Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 7/28/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-16 are pending.
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.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “deactivating the electrical control component by disengaging the electrical control component”. In light of Applicant’s Specification, this is being interpreted as being performed by a human (see paragraphs [0084]-[0087] and [0114] of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0326258, corresponding to Applicant’s Specification as filed). Therefore, the Specification does not support the deactivating and disengaging being performed by program code run on an electronic control unit, as recited in Claim 15, or by an electronic control unit, as recited in Claim 16.
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedouet (EP 0665479 A1, previously cited in Final Rejection dated 11/19/2025) in view of Kuze (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0181255) and Steinigke (WO-0038395-A1, previously cited in NFOA dated 7/23/2025).
Regarding Claim 1, Bedouet teaches a method to determine a state of health of an electrical control component of a vehicle (Figs. 1A and 2A-B; paragraphs [0029]-[0030], fault detection; paragraph [0002], aircraft is equated to vehicle), the method comprising the steps of: activating the electrical control component to actuate a component of the vehicle, the electrical control component comprising at least two electrical contacts, the at least two electrical contacts being configured to be in a closed status based on the electrical control component being activated, or in an open status based on the electrical control component not being activated (Fig. 2B; paragraphs [0029]-[0030]); see also Fig. 1A and paragraphs [0010]-[0012], in parallel switch configuration, both switches S1 and S2 can be closed when powering the load), the electrical control component further comprising at least one sensor configured to determine if a status of the at least two electrical contacts is the open status or the closed status (simple switch Fig. 2A, which includes sensors to perform fault detection, is used in composite switch of Fig. 2B, see paragraphs [0022]-[0028]), the electrical control component being considered to indicate a decrease in a first state of health of the electrical control component (paragraph [0030], fault detection) based on the status of one of the at least two electrical contacts being the closed status and the status of another one of the at least two electrical contacts being the open status (paragraph [0030], “…in the case where we are sure that a load is connected, if one of the switches is opened unexpectedly, the measured current becomes zero, which also triggers a fault detection”, it is noted that this may be the case in a configuration where both switches were closed to power the load, see paragraphs [0011] and [0030]), determining a decrease in the first state of health of the electrical control component (paragraph [0030], fault detection), via the at least one sensor, based on the status of one of the at least two electrical contacts being closed and another one of the at least two electrical contacts being open (paragraph [0030], “…in the case where we are sure that a load is connected, if one of the switches is opened unexpectedly, the measured current becomes zero, which also triggers a fault detection”, it is noted that this may be the case in a configuration where both switches were closed to power the load, see paragraphs [0011] and [0030]); wherein the electrical control component is in a degraded state as indicated by the first state health being reduced such that one electrical contact opens and the other electrical contact remains closed (paragraph [0030], “…in the case where we are sure that a load is connected, if one of the switches is opened unexpectedly, the measured current becomes zero, which also triggers a fault detection”, it is noted that this may be the case in a configuration where both switches were closed to power the load, see paragraphs [0011] and [0030]); performing a function of the vehicle from activating the electrical control component after the first state of health is reduced by the one electrical contact being open and the other electrical contact being closed (Figs 1A and 2B, in the parallel configuration, when one switch is opened and the other is closed, the load is still powered); and deactivating the electrical control component by disengaging the electrical control component (paragraphs [0021]-[0022], replace the composite switch based on fault detection).
Bedouet does not specifically teach that the state of health is logged by a first counter; incrementing a value of the first counter, each time the decrease in the first state of health of the electrical control component is determined; and determining the first state of health of the electrical control component based on the value of the first counter. However, Kuze teaches that the state of health is logged by a first counter; incrementing the value of the first counter, each time the decrease in the first state of health of the electrical control component is determined; determining the first state of health of the electrical control component based on the value of the first counter (paragraphs [0072] and [0074], disconnection abnormality, e.g., that a contact is broken, see paragraph [0047], which is equated to a first state of health, is determined based on the provisional abnormality counter being higher than a threshold). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a counter, such as is taught in Kuze, to count fault detections in the system of Bedouet, in order to accurately detect abnormalities that occur in a switch (see Kuze, paragraph [0006]).
Bedouet in view of Kuze does not specifically teach comparing the first state of health with a pre-warning threshold to obtain a first comparison result; and triggering a first level action, the step of triggering the first level action being conditioned by the first comparison result. However, Bedouet in view of Kuze does teach comparing the first state of health to a threshold (paragraphs [0072] and [0074], when provisional abnormality counter, which is equated to first state of health, becomes predetermined number, disconnect has occurred). Further, Steinigke teaches comparing the first state of health with a pre-warning threshold to obtain a first comparison result (first threshold count value, Abstract); and triggering a first level action, the step of triggering the first level action being conditioned by the first comparison result (Abstract, preventative alarm signal). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the first threshold count value and the preventative alarm signal of Steinigke in the system of Bedouet and Kuze, in order to detect errors, and to give a warning in a simple manner (see Steinigke, Abstract and 5th full paragraph on page 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Bedouet in view of Kuze and Steinigke teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to claim 1. Bedouet does not specifically teach wherein the steps are repeated at successive instants of time during a period of time, and wherein the first state of health is based on the value of the first counter and on a duration of the period of time. However, Kuze teaches wherein the steps are repeated at successive instants of time during a period of time, and wherein the first state of health is based on the value of the first counter and on a duration of the period of time (Figs. 14-22 are repeated throughout operation of the system; also paragraph [0068], predetermined time equated to duration of the period of time). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a counter over time, such as is taught in Kuze, to count fault detections in the system of Bedouet, in order to accurately detect abnormalities that occur in a switch (see Kuze, paragraph [0006]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedouet in view of Kuze and Steinigke, in further view of Zhou (CN-104345270-A).
Regarding Claim 3, Bedouet in view of Kuze and Steinigke teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to claim 1. Bedouet does not specifically teach wherein the at least one sensor is further configured to measure a resistance of the at least two electrical contacts, the method being further characterized by further steps of: measuring, via the at least one sensor, the resistance of the at least two electrical contacts, at successive instants of time; determining an evolution over time of the resistance measured; and determining a second state of health of the electrical control component based on the evolution over time of the resistance measured. However, Bedouet does teach at least two contacts (Fig. 2B, two switches). Further, Zhou teaches wherein the at least one sensor is further configured to measure a resistance an electrical contact (Abstract, measuring and analysis unit measure contact resistance), the method being further characterized by further steps of: measuring, via the at least one sensor, the resistance of an electrical contact, at successive instants of time (Abstract, contact resistance and change trend are measured); determining an evolution over time of the resistance measured (Abstract, contact resistance and change trend are measured) and; determining a second state of health of the electrical control component based on the evolution over time of the resistance measured (criterion including contact resistance are used to analyze the judging health state of the switch). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the contact resistance measurement of Zhou to determine the health state of the at least two contacts of Bedouet, because contact oxidation can cause increased contact resistance over time and cause health hazards in a switch (see Zhou, paragraphs [0002]-[0004]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedouet in view of Kuze and Steinigke, in further view of Zhou, and Lei (CN212779911-U)
Regarding Claim 4, Bedouet in view of Kuze, Steinigke, and Zhou teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to claim 3. Bedouet does not specifically teach wherein at least one sensor is further configured to measure a strength applied by a user on the electrical control component to activate the electrical control component, the method being further characterized by further steps of: measuring, via the at least one sensor, the strength applied by the user on the electrical control component to activate the control component at a number of successive instants of time; and determining a third state of health of the electrical control component based on the strength measured at successive instants of time. However, Lei teaches wherein at least one sensor is further configured to measure a strength applied by a user on the electrical control component to activate the electrical control component (force value detector 52), the method being further characterized by further steps of: measuring, via the at least one sensor, the strength applied by the user on the electrical control component to activate the electrical control component at a number of successive instants of time (force value detector 52); and determining a third state of health of the electrical control component based on the strength measured at successive instants of time (Abstract, switch life tester presses switch and displays problem of the switch through the test data, also paragraph that spans pages 5-6, analysis system 3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a force value detector such as is taught in Lei for detecting a force applied to the switch in the system of Bedouet, in order to accurately display the problem of the switch through the test data (see Lei, abstract).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedouet in view of Kuze and Steinigke, in further view of Zhou, Lei , and Toutaoui (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0052747).
