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 .
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 7-18 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a bleed resistor" in line 1. There is a previously recited “bleed resistor” in claim 1 line 14. It is unclear if the bleed resistor recited in claim 6 is introducing a second bleed resistor or referring back to the bleed resistor of claim 1. For the purpose of this examination, examiner interprets this to read as “the bleed resistor”.
Claims 8-18 depend from claim 7 and therefore inherit its deficiencies.
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) 1-7 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Breakstone et al. (USPGPN 2016/0335220)
Regarding Claim 1, Breakstone (Figs.1A, 1B, 2, & 8) teaches a capacitive system comprising:
a module circuit card assembly (800) including a first modular keying and alignment mechanism and a second modular keying and alignment mechanism (123/140/149/160 & 852: PCIe Edge connector is formed into a first modular keying and alignment mechanism and a second modular keying and alignment mechanism by way of two tabs), wherein the first and second modular keying and alignment mechanisms are configured for mechanical alignment and electrical connection (852: the two tabs provide electrical connection and mechanical alignment) with a backplane circuit card assembly (CCA) (¶0021: host module not pictured);
a capacitor (234/824) mounted to the module circuit card assembly and electrically connected to each of the first and second modular keying and alignment mechanisms (235: off-card power indicates power received through the PCIe connection tabs 852) through a charge/discharge circuit (231-233 & 235) configured to:
charge the capacitor with the module circuit card assembly connected to the backplane CCA (¶0055: off-card power link voltage is boosted to charge the holdup capacitors);
discharge the capacitor with the module circuit card assembly connected to the backplane CCA for providing holdup voltage (¶0055: holdup capacitors can supply voltage to on-card or off-card elements); and
discharge the capacitor through a bleed resistor (235) of the circuit upon disconnection of the module circuit card assembly from the backplane CCA (¶0082: holdup capacitor power can be bled to resistive elements when the card is removed).
Regarding Claim 2, Breakstone (Fig.8) further teaches wherein the module circuit card assembly includes a printed circuit board (PCB) (851), wherein the holdup capacitor is mounted to the PCB (824 mounted to 851).
Regarding Claim 3, Breakstone further teaches wherein the circuit includes printed traces of the PCB (¶0107: signal trace lengths).
Regarding Claim 4, Breakstone (Fig.2) further teaches wherein the circuit includes a ground node (Ground symbol connected to 234) electrically connected to the first modular keying and alignment mechanism (¶0055: holdup capacitors can supply voltage to on-card or off-card elements and therefore the ground is electrically connected to the first modular keying and alignment method).
Regarding Claim 5, Breakstone (Figs. 1A & 2) further teaches wherein a holdup connector (123/235: the host power/off-card power must be fed to the components via an electrical connection, which is mounted to the CCA) is mounted to the module circuit card assembly and is electrically connected to a Vcap node of the circuit (off-card power link 235 electrically connects to 80V node of 234).
Regarding Claim 6, Breakstone further teaches wherein the capacitor is connected to the Vcap node and to the ground node (Fig.2, 234 is connected to 80V node and ground).
Regarding Claim 7, Breakstone further teaches a bleed resistor connected to the Vcap node (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1, ¶0082: holdup capacitor power can be bled to resistive elements when the card is removed, which therefore indicates a connection between the Vcap node and the bleed resistor).
Regarding Claim 19, Breakstone (Figs.1A, 1B, 2, & 8) teaches charging a capacitor (234/824) in a circuit card assembly (CCA) (800) connected to a backplane CCA (¶0021: host module not pictured);
discharging the capacitor as needed to provide hold up voltage from the capacitor to an avionics system (¶0055: holdup capacitors are discharged to supply power to on-card and off-card loads; Examiner’s Note: the intended use step of discharging a capacitor to supply a hold up voltage from a capacitor for an avionics system would not result in a manipulative difference to controlling the discharge of a capacitor for off-card loads, and Breakstone would be capable of discharging a capacitor for an avionics system if used in an avionics system);
maintaining a bleed resistor of the CCA electrically disconnected from the capacitor as long as the CCA is connected to the backplane CCA (¶0082: holdup capacitor power can be bled to resistive elements when the card is removed, indicating no bleeding is performed, and therefore disconnected, when the card is connected to the host system);
detecting disconnection of the CCA from the backplane CCA (¶0082: holdup capacitor power can be bled to resistive elements when the card is removed, indicating a detection is made that a disconnection has occurred); and
connecting the bleed resistor to the capacitor to discharge the capacitor through the bleed resistor upon the detecting disconnection of the CCA from the backplane CCA (¶0082: holdup capacitor power can be bled to resistive elements when the card is removed).
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) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breakstone, in view of Shimada (USPGPN 2015/0369724).
Regarding Claim 8, Breakstone fails to explicitly teach wherein the bleed resistor is connected to a switch that is connected to the ground node.
However, Shimada (Fig.6) teaches a discharge circuit (15) for a capacitor (13d) which includes a bleed resistor (15a) connected to a switch (15b) that is connected to a ground node (SG2), which is controlled by a control circuit (116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Breakstone with Shimada to use a bleed resistor connected to a switch that is connected to the ground node. Doing so allows the capacitor to be discharged when a connector is disconnected, as evidenced by Shimada.
Regarding Claim 9, Breakstone, as modified, further teaches wherein the switch is operative in a first state to disconnect the bleed resistor from the ground node with the module circuit card assembly connected to the backplane CCA (Shimada-¶0054: the switch 15b has an off state which does not connect the capacitor to the resistor and is triggered when the connection is detected).
Regarding Claim 10, Breakstone, as modified, further teaches wherein the switch is operative in a second state to connect the bleed resistor to the ground node with the module circuit card assembly disconnected from the backplane CCA (Shimada-¶0054: the switch 15b has an on state which connects the capacitor to the resistor and is triggered when the connection is not detected).
Regarding Claim 11, Breakstone, as modified, further teaches wherein the switch is a solid state switch (Shimada-¶0054: FET 15b) including a control connection operatively connected to the circuit to control state of the switch (Shimada-Fig.6: connection from 116 to G pin of FET 15b.
Regarding Claim 12, Breakstone, as modified, further teaches wherein the control connection of the switch is connected to a Vpin node of the circuit (Shimada-Fig.6: node between 116 and G pin of FET 15b).
Regarding Claim 13, Breakstone, as modified, further teaches a local voltage regulator (LVR) connected to the Vcap node (Fig.2, 231 regulates the 80V to 12V for on-card connections).
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breakstone, in view of Shimada, as applied in the rejection of claim 13 above, and in further view of Suzuki (US Patent 5,349,689 – published 1994) and NPL Renesas – Doing More with Buck Regulator ICs (Published 2020).
Regarding Claim 14, Breakstone, as modified, fails to explicitly teach a pull-up resistor connected between the LVR and the Vpin node.
However, Suzuki teaches a connection detection circuit (Fig.3, 21, E2, E1, R0, GND, and 5V) which includes a pull up resistor (R0) requiring 5V and connected to a Vpin node (N1) connected to a switch (TR).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the system taught by Breakstone, in view of Shimada, with Suzuki to use the connection detection circuit taught by Suzuki in place of the connection detection circuit taught by Shimada. Doing so provides a system for controlling a switch in response to a detection of a ground connection to discharge a capacitor, as evidenced by Suzuki (Col.6, Lines 24-28).
Breakstone, as modified, teaches that the LVR supplies power to on-card elements (Breakstone-¶0055: buck-boost module can take energy stored in the holdup capacitors or from off-card power link and supply 12VDC to drive on-card elements), and Suzuki teaches that the pull up resistor is connected to a 5V line (Suzuki-Fig.3, R0 connected to 5V). Breakstone, as modified, does not explicitly teach a conversion from the 12VDC to 5V.
However, NPL Renesas teaches that buck regulator ICs can be used to step down voltage from 12V to 5V (Page 1, Para. 3: take a system that has a 12V input but lower voltage rails such as 5V).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the system taught by Breakstone, in view of Shimada and Suzuki, with NPL-Renesas to include a buck regulator IC between the buck-boost module taught by Breakstone and the pull up resistor taught by Suzuki. Doing so improves reliability of the system as evidenced by NPL-Renesas (Pg.1, Para.3).
Regarding Claim 15, Breakstone, as modified, further teaches wherein the Vpin node is electrically connected to the second modular keying and alignment mechanism of the module circuit card assembly, configured to be connected to ground with the module circuit card assembly connected to the backplane CCA for commanding the switch to disconnect the bleed resistor from the ground node (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14 above, Suzuki teaches Vpin/N1 connected to ground when connected through a terminal to command a switch to be open/off when ground is sensed).
Regarding Claim 16, Breakstone, as modified, further teaches wherein the LVR is configured to regulate voltage at a Vcc node that connects the LVR to the pull-up resistor for pulling up voltage at the Vpin node from ground voltage to the voltage of the Vcc node through the pull-up resistor to command the switch to connect the bleed resistor to the ground node to discharge the capacitor (as disclosed in the rejection of claim 15 above, Breakstone, as modified, the LVR feeds Vcc to the pull up resistor at 5V to make Vpin high when ground is disconnected to discharge the capacitor).
Regarding Claim 17, Breakstone, as modified, further teaches wherein the first and second modular keying and alignment mechanisms each include a respective guide socket configured to manually guide the module circuit card assembly into position on the backplane CCA (first guide socket – left arrow, second guide socket – right arrow).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Breakstone, as modified, further teaches wherein the respective guide sockets are each configured to electrically connect ground from the backplane CCA to the circuit (the guide sockets are configured to facilitate insertion of the first and second modular keying and alignment mechanisms which electrically connect the module circuit card to the backplane CCA).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breakstone, in view of Shimada and Suzuki.
Regarding Claim 20, Breakstone fails to explicitly teach wherein detecting disconnection of the CCA from the backplane CCA includes pulling up voltage on circuit node upon disconnection of the circuit node from ground to command a switch to connect the bleed resistor to the capacitor.
However, Shimada (Fig.6) teaches a discharge circuit (15) for a capacitor (13d) which includes a bleed resistor (15a) connected to a switch (15b) that is connected to a ground node (SG2), which is controlled by a control circuit (116), where a circuit node (connection node between 116 and the G terminal of 15b) has a voltage pulled up upon disconnection of a circuit to command a switch to connect a bleed resistor to a capacitor (¶0058: 16b output is high when connection is removed and therefore 16c output it high to close 15b to bleed the capacitor 13d).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Breakstone with Shimada to use a bleed resistor connected to a switch that is connected to the ground node. Doing so allows the capacitor to be discharged when a connector is disconnected, as evidenced by Shimada.
Furthermore, Suzuki teaches a connection disconnection circuit (Fig.3, 21, E2, E1, R0, GND, and 5V) which pulls up a voltage of a circuit node of a switch, when a ground is disconnected from the circuit node (Fig.3, pullup resistor R0 is connected to 5V and is therefore the node N1 is high when ground is disconnected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the system taught by Breakstone, in view of Shimada, with Suzuki to use the connection detection circuit taught by Suzuki in place of the connection detection circuit taught by Shimada. Doing so provides a system for controlling a switch in response to a detection of a ground connection to discharge a capacitor, as evidenced by Suzuki (Col.6, Lines 24-28).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights