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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2025 regarding 112(a) and (b) of claims 1-19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues The Applicant’s specification states that, to calibrate an aircraft ground fault detection circuit 2, an electric test voltage Utes is applied to first and second electric power supply lines 4a-4b. (Specification, page 11, lines 28-30). The electric test voltage Utest causes an electric test current lies: to flow through the first and second electric power supply lines 4a-4b and first and second shunt resistors 6a-6b, which generates test voltage drops Utesti and Utest2 at the first and second shunt resistors 6a-6b, respectively. (Specification, page 12, lines 12-16). The test voltage drops are compared with each other at a controller 14 to determine a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors 6a-6b. (Specification, page 12, lines 18-21). In other words, the controller 14 compares the voltage drops across the shunt resistors using known test current to determine the difference between the resistivities of the shunt resistors. As a result, the Applicant’s disclosure provides more than enough information so that someone skilled in the art would recognize the Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Examiner acknowledges the use of a controller that is supposedly used to determine resistivity however Par. 0056 of the specification of the USPGPUB appears to identify resistors and resistivities as (R1 and R2) which raises the question as to whether the resistance or resistivities are determined. The original disclosure appears to equate resistance to resistivity however they are different. The sections of the specification cited above does not appear to provide support for determining resistivity it appears that the cited paragraphs actually supports determining resistance. In order to determine resistivity the resistance, cross section and length are utilized. The original disclosure fails provide support for determining resistivity based off voltage drops. Applicant also failed to address the 112 b rejection regarding resistance vs resistivity and provide clarity as to if applicant was determining resistance or resistivity. The original disclosure has failed to provide the manner in which “resistivity” is determined. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2025 regarding 103 rejections of claims 1 and 16 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding 103 rejections, applicant argues
However, Schram does not disclose or suggest that the differential amplifier 20 is configured to determine resistivities of the first resistor 52 or the second resistor 54 based on a determined voltage difference.
Examiner disagrees. Applicant has admitted on page 12 of response that (The Applicant's specification states that, to calibrate an aircraft ground fault detection circuit 2, an electric test voltage Utest is applied to first and second electric power supply lines 4a-4b. (Specification, page 11, lines 28-30). The electric test voltage Utest causes an electric test current test to flow through the first and second electric power supply lines 4a-4b and first and second shunt resistors 6a-6b, which generates test voltage drops Utest1 and Utest2 at the first and second shunt resistors 6a-6b, respectively. (Specification, page 12, lines 12-16). The test voltage drops are compared with each other at a controller 14 to determine a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors 6a-6b. (Specification, page 12, lines 18-21)).
Schram disclose that the differential amplifier 20 is configured to determine resistivities of the first resistor 52 and the second resistor 54 based on a determined voltage difference.
Op-amps 22 and 24 determines the voltage drop of a resistors R and R2 and op amp 26 (controller) determines the difference (comparing) of the voltage drops of resistors R and R2. Per applicant’s admission above, the resistivity is determined by comparing the voltage drops with each other. Schram clearly disclose that op amp 26 provides the difference of the voltages drops determined by op amps 22 and 24 and thus must provide determining resistivity.
Examiner further presents that the property of the system V=I*R is well known and that any difference between the V must also provide a difference of R.
Secondary reference Romero et al. (CN 109416382 A) is also cited to teach the relation of voltage and resistance.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues
Moreover, the fault detection system 14 of Schram does not include an electric test current power supply coupled to the first resistor 52 and the second resistor 54 separate from a system electric power supply (DC HIGH, DC LOW). As a result, Schram cannot disclose or suggest (i) an electric test current power supply configured to apply an electric test voltage to cause an electric test current to flow through first and second shunt resistors or (ii) a controller configured to determine a difference between resistivities of the shunt resistors from voltage drops.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At least Fig. 1 disclose DC High being provided to the circuit which implicitly discloses an electric test current power supply.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the preamble is drawn towards an aircraft ground fault detection circuit however there is no ground detection performed in the body of the claim.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the disclosure does not provide adequate disclosure to perform the claimed functions of a controller configured to receive voltage signals provided by the first and second voltage detectors indicating the first and second voltage drops, and determine a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from the voltage drops.