Regarding Claim 5, Bedouet in view of Kuze, Steinigke, Zhou, and Lei teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to claim 4. Bedouet does not specifically teach wherein the at least one sensor is further configured to determine whether the electrical control component is activated, the method being further characterized by further steps of determining, via the at least one sensor, that the electrical control component is activated; incrementing a value of a second counter; and determining a fourth state of health of the electrical control component based on the value of the second counter. However, Toutaoui teaches wherein the at least one sensor is further configured to determine whether the electrical control component is activated, the method being further characterized by further steps of: determining, via the at least one sensor, that the electrical control component is activated (paragraph [0018], detection of a user pressing a button); incrementing a value of a second counter (paragraph [0018], increment counter associated with button); determining a fourth state of health of the electrical control component based on the value of the second counter (paragraph [0019], monitoring for preventative maintenance based on counter value). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the component activation detection taught in Toutaoui in the system of Bedouet, in order to provide preventative maintenance (see Toutaoui, paragraph [0019]).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedouet in view of Kuze and Steinigke, in further view of Gajanayake et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0166211, hereinafter “Gajanayake”).
Regarding Claim 15, Bedouet in view of Kuze and Steinigke teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to claim 1. Bedouet further teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium carrying a computer program comprising program code for performing the steps of claim 1 when said program code is run on an electronic control unit (paragraphs [0023] and [0045], computer), except for “deactivating the electrical control component by disengaging the electrical control component”. However, Gajanayake teaches, in paragraphs [0060]-[0061], a controller including a computer readable medium (paragraph [0116]) that deactivates a switch in response to identifying a failure in a switch. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the fail-safe techniques described in Gajanayake in the system of Bedouet, in order to prevent problems when a switch cannot deactivate (see Gajanayake, paragraph [0061]).
Regarding Claim 16, Bedouet in view of Kuze and Steinigke teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to claim 1. Bedouet further teaches electronic control unit for controlling a state of health of an electrical control component of a vehicle, the electronic control unit being configured to perform the steps of the method according to claim 1 (paragraphs [0023] and [0045], computer), except for “deactivating the electrical control component by disengaging the electrical control component”. However, Gajanayake teaches, in paragraphs [0060]-[0061], a controller (equated to the electronic control unit) that deactivates a switch in response to identifying a failure in a switch. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the fail-safe techniques described in Gajanayake in the system of Bedouet, in order to prevent problems when a switch cannot deactivate (see Gajanayake, paragraph [0061])..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8-13 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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112 rejections of Claims 15-16, Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks filed on 7/28/2026 that a computer readable medium and an ECU are supported by the Specification as filed, and therefore the rejections of Claims 15 and 16 should be withdrawn. The Examiner disagrees. While a computer readable medium and an ECU are themselves supported in the Specification, there does not appear to be support for either of a computer readable medium or an ECU performing “deactivating the electrical control component by disengaging the electrical control component”. In every embodiment, the disengaging of the switch is disclosed as being performed at the workshop (paragraph [0087] of the Specification as filed) or by scheduled maintenance or a repair that is ordered by a fleet manager (paragraph [0114] of the Specification as filed), e.g., by a human. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks that Claim 1 has been amended to include subject matter from allowable Claim 7. However, Claim 7 was indicated as allowable due to its dependence on Claim 6, which was not incorporated into Claim 1. New grounds of rejection are provided for amended Claim 1 above over the Steinigke reference, which was previously cited against Claim 7 before Claim 6 was amended to include allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571)272-6334. 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, cont/act 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights