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 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any grounds applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Takayanagi et al (8,970,234) and Harada et al (2023/0027461) have been utilized in the modified rejection below to address the amendments made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayanagi et al (8,920,234) in view of Dang (2018/0212415).
Independent claims 1 and 6 will be addressed first.
In re Claim 1, Takayanagi teaches control device that includes a first circuitry (14) including a processor configured to execute a predetermined control process for controlling an operation of the control device (col 4 lines 59-63); a temperature sensor (16) configured to detect a temperature of the first circuitry (col 3 lines 35-40); and a second circuitry (18) configured to control activation and deactivation of the first circuitry based on the temperature detected by the temperature sensor (col 3 lines 37-41 and col 4 lines 48-59), wherein the second circuitry is further configured to have a second threshold as a threshold related to the temperature detected by the temperature sensor and deactivate the first circuitry after activation of the first circuitry on a condition that the temperature detection value exceeds the second threshold (col 8 lines 1-10).
Takayanagi further teaches that the second circuitry may utilize multiple thresholds (col 7 lines 30-35) and that the temperature sensor feedback may be used to by the second circuitry in any manner to maintain safe operation while enabling optimum performance.
Takayanagi does not teach that the second circuitry is configured to have a first threshold lower the second threshold wherein the first circuitry is activated on a condition that a temperature detection value of the temperature detected by the temperature sensor does not exceed the first threshold.
Dang teaches a control device as seen in Figure 1 wherein a second circuitry 20 deactivates first circuitry 30 when a second temperature threshold (i.e., “first threshold”) is exceeded (paragraph 37). Dang further teaches that the first circuitry is activated when the temperature has dropped below a first temperature threshold (i.e., “second threshold”) to resume operation (paragraph 37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second circuitry of Takayanagi to activate the first circuitry when the temperature drops below a first threshold to resume operation as taught by Dang in an effort to maintain safe operation while enabling optimum performance.
In re Claim 6, see the discussion of Claim 1 above. Furthermore, Takayanagi teaches storing thresholds in a storage unit 22, which is considered part of the second circuitry 18.
In re Claim 2, Takayanagi teaches deactivating the first circuitry 14 by stopping the supply of at least power supply voltage (from 12) to the first circuitry (col 4 lines 55-59). Upon modification, in order to activate the first circuitry the supply voltage would be reapplied.
In re Claim 3, Takayanagi teaches that the temperature sensor 16 is provided outside the first circuitry (Figure 1, described as separate from the first circuitry 14 and distributed around it, col 3 lines 35-40).
In re Claim 4, Takayanagi teaches that the temperature sensor 16 comprises an A/D converter 164 as seen in Figure 4 (col 7 lines 5-16). Takayanagi does not specifically teach that the temperature sensor is built in to the second circuitry 18.
Dang teaches that an A/D converter that receives feedback from temperature sensor 10 is built in to the second circuitry 20 (paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the A/D converter of Takayanagi built in to the second circuitry 18 since Dang teaches it as a known alternative configuration to provide temperature feedback to the second circuitry and since it would provide protection to the A/D converter.
In re Claim 5, Takayanagi teaches the temperature sensor 16 is provided outside both the first 14 and second circuitry 18 (Figure 1, described as separate from the first circuitry 14 and distributed around it and outside second circuitry 18, col 3 lines 35-40).
In re Claims 7 and 10, Takayanagi teaches the first circuitry 14 is a microcontroller (col 4 lines 59-64).
In re Claims 8 and 12, Takayanagi teaches the first circuitry 14 is a system on a chip 10 (col 3 lines 20-25).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayanagi et al (8,920,234) in view of Dang (2018/0212415) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harada et al (2023/0027461).
In re Claim 9 and 10, Takayanagi as modified by Dang does not specifically teach that the first circuitry is configured to receive input information from at least one vehicle sensor, process the input information, and transmit the processed input information.
Harada teaches an ECU 31 as a first circuitry that receives input information from a radar sensor, processes the input information, and transmits the input information in the form of a command signal (paragraph 67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the first circuitry 14 of Takayanagi as the ECU of Harada so that the ECU can be provided with temperature protection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER JAY CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00am - 6:00pm 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, Thienvu Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838