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 .
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 12, 13, 15, 18, and 19, 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.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the parent claim 12 recites the limitation “a threshold current” (ll. 2-3). This limitation renders the claims indefinite, since the parent claim 10 already introduces “a threshold electric current” (ll. 2-3). Therefore, it’s not clear whether claim 12 is referring to the same “threshold current” or not. If it the same “threshold current”, then it’s not clear why it preceded by an article “a” ? If this is different “threshold current” then claims must clearly differentiate between two different “threshold current(s)” by appropriately positively setting them forth.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “a second igniting agent”. This produces ambiguity and indefiniteness, since the “first igniting agent” has never been introduced earlier in the claims.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the parent claim 18 recites the limitations: “electric vehicle supply equipment”, “electric machines” and “batteries”. These limitations lack proper antecedent basis, since they have not been properly set forth earlier in the claims.
Appropriate corrections are required. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting of any remaining problems and informalities of which Applicant may become aware in the 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 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102,017,214, 302 to Becker et al. (hereafter “Becker”, cited in IDS) taken alone, or alternatively in view of US 6,324,979 to Troianello, US 2021/0033646 to Bussing et al. (hereafter “Bussing”), and US 5,426,416 to Jefferies et al. (hereafter, “Jefferies”).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 16, Becker discloses (Fig. 1 and English translation of record) an electric power distribution system (1), comprising: a positive polarity conductor (4a); a negative polarity conductor (4b); a current sensor integrated circuit (8) including an over-current output (AS); an igniting agent operated device (5a, 5b); and an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (6), the ASIC not including a central processing unit, the ASIC directly electrically coupled to the over-current output (AS), the ASIC directly electrically coupled to the igniting agent operated device (5a, 5b).
Additionally, regarding claims 2, 4, and 16, Becker further discloses (Fig. 1, 2) a plurality of current sensor integrated circuits (8, 15), a plurality of igniting agent operated devices (5a, 5b), wherein the positive polarity conductor (4a) comprising a plurality of conductors (connected to a separating element (51a)) and the negative polarity conductor (4b) comprising a second plurality of conductors (connected to a separating element (51b) and to the measuring resistors (9, 16)).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 16, Becker does not disclose that the negative and positive polarity conductors are bus bars.
The Official Notice is taken of the facts outside of the current record that bus bars have been notoriously known and widely used in electrical arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as current conductors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the negative and positive polarity conductors of Becker as bus bars, as an obvious design choice, in order to predicably and efficiently accomplish electrical interconnections in Becker. All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Alternatively, Troianello teaches (Fig. 5) conventionality of using an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (124), the ASIC not including a central processing unit, the ASIC directly electrically coupled to the over-current output (148), the ASIC directly electrically coupled to the igniting agent operated device (128, 130, 132, 134) for the benefits of reduction of the costs, size, energy coemption, and increased speed of operation (col. 1, l. 10 to col. 2. l. 67).
Further, Jefferies also teaches (Fig. 1) conventionality of using an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (18) in an automobile current sensing module (10), the ASIC not including a central processing unit, the ASIC directly electrically coupled to the over-current output (20, 21) of a current sensor (12) for the benefits of achieving the characteristics of monotonicity, linearity, and relative temperature invariance over the normal operating range with less complexity and in a smaller module than prior art current sensors (col. 3, ll. 38-46).
Further, Bussing teaches conventionality of the current sensor integrated circuits (Figs. 2D, 4B) for achieving high degree of reliability (pars. [0006]-[0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the ASIC and current sensor integrated circuit in Becker according to the combined teachings of Troianello, Jefferies, and Bussing, so the combination would have: the current sensor integrated circuit including an over-current output and the ASIC, the ASIC not including a central processing unit, the ASIC directly electrically coupled to the over-current output to the igniting agent operated device, as claimed, in order to predictably achieve characteristics of monotonicity, linearity, and relative temperature invariance over the normal operating range with less complexity and in a smaller module than prior art current sensors, while achieving high degree of reliability, reduction of the costs, size, and energy consumption, and increased speed of operation (Jefferies, col. 3, ll. 38-46; Bussing, pars. [0006]-[0008]; Trianello, col. 1, l. 10 to col. 2. l. 67). All claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined / modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination / modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Becker as modified discloses that the current sensor integrated circuit (8, 15) is arranged proximate to one of the plurality of conductors (4a, 4b) to sense electric current in the one of the plurality of conductors (Figs. 1, 2). Also, see in Jefferies (Fig. 1) teaching the current sensor integrated circuit (18) arranged proximate to one of the plurality of conductors (12). Also, see par. [0028] of Bussing.
Regarding claims 6, 10, 14, and, 15, Becker as modified discloses (Figs. 1, 2) that the igniting agent operated device (5a, 5b) is positioned to sever the positive polarity bus bar (4a) or/and the negative polarity bus bar (4b) when activated.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13, Becker as modified discloses that the current sensor integrated circuit (8, 15) is configured to change a state of the over-current output (AS) in response to a predetermined amount of electric current flowing through the positive polarity bus bar (4a) or the negative polarity bus bar (4b), wherein the ASIC (6) is configured to activate the igniting agent operated device (5a, 5b) in response to the state of the over-current output (AS) (pars. [0026]-[0027] of English translation of record).
Regarding claim 17, Becker as modified discloses (Figs. 1, 2) two igniting agent operated devices (5a, 5b) configured to sever the positive and negative polarity bus bars (4a, 4b), but does not disclose two igniting agent operated devices configured to severe the positive polarity bus bar along a same lateral section of the positive polarity bus bar.
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified to Becker by providing two igniting agent operated devices configured to severe the positive polarity bus bar along the same lateral section of the positive polarity bus bar, in order to predictably provide redundancy, thus enhancing reliability of the circuit disconnection and improving safety, since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of the igniting agent operated devices. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Becker as modified discloses (Fig. 3) that the plurality of igniting agent operated devices (5a, 5b) configured to electrically decouple electric vehicle supply equipment (7, 11) from electric machines (3) and batteries (2), but does not disclose that the plurality of igniting agent operated devices includes a first group of igniting agent operated devices and a second group of igniting agent operated devices, and where the first group of igniting agent operated devices is configured to electrically decouple electric vehicle supply equipment from electric machines and batteries and the second group of igniting agent operated devices is configured to electrically decouple the batteries from the electric machines and the electric vehicle supply equipment.
Providing different groups of the igniting agent operated devices as claimed would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to predictably provide redundancy, thus enhancing reliability of the circuit disconnection and improving safety, since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of the igniting agent operated devices. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Also, proper positioning of the igniting agent operated devices around the electrical circuit, including as claimed, would have been also obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to predictably achieve desired circuit disconnections, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention (i.e., of the igniting agent operated devices) involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claims 20, Becker as modified does not disclose: a plurality of traction batteries, and where the plurality of current sensor integrated circuits includes one current sensor for each of the plurality of traction batteries.
Providing the plurality of batteries and providing different plurality of current sensor integrated circuits including one current sensor for each of the plurality of traction batteries in Becker as modified would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to provide redundancy and predictably detect failures in each battery so as to disconnect it from the circuit, thus enhancing reliability of the circuit and improving safety, since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of the batteries and of current sensors. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Also, proper positioning of the current sensors around the electrical circuit, including as claimed, would have been also obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in related arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in order to predictably achieve desired circuit disconnections, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention (i.e., of the current sensors) involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Examiner’s Note: regarding method claims 9-15, the claims recite a general process of using of the device, wherein the claims essentially repeat the structure of the device as recited in the corresponding apparatus claims, the fact that the structure of the device of the present invention is obvious over the Becker-Troianello-Bussing-Jefferies combination, means that the general method for using such a structure is also obvious over the same references. The method steps recited in the claims are inherently/obviously necessitated by the structure of the Becker-Troianello-Bussing-Jefferies combination.
Conclusion
The additional references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, because of the teachings of various circuit interrupters with pyrotechnically assisted actuation arrangements. Furter, the US 504178 and US 2025/0062198 teach integrated current sensor arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anatoly Vortman whose telephone number is (571)272-2047. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, between 10 am and 8:30 pm.
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, Jayprakash N. Gandhi can be reached at 571-272-3740. 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.
/ANATOLY VORTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835