when a predetermined period of time (TD) has elapsed since performing the first switching-on of the switch (S) and second switching on the switch, when the switch (S) was switched off after the predetermined period of time (TD) and the detected output current (IA) has not exceeded the overcurrent threshold (IAS) since the first switching-on at least until the switching-off.
Furthermore, Lines 15-16 on Page 20 of the specification describe the embodiment of 6A and 6B being replaced by the embodiment of 7A and 7B (i.e., that they are mutual exclusive) with no teaching of combining the aforementioned features. This inconsistency between the claims and the specification raises an issue of indefiniteness.
Claims 5-11 and 14 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
In re Claim 13, the same issue as discussed above appears in lines 11-13 and 17-22.
For the purpose of examination, claims 1 and 13 are interpreted as follows:
CLAIM 1:
In lines 8-9, delete “and/or a predetermined period of time (TD) has elapsed since performing the first switching-on of the switch (S)”.
In line 16-19, delete “and/or the switch (S) was switched off after the predetermined period of time (TD) and the detected output current (IA) has not exceeded the overcurrent threshold (IAS) since the first switching-on at least until the switching-off”.
CLAIM 13:
In lines 12-13, delete “and/or a predetermined period of time (TD) has elapsed since performing the first switching-on of the switch (S)”.
In lines 19-22, delete “and/or the switch (S) was switched off after the predetermined period of time (TD) and the detected output current (IA) has not exceeded the overcurrent threshold (IAS) since the first switching-on of the switch at least until the switching-off of the switch”.
In re Claim 19, line 3 recites “less than or equal to 100 microseconds, preferably less than or equal to 20 microseconds”. The “preferably” clause makes it unclear which range is intended to define the metes and bounds of the claim raising the issue of indefiniteness. For the purpose of examination claim 19 will be interpreted as follows: in line 3, delete “, preferably less than or equal to 20 microseconds”.
In re Claim 20, line 3 recites “threshold is equal to or less than 5 volts, preferably equal to or less than 3 volts”. The “preferably” clause makes it unclear which range is intended to define the metes and bounds of the claim raising the issue of indefiniteness. For the purpose of examination claim 20 will be interpreted as follows: in line 3, delete “, preferably equal to or less than 3 volts”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmitt (DE 10 2012 103 551 A1 w/ reference made to the submitted translation).
In re Claims 1, 13, and 14, Schmitt teaches a device for protecting an electrical load (7, paragraph 28) in the event of a short circuit of the load, the device connecting the load to and disconnecting it from an electrical power source (4, paragraph 28), the device comprising: a switch (8, paragraph 29) which, when switched on, connects the load to the electrical power source, a current sensor (12, paragraph 30) for detecting an output current of the switch, a voltage sensor (11, paragraph 30) for detecting an output voltage of the switch, and an electronic control device (10, paragraph 30) connected to the switch, the current sensor and the voltage sensor, wherein the electronic control device is configured to perform: first switching-on of the switch (paragraph 32) and afterwards a switching-off of the switch, when the output current exceeds an overcurrent threshold (paragraph 31), determining an output voltage difference of the output voltage between a predetermined first point in time (t0) and a predetermined second point in time (t4) after the first point in time (paragraph 35), and again switching on the switch, when the output voltage difference is negative and has an absolute value that is less than an upper output voltage difference threshold (paragraph 35).
In re Claim 10, Schmitt teaches the method is carried out at the beginning of switching on of the load at t1 (paragraph 32).
In re Claim 11, Schmitt teaches determining that the load is a capacitive load (paragraph 34).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt (DE 10 2012 103 551 A1 w/ reference made to the submitted translation).
In re Claim 6, Schmitt teaches the second point in time t4 is after the first point t0 as seen in Figure 2 and occurs after a current exceeds a threshold (paragraphs 34-35), but does not specifically teach that the second point in time occurs in the specific claimed range after the first as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second point in time occur in the claimed range after the first in the event that that is when a current event occurs, since it has been held that whenever the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re Claim 8, Schmitt fails to teach that the upper output voltage difference threshold is in the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the upper output voltage difference threshold as a value in the claimed range in order to best calibrate the short circuit condition based on the parameter of the capacitive load, since it has been held that whenever the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt (DE 10 2012 103 551 A1 w/ reference made to the submitted translation) in view of Volpone (EP 1 011 186 A2).
In re Claim 9, Schmitt does not specifically teach that the load is a vehicle load.
Volpone teaches that loads in a vehicle also require overcurrent protection (paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Schmitt to a load in a vehicle, since Volpone teaches that loads in a vehicle also require overcurrent protection.
Claim(s) 15-20 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volpone (EP 1 011 186 A2) in view of Hangwen (DE 10 2013 105 942 A1 w/ refence to the submitted translation).
In re Claims 15 and 25, Volpone teaches a method of protecting a plurality of electrical loads (22A-C, paragraph 7) connectable to an electrical power source (20) via respective switches (14A-C) in the event of a short circuit of at least one of the loads (22A-C, paragraph 7), wherein a sum of respective currents of the loads is detected as a summation current (Isum, paragraph 9), and wherein, when the summation current exceeds a predetermined summation current threshold, the switches are switched off (paragraph 11), the method comprising: after switching-off the switch due to the summation current exceeding the summation current threshold, for at least a first switch 14A among the switches determining if the individual first switch is experiencing a short circuit fault.
Volpone fails to teach the short circuit detection method as claimed.
Hangwen teaches detecting a fault in a capacitive load that comprises: detecting an output voltage of the first switch (28, paragraphs 7 and 26) during a predetermined detection period (from t2 to t3 as seen in Figure 2, paragraph 38) after the switching-off the first switch, if the output voltage during the predetermined detection period is or becomes less than a predetermined voltage threshold, maintaining the switch-off state of the first switch (paragraph 35), if the output voltage during the predetermined detection period is or becomes not less than the predetermined voltage threshold, switching on the first switch after expiry of the predetermined detection period (paragraphs 37-38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the short circuit fault detection method as taught by Hangwen with the teaching of Volpone since Hangwen teaches a method of detecting a short circuit in a load that is capacitive.
In re Claims 16 and 17, Volpone teaches that each other switch 14B and 14C is switched on individually and sequentially to determine if the current exceeds a threshold (paragraph 11).
In re Claim 18, upon modification, the second switch 14B would be turned on and checked for a fault after the first capacitive switch has been checked (i.e., after the predetermined detection period (t2 to t3 of Hangwen) has expired.
In re Claim 19, Hangwen does not specifically teach that the predetermined detection period is less than or equal to 100 microseconds.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the predetermined detection period to less than or equal to 100 microseconds in order to prevent the switch from remaining in an open state for an extended period while still allowing for short circuit detection, since it has been held that whenever the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re Claim 20, Hangwen does not specifically teach that the predetermined voltage threshold is less than or equal to 5 volts.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the predetermined voltage threshold to less than or equal to 5 volts in order to best apply to the specific application parameters (i.e., supply voltage level, capacitance of capacitive load), since it has been held that whenever the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In re Claim 5, Schmitt fails to teach that the first point in time is equal to the point in time of switching off the switch or a point in time after switching off the switch.
In re Claim 7, Schmitt fails to teach that the upper output voltage difference threshold is set as a function of the output voltage after the switching-off the switch.
In re Claim 21, Volpone as modified by Hangwen fails to teach storing fault information associated with the capacitive load.
In re Claim 22, Volpone as modified by Hangwen fails to teach storing fault information associated with the ohmic or inductive load.
In re Claim 23, Volpone as modified by Hangwen fails to teach storing in advance information about a respective type of the loads.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER JAY CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00am - 6:00pm EST.
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, Thienvu Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838