The specification of the USPGPUB only recites [0049] In order to ensure a reliable operation of the aircraft ground fault detection circuit 2, which includes reliably detecting ground faults without causing false alarms, which would result in an unnecessary shutdown of the aircraft solid state power controller, it is beneficial to calibrate the aircraft ground fault detection circuit 2 in order to allow the controller 14 to compensate for differences ΔR=R.sub.1−R.sub.2 in the resistivities R.sub.1, R.sub.2 of the first and second shunt resistors 6a, 6b.
[0055] These test voltage drops U.sub.test1 and U.sub.test2 are detected by the first and second voltage detectors 8a, 8b, respectively. Comparing the two test voltage drops U.sub.test1 and U.sub.test2 with each other allows the controller 14 to determine a difference ΔR=R.sub.1−R.sub.2 between the resistivities R.sub.1, R.sub.2 of the first and second shunt resistors 6a, 6b.
[0056] This difference ΔR between the resistivities R1, R2 may be stored as on offset R.sub.offset=ΔR that is to be considered during the normal operation of the aircraft ground fault detection circuit 2. I.e. the offset R.sub.offset (difference ΔR between the resistance values R1, R2) may be considered when the voltage drops U.sub.1, U.sub.2 over the first and second shunt resistors 6a, 6b are compared for ground fault detecting in order to prevent a false detection of a non existing ground fault, which could be caused by the difference ΔR=R.sub.1−R.sub.2 between the resistance values R1, R2 of the first and second shunt resistors 6a, 6b.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably know the manner in which applicant’s controller, which is configured for receiving voltage signals provided by the first and second voltage detectors indicating the first and second voltage drops, and determine a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from said voltage drops.
Applicant has not explained the manner in which applicant obtains the initial resistivities of the shunt resistors which are later used to determine the difference between the resistivities from said voltage drops. Examiner acknowledges the controller in the specification however the controller fails to provide for obtaining the initial resistivities which are then used later for determining a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from said voltage drops. Furthermore par. 0056 appears to identify resistors and resistivities as (R1 and R2). As such, the specification does not provide adequate description such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the manner in which the initial resistivities are obtain which are used to determine a difference in the resistivities. The original disclosure doesn’t reasonably demonstrate that applicant had possession of the claim features at issue because it does not reasonably demonstrate the manner in which these features are implemented by applicant.
Regarding claim 16, the disclosure does not provide adequate disclosure to perform the claimed functions of receiving voltage signals provided by the first and second voltage detectors indicating the first and second voltage drops, and determine a difference between resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from the voltage drops.
The specification of the USPGPUB only recites [0049] In order to ensure a reliable operation of the aircraft ground fault detection circuit 2, which includes reliably detecting ground faults without causing false alarms, which would result in an unnecessary shutdown of the aircraft solid state power controller, it is beneficial to calibrate the aircraft ground fault detection circuit 2 in order to allow the controller 14 to compensate for differences ΔR=R.sub.1−R.sub.2 in the resistivities R.sub.1, R.sub.2 of the first and second shunt resistors 6a, 6b.
[0055] These test voltage drops U.sub.test1 and U.sub.test2 are detected by the first and second voltage detectors 8a, 8b, respectively. Comparing the two test voltage drops U.sub.test1 and U.sub.test2 with each other allows the controller 14 to determine a difference ΔR=R.sub.1−R.sub.2 between the resistivities R.sub.1, R.sub.2 of the first and second shunt resistors 6a, 6b.
[0056] This difference ΔR between the resistivities R1, R2 may be stored as on offset R.sub.offset=ΔR that is to be considered during the normal operation of the aircraft ground fault detection circuit 2. I.e. the offset R.sub.offset (difference ΔR between the resistance values R1, R2) may be considered when the voltage drops U.sub.1, U.sub.2 over the first and second shunt resistors 6a, 6b are compared for ground fault detecting in order to prevent a false detection of a non existing ground fault, which could be caused by the difference ΔR=R.sub.1−R.sub.2 between the resistance values R1, R2 of the first and second shunt resistors 6a, 6b.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably know the manner in which applicant’s controller, which is configured for receiving voltage signals provided by the first and second voltage detectors indicating the first and second voltage drops, and determining a difference between resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from the voltage drops.
Applicant has not explained the manner in which applicant obtains the initial resistivities of the shunt resistors which are later used to determine the difference between the resistivities from said voltage drops. Examiner acknowledges the controller in the specification however the controller fails to provide for obtaining the initial resistivities which are then used later for determining a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from said voltage drops. Furthermore par. 0056 appears to identify resistors and resistivities as (R1 and R2). As such, the specification does not provide adequate description such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the manner in which the initial resistivities are obtain which is used to determine a difference in the resistivities. The original disclosure doesn’t reasonably demonstrate that applicant had possession of the claim features at issue because it does not reasonably demonstrate the manner in which these features are implemented by applicant.
Claims 2-11, 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected for containing 112 issues above and depending on rejected based claims.
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 1-20 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 1 and 12, the metes and bounds of determine a difference between resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from the voltage drops is unclear whether the resistivities are or are not required in the claim. The claim requires determining a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from said voltage drops yet there is no claim feature of any kind to obtain the initial resistivities so that a difference can be determined.
Regarding claim 16, the metes and bounds of determining a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from said voltage drops is unclear whether the resistivities are or are not required in the claim. The claim requires determining a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from said voltage drops yet there is no method step or claim feature of any kind to obtain the initial resistivities so that a difference can be determined.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the metes and bounds of a controller determine a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from said voltage drops is unclear. Par. 0056 of the specification of the USPGPUB appears to identify resistors and resistivities as (R1 and R2). It is further unclear how the resistivity is used to determine a ground fault. As best understood the Examiner examines the claims interpreting resistivities as resistance.
Regarding claim 16, the metes and bounds of determining a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from said voltage drops is unclear. Par. 0056 of the specification of the USPGPUB appears to identify resistors and resistivities as (R1 and R2). It is further unclear how the resistivity is used to determine a ground fault. As best understood the Examiner examines the claims interpreting resistivities as resistance.
Claims 2-11,13-15 and 17-20 are rejected for containing 112 issues above and depending on rejected based claims.
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 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schram (US 20170261563) in view of Romero et al. (CN 109416382 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Schram teach Aircraft ground fault detection circuit (Note par. 19) comprising:
a first electric power supply line (16, Fig.1) and a second electric power supply line (18, Fig. 1);
a first shunt resistor (52, Fig. 1) arranged in the first electric power supply line;
a second shunt resistor (54, Fig. 1) arranged in the second electric power supply line;
a first voltage detector (op-amp 22, Fig. 1, par. 0024) configured to detect a first voltage drop over the first shunt resistor; (Accordingly, first op-amp 22 may measure a first voltage across first resistor 52) [par. 0024]
a second voltage detector (op-amp 24, Fig. 1, par. 0024) configured to detect a second voltage drop over the second shunt resistor; (second op-amp 24 may measure a second voltage across second resistor 54,)[par. 0024]
an electric test current power supply configured to supply an electric test voltage to the first and second electric power supply lines causing an electric test current to flow through the first and second electric power supply lines to thereby cause the first and second shunt resistors; (In various embodiments, such current may comprise a direct current (DC). Thus, the positive terminal of a voltage source may be in electronic communication with wire 16 (i.e., via terminal DC HIGH) and the negative terminal of the voltage source in electronic communication with wire 18 (i.e., via terminal DC LOW).) [par. 0020]
a controller (op-amp 26, Fig. 0024) configured for receiving voltage signals provided by the first and second voltage detectors indicating the first and second voltage drops, and
Schram does not teach determine a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from said voltage drops.
