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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 21, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments, filed on January 21, 2026, have been received and made of record. In response to the most recent Office Action, dated October 29, 2025, claims 1-4 and 6-9 are pending, claims 1-4 and 6-8 have been amended, and claim 5 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed January 21, 206, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the amendments, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections have been made, and applicant’s arguments are rendered moot.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-15 of Applicant’s remarks, with respected to the rejection of independent claim 1 under U.S.C. §103, that prior art references, Aso (US 5268643, hereinafter Aso), in view of Karki (NPL: Fully differential amplifiers, Texas Instruments, 2005), and further in view of Kinoshita (JP H06263001 A, hereinafter Kinoshita), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, disclose, or suggest, individually or in combination, the amended limitations that include, “a current source circuit configured to provide a predetermined test current for testing the ignition resistor”, and “the first and second direct-current biasing circuits” as claimed.
New grounds of rejections are made over Aso, in view of Kinoshita. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s contentions that Aso, in view of Kinoshita, fail to teach, disclose, or suggest, individually or in combination, “a current source circuit configured to provide a predetermined test current for testing the ignition resistor”, and “the first and second direct-current biasing circuits” as claimed. Aso, in view of Kinoshita, further disclose the additional newly amended limitations, and upon further re-examination, “the first and second direct-current biasing circuits” as claimed, in amended independent claim 1, and meet these requirements.
Kinoshita further teaches “a current source circuit configured to provide a predetermined test current for testing the ignition resistor”, in paragraphs [0008] & [0012], further explained and discussed below. Aso in view of Kinoshita, further teach, in combination, “the first and second direct-current biasing circuits”, both prior art references provide direct connections to the different resistor structures, and they are further explained and discussed below under U.S.C. §103 Claim Rejections. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejections of amended independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2-4 & 6-9, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of independent claim 1, are respectively maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “a current source circuit configured to provide a predetermined test current…”, in line 3, and “the predetermined test current…” in ll. 5 & 26, without previous disclosure in the specification, drawings, or previous amendment. The specification discloses “a current source circuit for providing a test current”, Page 2, ll.13-14, but doesn’t mention “a/the predetermined test current”. Claims 2-4 & 6-9 are rejected by virtue of dependency to independent claim 1, which does not rectify the defect.
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 8-9 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "an ignition resistance test circuit according to claim 1;" in line 2, “a voltage drop”, and “a predetermined test current”, both limitations in line 4, which were previously disclosed in claim 1. The repeated recitation introduces indefiniteness, for the limitations in the claims. For examination purposes, examiner interprets “an ignition resistance test circuit…”, a voltage drop”, and “a predetermined test current”, to refer to the same previously disclosed limitations in claim 1. Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of dependency to independent claim 1, which does not rectify the defect.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “An airbag,”, in line 1, which was previously disclosed in claim 1. The repeated recitation introduces indefiniteness, for this limitation in the claims. For examination purposes, examiner interprets “An airbag”, to refer to the same previously disclosed limitation, “an airbag”, line 1 in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, & 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso et al. (US 5268643, Pat. Date Dec. 7, 1993, hereinafter Aso), in view of Kinoshita (JP H06263001 A, Pub. Date Sep. 20, 1994, hereinafter Kinoshita).
Regarding independent claim 1, Aso, teaches:
An ignition resistance test circuit for an airbag (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 8-11 & 33-41], [Col. 2, ll. 9-13 & 17-21], & [Claim 11]) comprising: an ignition resistor (Fig. 1; [Col. 1, ll. 42-50] & [Col. 2, ll. 17-21]: 10, also known as a starting element or a squib, squib 10);
a differential amplification circuit (Fig.1; [Col. 3, ll. 6-17 & 20-22]: differential amplifier circuit 60) configured to differentially amplify a voltage at two ends of the ignition resistor (Fig.1; [Col. 3, ll. 6-10 & 20-22]: differential amplifier circuit 60 differentially amplifies the voltage of squib 10 (connected to both ends of squib 10) which constitutes the ignition resistor) so as to obtain a voltage drop after differential amplification (Figs. 1, 2a, & 2b; [Abstract], ], [Col. 3, ll. 6-10, 18-28, & 66-68] & [Col. 4, ll. 1-11, 29-42, & 49-68]: step 130 (Vx) & 170 (Vy), step 190 compares monitor voltage difference (Vy-Vx), determines if squib 10 (ignition resistor) is in a normal or short-circuited state based on the voltage drop after differential amplification),
a second direct-current biasing circuit (Fig. 3; [Col. 6, ll. 27-37]: discloses a second biasing circuit (circuit 90)) having a second pull-up resistor and a second pull-down resistor (Fig. 3; [Col. 6, ll. 27-37]: discloses second pull-up resistor R92 (voltage input) and second pull-down resistor R91 (connected to ground) connected to each other at a node and the op- amp (differential amplifier) input via buffer 93, which connects to the drain side), the second pull-up resistor having a first end connected to the voltage input terminal (Fig. 3; [Col. 6, ll. 27-37]: second-pull up resistor R92 has first end connected to voltage input terminal), the second pull-up resistor having a second end connected between the current drain circuit and the differential amplification circuit (Fig. 3; [Col. 6, ll. 27-37]: second pull-up resistor R92 has a second end connected to the drain circuit and the differential amplifier/op amp 93), the second pull-down resistor having a first end connected directly to the second end of the second pull-up resistor (Fig. 3; [Col. 6, ll. 27-37]: second pull-down resistor R91 has a first end directly connected to the second end of the second pull-up resistor R92), the second pull-down resistor having a second end connected to the ground (Fig. 3; [Col. 6, ll. 27-37]: second pull-down resistor R91 has a second end connected to ground); and
an analogue-to-digital conversion circuit (Fig.1; [Col. 4, ll. 7-11 & 30-42]: 70, microcomputer (70) “analog-to digital converts” first and second “differentially amplified voltage obtained from the operational amplifier (60)”) configured to perform analogue-to-digital conversion of the voltage drop after the differential amplification to provide to a control unit (Figs. 1 & 2b; [Col.3, ll. 66-68], [Col.4, ll. 1-12 & 48-68], & [Col. 5, ll. 1-44]: microcomputer 70 (control unit that) perform “analog-to digital converts” of the amplified voltage (voltage drop) in step 120 and step 160, and sets the results as monitor voltages Vx and Vy, compares the resulting voltage difference to a reference (Vdif) to “decide that squib 10 is short-circuit,” determining the integrity of the resistance value based on the measured voltage drop and the known test currents, and determining the squib’s resistance value relative to a reference) , enabling the control unit (Fig.1: 70) to determine a resistance value of the ignition resistor based on the voltage drop and the predetermined test current ([]: the MCU measures and calculates resistance (detects shorts/resistance changes) based on the voltages from which resistance can be calculated (R=V/I)).
PNG
media_image1.png
942
967
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
826
475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
863
513
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
716
932
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Aso, is silent in regard to:
a current source circuit configured to provide a predetermined test current for testing the ignition resistor; a current drain circuit configured to receive the predetermined test, the current drain circuit having a first end and a second end, the second end being connected to a ground;
a first direct-current biasing circuit having a first pull-up resistor and a first pull-down resistor, the first pull-up resistor having a first end connected to a voltage input terminal, the first pull-up resistor having a second end connected between the first end of the current source circuit and the differential amplification circuit, the first pull-down resistor having a first end connected directly to the second end of the first pull-up resistor, the first pull-down resistor having a second end connected to the ground;
However, Kinoshita, further teaches:
a current source circuit configured to provide a predetermined test current for testing the ignition resistor (Fig.1; [Claim 1], [0008], & [0012]: explicitly labels a block as the “Test current supply circuit 2” which flows a “predetermined test current to the squib 3”);
a current drain circuit configured to receive the predetermined test current (Fig. 1; [Constitution], [Claim 1], [Claim 4], [0008]-[0009], [0010], & [0012]), the current drain circuit having a first end and a second end, the second end being connected to a ground (Fig. 1; [Constitution], [Claim 1], [Claim 4], [0008]-[0009], [0010], & [0012]: discloses the current limiting circuit 4 that protects the squib and collision start switch circuit 5 & 6 (connected to squib 3), where one end of collision start switch circuit 6 is coupled to system ground, and the other end is coupled to a connection point between squib 3 and the test current supply, functions as the drain to ground);
a first direct-current biasing circuit having a first pull-up resistor and a first pull-down resistor ([Claim 1] & [0015]: teaches a dedicated biasing circuit (reference potential supply circuit) using a pull-up and pull-down resistor configuration (bleeder resistors) to set a specific DC reference potential, bleeder resistors 11 & 12 (pull-up and pull-down resistors)),
a first direct-current biasing circuit having a first pull-up resistor and a first pull-down resistor (Figs. 1-2; [Claim 1], [0008], & [0015]: discloses a reference potential supply circuit 1 in Fig. 1 containing a resistive divider (first pull-up R10/first pull-down R11) to provide a DC bias, Fig. 2 illustrates resistor 10 (first pull-up to Vcc) and resistor 11 (first pull-down to ground)), the first pull-up resistor having a first end connected to a voltage input terminal (Figs. 1-2; [Claim 1], [0008], & [0015]: resistor R10 connects to power supply Vcc, Fig. 2 shows top of R10 connected to the triangle symbol Vcc), the first pull-up resistor having a second end connected between the first end of the current source circuit and the differential amplification circuit ([Claim 1], [0008]-[0009], & [0015]: the junction of R10/R11 creates Vref, which is applied (via buffer OP10/R13) to the node between the current source (transistor 13) and the squib/diff amp input), the first pull-down resistor having a first end connected directly to the second end of the first pull-up resistor (Figs. 1-2; [Claim 1], [0008]-[0009], [0015]: resistor R11 (first end of first pull-down resistor) connects directly to resistor R10 (second end of first pull-up resistor), Fig. 2 clearly illustrates resistor 11 and resistor 12 connected in series at a single node feeding the non-inverting input of OP10), the first pull-down resistor having a second end connected to the ground (Figs. 1-2; [Claim 1], [0008]-[0009], & [0015]: resistor R11 (first pull-down resistor) connects to ground via a second end, Fig. 2 illustrates bottom of R11 connected to the ground symbol);
PNG
media_image5.png
689
771
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, where Kinoshita incorporates a stable resistor-divider biasing structure, Aso in Fig. 3 discloses a bias circuit 90, that connects to both ends of the squib, motivated by symmetry, where differential amplifiers reject common-mode noise when inputs are impedance matched (standard design choice), using symmetric bias networks (first and second biasing circuits), and for fault detection, where in airbag diagnostics, it is standard to pull both measurement lines to a known DC bias so that if a wire breaks (open circuit), the floating input is pulled by the bias resistors, allowing the ADC to detect the fault immediately, and otherwise motivating experimentation and optimization. Additionally, doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods (Aso’s test loop and Kinoshita/Asos’ bias dividers) to yield predictable results (stable, bias-controlled measurement) (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Aso, teaches:
The ignition resistance test circuit according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [Col.1 ll. 8-11 & 33-41], [Col. 2, ll. 9-13], & [Claim 11]),
wherein the differential amplification circuit (Fig.1; [Col. 3, ll. 6-17 & 20-22]: differential amplifier circuit 60 containing operational amplifier 61, Fig. 1 further illustrates block 60 containing amp 61) including (i) an amplifier (Fig. 1; [Col. 3, ll. 6-17]: operational amplifier 61), (ii) a first resistor having a first end connected to a first end of the ignition resistor and having a second end connected to a first input terminal of the amplifier (Fig. 1; [Col. 3, ll. 6-17]: input resistor 62 connected between the squib 10 and the inverting input of the amplifier), (iii) a second resistor having a first end connected to a second end of the ignition resistor and having a second end connected to a second input terminal of the amplifier (Fig.1; [Col. 3, ll. 6-17]: input resistor 63 connected to the non-inverting input), (iv) a third resistor having a first end connected to the second input terminal of the amplifier and having a second end connected to a ground (Fig. 1; [Col. 3, ll. 6-17]: input resistor 64 connected between the non-inverting input and ground), and (v) a fourth resistor having a first end connected to the second input terminal of the amplifier and having a second end connected to an output terminal of the amplifier (Fig. 1; [Col. 3, ll. 18-25]: feedback resistor 65 connected between the input and the output, consistent with standard differential amp design, third resistor 64 (connected to ground) and fourth resistor 65 (connected to output) are both connected to the second input terminal).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Aso, teaches:
The ignition resistance test circuit according to claim 4 ([Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 8-11 & 33-41], [Col. 2, ll. 9-13], & [Claim 11]), wherein the output terminal (Fig. 1; [Col. 3, ll. 25-28 & 31-38] & [Col. 4, ll. 1-5]: “first differentially amplified voltage”) of the amplifier (Fig. 1; [Col. 3, ll. 25-28 & 31-38] & [Col. 4, ll. 1-5]: discloses the output of operational amplifier 61 is connected to the microcomputer 70) is coupled to the analogue-to-digital conversion circuit (Figs. 1 & 2a; [Col. 4, ll. 1-11 & 30-42]: 70, microcomputer (70) “analog-to digital converts” first and second “differentially amplified voltage obtained from the operational amplifier (60)”).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Aso, teaches:
An airbag controller (Figs.1 & 2a; [Col. 1, ll. 42-50], [Col.2, ll. 53-62], [Col. 3, ll. 31-38], & [Col.4, ll. 48-58]: 70, microcomputer also serves as “an airbag controller” or “control unit”, airbags are also known as “occupant protecting system”, that “compares the monitor voltage difference (Vy-Vx)” to determine “whether or not the squib (10) is short-circuited”), comprising: an ignition resistance test circuit (Fig. 1; [Col. 2, ll. 53-62], [Col. 5, ll. 1-10], & [Claim 11]: discloses a circuit comprising current sources via transistors 40/50 and a differential amplifier 60 to test the squib 10) according to claim 1 ([Abstract] & [Col.1, ll. 8-11 & 33-41]) ; and the control unit (Fig.1; [Col. 3, ll. 31-37] & [Col. 4, ll. 48-58]: 70, microcomputer also serves as control unit that “compares the monitor voltage difference (Vy-Vx)” to determine “whether or not the squib (10) is short-circuited”) configured to determine the resistance value of the ignition resistor (Fig.1; [Abstract]: #10) based on a voltage drop ([Col. 1, ll. 42-50], [Col. 5, ll. 20-25], & [Col. 7, ll. 1-4 & 42-45]: determines the result based on the terminal voltage (voltage drop)) and a test current ([Col. 1, ll. 42-50], [Col. 4, ll. 42-50 & 53-57], [Col 5, ll. 1-25], & [Col. 7, ll. 1-4 & 42-45]: determines the result based on the terminal voltage (voltage drop) generated by the monitor current (test current)) provided by the test circuit ([Col. 1, ll. 42-50], [Col. 2, ll. 53-62], [Col. 4, ll. 42-50 & 53-57], [Col 5, ll. 1-25], & [Col. 7, ll. 1-4 & 42-45]: failure identification circuit U).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Aso, teaches:
An airbag ([Col.2, ll. 9-21]), comprising an airbag controller ([Col. 2, ll. 22-25, 38-50, & 53-62]: 70, microcomputer also serves as “an airbag controller” or “control unit”, airbags are also known as “occupant protecting system”), according to claim 8 (Figs. 1 & 2a; [Abstract], [Col.1, ll. 8-11 & 33-50], [Col.2, ll. 53-62], [Col. 3, ll. 31-38], & [Col.4, ll. 48-58]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso, in view of Kinoshita, and further in view of Bennet et al. (US 5872460, Pat. Date Feb. 16, 1999).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Aso, teaches:
The ignition resistance test circuit according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [Col.1 ll. 8-11 & 33-41], [Col. 2, ll. 9-13], & [Claim 11]), further comprising:
Aso, and Kinoshita, are silent in regard to:
an electrostatic protection capacitor connected to the ignition resistor and configured to suppress an electrostatic discharge current.
However, Bennet, further teaches:
an electrostatic protection capacitor (Figs. 1 & 2; [Col. 4, ll. 33-38]: discloses capacitor 44 as the electrostatic protection capacitor, figures illustrate capacitor 44 connected to the line leading to squib 20) connected to the ignition resistor (Figs. 1 & 2; [Col. 3, ll. 42-44] & [Col. 4, ll. 33-38]: capacitor 44 is connected to the nodes at the squib 20 (ignition resistor), Fig. 2 illustrates capacitor 44 directly connected to the high and low sides of squib 20) and configured to suppress an electrostatic discharge current ([Col. 4, ll. 33-38]: capacitor is configured to provide a path for ESD and suppress RF signals).
PNG
media_image6.png
572
780
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ignition resistance test circuit of Aso, as modified by Kinoshita, by incorporating the electrostatic protection capacitors taught by Bennet, in order to improve the reliability of a circuit and protect sensitive electronic components from electrostatic discharge (ESD), Bennet teaches that capacitors placed at the squib nodes effectively shunt harmful ESD currents and suppress RFI, the combination represents the application of a known technique and/or element, adding bypass capacitors, to improve a known device (airbag firing circuit) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (enhanced protection to ESD/RFI) (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Aso, teaches:
The ignition resistance test circuit according to claim 2 ([Abstract], [Col.1 ll. 8-11 & 33-41], [Col. 2, ll. 9-13], & [Claim 11[),
Aso, and Kinoshita, are silent in regard to:
wherein the electrostatic protection capacitor comprises:
a first protective capacitor having (i) a first end connected between a first end of the ignition resistor and the current source circuit and (ii) a second end connected to the ground; and
a second protective capacitor having (i) a first end connected between a second end of the ignition resistor and the current drain circuit and (ii) a second end connected to the ground.
However, Bennett, further teaches:
wherein the electrostatic protection capacitor comprises (Figs. 1 & 2; [Col. 4, ll. 33-38]):
a first protective capacitor having (i) a first end connected between a first end of the ignition resistor and the current source circuit (Fig. 1; [Col. 3, ll. 42-44]: discloses a first capacitor 44 connected to the node between the squib 20 (ignition resistor) and the current source 34 (current source circuit)) and (ii) a second end connected to the ground (Fig. 1; [Col. 3, ll. 42-44] & [Col. 4, ll. 33-38]: discloses that this capacitor provides a path to ground); and
a second protective capacitor having (i) a first end connected between a second end of the ignition resistor and the current drain circuit (Fig. 1; [Col. 3, ll. 42-44]: discloses small capacitors 44 “located at the nodes of the current sink 36…and the squib 20” and the current sink 36 (current drain sink)) and (ii) a second end connected to the ground (Fig. 1; [Col. 3, ll. 42-44] & [Col. 4, ll. 33-38]: discloses the second capacitor is also connected to ground).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit of Aso and Kinoshita to include a first protective capacitor having a first end connected between a first end of the ignition resistor and the current source circuit with a second end connected to the ground and a second protective capacitor having a first end connected between a second end of the ignition resistor and the current drain circuit with a second end connected to the ground, as taught by Bennett, in order to attain and improve the reliability of a circuit and improve protection of sensitive electronic components from electrostatic discharge (ESD), where Kinoshita reinforces the knowledge that protective elements (current limiting circuit 4) are necessary directly at the squib terminals to enable resistance measurement, and a person seeking to implement the precise, noise-sensitive test circuit of Aso, would find it obvious to apply the known standard, disclosed bilateral (dual-topology) ESD protection technique from Bennett to Aso’s squib, to predictably protect both terminals of Asos’s ignition element from ESD and RF interference, ensuring proper operation and reliable safety air bag operation, since it has been held to be within the general skill in the art to apply a known component with a known device to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious (KSR).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aso, in view of Kinoshita, and further in view of McCurdy et al. (US 4825148, Pat. Date Apr. 25, 1989, hereinafter McCurdy).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Aso, teaches:
The ignition resistance test circuit according to claim 4 ([Abstract], [Col.1 ll. 6-11 & 33-41], [Col. 2, ll. 9-13], & [Claim 11]),
Aso, and Kinoshita, are silent in regard to:
wherein resistance values of the first resistor, the second resistor, the third resistor, and the fourth resistor are equal.
However, McCurdy, further teaches:
wherein resistance values of the first resistor (Fig.1; [Col. 4, ll. 62-65]: R38), the second resistor (Fig.1; [Col. 4, ll. 65-67]: R42), the third resistor (Fig.1; [Col. 5, ll. 4-6]: R50), and the fourth resistor (Fig.1; [Col. 4, ll. 67-68], [Col. 5, ll. 1], & [Col. 7, ll. 18-39]: R46) are equal ([Abstract, ll. 6-9] & [Col. 7, ll. 30-49]: discloses a differential amplifier circuit with four resistors (R38, R42, R46, & R50) and setting the resistor pairs equal to eliminate common-node errors, setting all four equal is the standard engineering choice of a unity gain differential amplifier (Gain = R46/R42 =1), simplifies voltage calculation in Eq. 10 to a direct difference, Vdiff = V2-V1).
PNG
media_image7.png
808
1097
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate and apply resistor matching teachings of McCurdy to the differential amplifier of Aso, as modified by Kinoshita and Bennett, in order to improve and optimize the circuit of Aso for accuracy by ensuring the common-mode voltage remains stable during testing, setting the resistors in Aso’s circuit to have the ratios taught by McCurdy, with a balanced circuit operation and accurate measurements of device parameters, by making the resistance values of the resistors all equal, since it has been held to be within the general skill in the art to incorporate a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious (KSR).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bernardon et al. (US7898268B2) discloses circuit and method for capacitor effective series resistance measurement. Hayashi (US11208067B2) discloses airbag control device and semiconductor device. Bogner (US9684021B2) discloses resistance measurement. Watanabe et al. (US5612623) discloses failure diagnostic apparatus and method for a resistor element. Sudhaus et al. (US2022/0118930A1) discloses a method and device for controlling the electrical voltage for a safety-relevant load. Okano (US5181011) discloses a method for checking the operability of safety system for vehicles. Vrabel (US4893109A) discloses an airbag electrical igniter readiness detector. Stonerook et al. (US5187465) discloses a method and apparatus for testing a dual airbag passive restraint system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 02/03/2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 2/6/2026