Romero et al. teach determine a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from said voltage drops. (If the result of this calculation is not close to 1, then there is an anomaly in one of the conductors, namely it has increased resistance, resulting in an unbalanced current distribution through the two ground wires.)[par. 0022] Examiner interprets increased resistance as difference between the resistivities.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schram to include the teaching of determine a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from said voltage drops to identify a ground loss of a vehicle. (Note Romero abstract)
Regarding claim 16, Schram teach a method
applying an electric test voltage to first and second electric power supply lines of an aircraft ground fault detection circuit, the aircraft ground fault detection circuit further (Note DC high of Fig. 1 )
a first electric power supply line (16, Fig.1) and a second electric power supply line (18, Fig. 1);
a first shunt resistor (52, Fig. 1) arranged in the first electric power supply line;
a second shunt resistor (54, Fig. 1) arranged in the second electric power supply line;
a first voltage detector (op-amp 22, Fig. 1, par. 0024) configured to detect a first voltage drop over the first shunt resistor; (Accordingly, first op-amp 22 may measure a first voltage across first resistor 52) [par. 0024]
a second voltage detector (op-amp 24, Fig. 1, par. 0024) configured to detect a second voltage drop over the second shunt resistor; (second op-amp 24 may measure a second voltage across second resistor 54,)[par. 0024]
wherein applying the electric test current power supply configured to supply an electric test voltage to the first and second electric power supply lines comprises using an electric test current supply (Suggested by DC HIGH Fig. 1) to causing an electric test current to flow through the first and second electric power supply lines to thereby cause the first and second shunt resistors; (In various embodiments, such current may comprise a direct current (DC). Thus, the positive terminal of a voltage source may be in electronic communication with wire 16 (i.e., via terminal DC HIGH) and the negative terminal of the voltage source in electronic communication with wire 18 (i.e., via terminal DC LOW).) [par. 0020]
a controller (op-amp 26, Fig. 0024) configured for receiving voltage signals provided by the first and second voltage detectors indicating the first and second voltage drops, and
Schram does not teach determine a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from said voltage drops.
Romero et al. teach determine a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from said voltage drops. (If the result of this calculation is not close to 1, then there is an anomaly in one of the conductors, namely it has increased resistance, resulting in an unbalanced current distribution through the two ground wires.)[par. 0022] Examiner interprets increased resistance as difference between the resistivities.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schram to include the teaching of determine a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from said voltage drops to identify a ground loss of a vehicle. (Note Romero abstract)
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schram (US 20170261563) in view of (Romero et al. (CN 109416382 A) further in view of Heydron et al. (US 20150185251).
Regarding claim 2, Schram teach wherein the electric test current power supply is configured to apply an electric DC test voltage (In various embodiments, such current may comprise a direct current (DC). Thus, the positive terminal of a voltage source may be in electronic communication with wire 16 (i.e., via terminal DC HIGH) and the negative terminal of the voltage source in electronic communication with wire 18 (i.e., via terminal DC LOW).)[par. 0020] ; the first electric power supply line is connected to a negative pole of the electric test current power supply; and the second electric power supply line is connected to a positive pole of the electric test current power supply. (In various embodiments, such current may comprise a direct current (DC). Thus, the positive terminal of a voltage source may be in electronic communication with wire 16 (i.e., via terminal DC HIGH) and the negative terminal of the voltage source in electronic communication with wire 18 (i.e., via terminal DC LOW).)[par. 0020] (First and second are interpreted as being arbitrary)
Schram does not teach DC test voltage in a range of between +/−10 V and +/−50 V.
Heydron et al. teach DC test voltage in a range of between +/−10 V and +/−50 V. (The control device 22 generates the required test voltages (selectable) of 50 and 100 V as required for testing telecommunications installations.)[par. 0049]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schram to include the teaching of DC test voltage in a range of between +/−10 V and +/−50 V to provide a voltage to test the device under test that should operate the device safely without damaging the device.
Regarding claim 3, Schram teach wherein the electric test current power supply is configured to apply an electric DC test voltage to the first and second electric power supply lines. (In various embodiments, such current may comprise a direct current (DC). Thus, the positive terminal of a voltage source may be in electronic communication with wire 16 (i.e., via terminal DC HIGH) and the negative terminal of the voltage source in electronic communication with wire 18 (i.e., via terminal DC LOW).)[par. 0020]
Schram does not teach DC test voltage of +/−28 V.
Heydron et al. teach DC test voltage of +/−28 V. (The control device 22 generates the required test voltages (selectable) of 50 and 100 V as required for testing telecommunications installations.)[par. 0049]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schram to include the teaching of DC test voltage of +/−28 V to provide a voltage to test the device under test that should operate the device safely without damaging the device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schram (US 20170261563) in view of (Romero et al. (CN 109416382 A) further in view of Ordones et al. (US 20110285399).
Regarding claim 4, Schram teach a first electric switch (40, Fig. 1), arranged in the first electric power supply line, and/or a second electric switch, which is arranged in the second electric power supply line,or
Schram does not teach wherein the controller is configured to switch off at least one of the first and second electric switches before activating the electric test current power supply.
Ordones et al. wherein the controller is configured to switch off at least one of the first and second electric switches before activating the electric test current power supply. ([0063] For the generation of the pulse, it starts with the electronic switch (34) open, the controller unit (30) activates the power supply by the control line (37))
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schram to include the teaching of controller is configured to switch off at least one of the first and second electric switches before activating the electric test current power supply to generate a pulse which is used to determine a defect in equipment based on the reflection of the pulse. (Note Ordones et al. par. 0044, 0063)
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schram (US 20170261563) in view of (Romero et al. (CN 109416382 A) further in view of Ordones et al. (US 20110285399) further in view of Tang et al. (CN 113346569 A).
Schram teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 10, Schram does not teach wherein the first and second electric switches are configured for switching voltages of at least 250 V.
Tang et al. teach wherein the first and second electric switches are configured for switching voltages of at least 250 V. (The rated working voltage of the K1 relay and the K2 relay is 270V, and the rated working current is 150A; the rated working voltage of the K3 relay is 270V, and the rated working current is 50A.) [par. n0023]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schram to include the teaching of the first and second electric switches are configured for switching voltages of at least 250 V to provide a switching device that can support the voltage of the system without damaging the switch under normal operation.
Regarding claim 11, Schram does not teach wherein the first and second electric switches are configured for switching voltages of at least 270 V.
Tang et al. teach wherein the first and second electric switches are configured for switching voltages of at least 270 V. (The rated working voltage of the K1 relay and the K2 relay is 270V, and the rated working current is 150A; the rated working voltage of the K3 relay is 270V, and the rated working current is 50A.) [par. n0023]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schram to include the teaching of wherein the first and second electric switches are configured for switching voltages of at least 270 V to provide a switching device that can support the voltage of the system without damaging the switch under normal operation.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schram (US 20170261563) in view of Romero et al. (CN 109416382 A) further in view of McCormick et al. (US 20150028877).
Schram teach the instant invention except the following limitations.
Regarding claim 17, Schram does not teach wherein the aircraft ground fault detection circuit comprises a diode, which is connected between the first and second electric power supply lines, and wherein the electric test voltage applied to the first and second electric power supply lines is polarized so that the electric test current flows through the diode.
McCormick et al. teach wherein the aircraft ground fault detection (Note pars. 31, 53 ) circuit comprises a diode (84, Fig. 5) , which is connected between the first and second electric power supply lines (62 and 64, Fig. 5), and wherein the electric test voltage applied to the first and second electric power supply lines is polarized so that the electric test current flows through the diode.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schram to include the teaching of wherein the aircraft ground fault detection circuit comprises a diode, which is connected between the first and second electric power supply lines, and wherein the electric test voltage applied to the first and second electric power supply lines is polarized so that the electric test current flows through the diode to serve as protection from high input voltage transients. (Note McCormick et al. par. 0030)
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schram (US 20170261563) in view of (Romero et al. (CN 109416382 A) further in view of Akamatsu (US 3879620).
Regarding claims 12, Schram teach Aircraft solid state controller (Fig. 2 is interpreted as solid state controller because of the presents of the at least control switch 20 ) comprising:
a first electric power supply line (16, Fig.1), and a second electric power supply line (18, Fig. 1);
a first shunt resistor (52, Fig. 1) arranged in the first electric power supply line;
a second shunt resistor (54, Fig. 1) arranged in the second electric power supply line;
a first voltage detector (op-amp 22, Fig. 1, par. 0024) configured for detecting a first voltage drop over the first shunt resistor; (Accordingly, first op-amp 22 may measure a first voltage across first resistor 52) [par. 0024]
a second voltage detector (op-amp 24, Fig. 1, par. 0024) configured for detecting a second voltage drop over the second shunt resistor; (second op-amp 24 may measure a second voltage across second resistor 54,)[par. 0024]
an electric test current power supply for applying an electric test voltage to the first and second electric power supply lines causing an electric test current to flow through the first and second electric power supply lines and the first and second shunt resistors; (In various embodiments, such current may comprise a direct current (DC). Thus, the positive terminal of a voltage source may be in electronic communication with wire 16 (i.e., via terminal DC HIGH) and the negative terminal of the voltage source in electronic communication with wire 18 (i.e., via terminal DC LOW).) [par. 0020]
a controller (op-amp 26, Fig. 0024), which is configured for receiving voltage signals provided by the first and second voltage detectors indicating the first and second voltage drops, and
Schram does not teach determining a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from said voltage drops.
Romero et al. teach determining a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from said voltage drops. (If the result of this calculation is not close to 1, then there is an anomaly in one of the conductors, namely it has increased resistance, resulting in an unbalanced current distribution through the two ground wires.)[par. 0022] Examiner interprets increased resistance as difference between the resistivities.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schram to include the teaching of determining a difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors from said voltage drops to identify a ground loss of a vehicle. (Note Romero abstract)
Schram does not teach
two power supply side nodes configured to be electrically connected to an aircraft electric power supply; two load side nodes configured to be electrically connected to at least one electric load; a diode connected between the load side nodes;
Akamatsu teach two power supply side nodes (Note annotated Fig. 1 below) configured to be electrically connected to an aircraft electric power supply (1, Fig. 1) ; two load side nodes configured to be electrically connected to at least one electric load; (Note annotated Fig. 1 below) a diode (8, Fig. 1) connected between the load side nodes;
PNG
media_image1.png
386
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schram to include the teaching of two power supply side nodes configured to be electrically connected to an aircraft electric power supply; two load side nodes configured to be electrically connected to at least one electric load; a diode connected between the load side nodes to provide precise, energy-efficient control, enhanced safety, lower operating costs, and increased reliability for electrical systems.
Regarding claim 15, Schram does not teach aircraft electric power supply and an aircraft solid state power controller according to claim 12 , electrically connected to the aircraft electric power supply.
Akamatsu teach aircraft electric power supply and an aircraft solid state power controller (Fig. 1) according to claim 12 , electrically connected to the aircraft electric power supply. (Examiner takes the position that an aircraft is not positively recited in the claim and the power controller of Akamatsu would connect an electric power supply sense the purpose of s power controller is to control power.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schram to include the teaching of aircraft electric power supply and an aircraft solid state power controller (Fig. 1) according to claim 12 , electrically connected to the aircraft electric power supply to provide precise, energy-efficient control, enhanced safety, lower operating costs, and increased reliability for electrical systems.
Examiner’s Note:
Claims 5-9,13,14,18-20 stand rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and/or 112 (b) as outlined above. No prior art rejection has been applied to these claims because the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach the following features recited in these claims:
Regarding claim 5, wherein the controller is configured for switching off at least one of the first and second electric switches if the absolute value of the difference between the first and second voltage drops minus an offset voltage, which is calculated from the difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors, exceeds a predetermined threshold, wherein the predetermined threshold corresponds to a difference between the electric currents flowing through the first and second shunt resistors in the range of 15 mA to 100 mA as claimed in combination with all other limitations.
Regarding claim 13, wherein the diode is polarized to block when the power supply side nodes are electrically connected to a DC aircraft electric power supply for normal operation.
Regarding claim 14, the diode is polarized to allow the electric test current to flow between the first and second electric power supply lines when the electric test current power supply applies the electric test voltage to the first and second electric power supply lines; and the electric test voltage applied by the electric test current power supply is polarized opposite to a voltage supplied by the aircraft electric power supply.
Regarding claim 18, the aircraft ground fault detection circuit further comprises at least one of (i) a first electric switch arranged in the first electric power supply line or (ii) a second electric switch arranged in the second electric power supply line; and the method further includes comparing the electric first and second voltage drops with each other; calculating an offset voltage from the difference between the resistivities of the first and second shunt resistors; and switching off at least one of the first and second electric switches in case an absolute value of a difference between the first and second voltage drops minus the offset voltage exceeds a predetermined threshold; and the predetermined threshold corresponds to a difference between electric currents flowing through the first and second shunt resistors in a range of 15 mA to 100 mA.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights