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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/1/26 has been entered.
Accordingly no claims have been amendment. No claims have been cancelled or added. Therefore, claims 1-9 remains pending in this application. It also includes remarks and arguments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3 of the respective claim, it recites “an analogue to digital converter (ADC) having an input for receiving an analogue voltage signal” which should be rewritten in the U.S. most technical context in English, preferred as “analog to digital converter (ADC) having an input for receiving an analog voltage signal. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the output signal" in line 3 of the respective claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 2, 4 and 8 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 2, recites “ in which the control circuit includes a processing unit which monitors a value of the output signal and when the output signal reaches or is above the threshold value transmits a voltage signal to the switch to hold the switch closed (ON)”, however it is not clear what the output signal is referring to in the respective claim since there is not previously recitations of an output signal in the previous claim 1 or receptive claim. Therefore, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claims 4 and 8 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 because the claims are dependent upon base claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Finger (US 4,460,870).
Regarding claim 1, Finger in [Figs. 7] discloses a supply voltage monitoring apparatus for use in monitoring a value of a supply voltage of an automotive vehicle, a circuit comprising:
An analogue to digital converter (ADC) [see 42] having an input for receiving an analogue voltage signal and an output for outputting a digital signal, and
An input stage [see voltage divider 48-50, compensating resistor 96, and semi-conductor 194 corresponding to the input stage] which connects via amplifier 40 to the input of the ADC [see 42] to a power supply [see 10] at a point [such as the node between the voltage divider 48-50 corresponds to the point] where the value of the supply voltage Vlink is to be measured [see col. 18, ll. 14-20 and col. 21, ll. 19-26], the input stage [see voltage divider 48-50, compensating resistor 96, and semi-conductor 194 corresponding to the input stage] comprising:
a potential divider having an upper resistance and a lower resistance [see voltage divider including resistors 48 and 50 includes some sort of resistances that aren’t fixed. Further, the claim doesn’t specifically recite any numerical values of the upper and lower resistances of the potential divider therefore the resistances of the resistors 48-50 of the potential divider may include an upper and lower resistance], the two resistances connected in series to two nodes, a first node providing a connection to the supply voltage V [see positive terminal of the battery 10] and a second node providing a connection to ground [see negative or ground terminal of the battery 10], the centre tap of the potential divider [see voltage divider 48 and 50] being connected via amplifier 40 to the input of the ADC [see 42],
a switchable lower resistance which is connected in series with a switch between the centre tap of the potential divider and the ground [such that the compensating resistor 196 is connected in series with the collector terminal of switch 194. Also, the resistor 196 connects in parallel with the potential divider 48, 50 at the centre tap and ground when the switch 194 is turned on and removed from the centre tap of the potential divider 48, 50 when the switch 194 is turn off, see col. 18, ll. 14-52. Therefore, the compensating resistor 196 is configured a switchable resistor via the switch 194 turning on and off. Also, the switchable resistor 196 alone has less resistance than combined resistances of the potential divider 48, 50 taken together in series.], and
a control circuit [see flip flop 190A corresponding to the control circuit] which is arranged to hold the switch [see 194] open when the voltage at the centre tap is below a threshold value via the low voltage threshold circuit 182 and to hold the switch [see 194] closed when the voltage at the centre tap is above the threshold value via high voltage threshold circuit 184 [see col. 18, ll. 14-52].
Regarding claim 2, Finger in [Fig. 7] discloses a supply voltage monitoring apparatus according to claim 1 in which the control circuit includes a processing unit [see the two voltage threshold circuits 182 and 184 which includes processing of the thresholds and control logic 190A corresponding to the control circuit] which monitors a value of the output signal [such as the output signals at connections 188 and 198] and when the output signal reaches or is above the threshold value transmits a voltage signal to the switch [see 194] to hold the switch closed (ON), see col. 18, ll. 14-52.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finger (US 4,460,870) and in view of Gotz et al. (US 2023/0344368).
Regarding claim 4, Finger in [Fig. 7] discloses a supply voltage monitoring apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the switch [see 194] is a semi-conductor transistor, having a collector, base (control terminal) and emitter supplied with the voltage signal.
Finger does not disclose wherein said switch [see 194] is a
a MOSFET transistor and a gate of the transistor is supplied with the voltage signal.
However, Gotz et al. in [Fig. 4] discloses both bipolar junction transistor and Mosfet switching devices are known and used in the prior art. Gotz et al. discloses that both type of semiconductor switches can perform the same function in the system and control signals. Therefore, they are interchangeable [see 0061].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filling date of the invention to modify the switch device as taught by Finger with the MOSFET transistor type switch as taught Gotz et al. because the two type of switches are interchangeable, and since the designer has the opportunity to choose any configuration required by the features/design specification of the rest of the circuit as a whole. Further, MOSFET have a very low turn on-resistance, thus able to handle large current with minimal voltage drop when they are turned on and also consume less power compared to bipolar junction transistors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim 1 and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim 1 and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim 4 and any intervening claims.
Claims 6,7 and 9 are also objected to as being allowable because the claims are dependent upon base claim 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argues that Finger fails to disclose a switchable lower resistance arrangement. Finger does not disclose or suggest a configuration in which a resistor is selectively introduced in series with a switch located between the center tap of a potential divider and ground. However, the examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s assessment. Further, nowhere in claim 1 does not recite that the resistor is selectively. Furthermore, Finger discloses a compensating resistor 196 connected in series with the collector terminal of switch 194. Also, the resistor 196 connects in parallel with the potential divider 48, 50 at the centre tap and ground when the switch 194 is turned on and removed from the centre tap of the potential divider 48, 50 when the switch 194 is turn off, see col. 18, ll. 14-52. Therefore, the compensating resistor 196 is configured a switchable resistor via the switch 194 turning on and off, see col. 18, ll. 14-52. Also, the switchable resistor 196 alone has less resistance than combined resistances of the potential divider 48, 50 taken together in series
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dynamically changing the effective resistance of the lower leg of a voltage divider, isolating a resistor from the circuit below a threshold and placing it in parallel with another lower resistor above the threshold, or doing so in direct response to the voltage at the divider center tap are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., resistor that is electrically removed and reinserted, or a divider leg whose effective resistance changes as a function of operation state) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., claim provides that when the switch is open, the switchable lower resistance is electrically isolated an only the original lower resistance participates) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a resistor that is explicitly isolated in one state, and placed in conduction only above a threshold) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. the control unit including a processing unit that monitors the digital output signal of the ADC to control a divider resistor) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants argues that Finger does not disclose for example in claim 2, that the control circuit includes processing unit which monitors a value of the output signal and when the output signal reaches or is above the threshold value, transmits a voltage signal to the switch to hold the switch closed. The states, more specifically, the claimed processing unit monitors the value of the output signal of the ADC, which is a digital signal (see claim 1). However, the examiner will like to point out that there is no such language or limitation appearing in Claim 1. Claim 1, recites the control circuit acts “when the voltage at the centre tap”- not the ADC output. Claim 2 recites “which monitors a value of the output signal” – the claim does not explicitly define where/what this “output signal” is. If it was supposed to be the output of the ADC, then it would have recited “monitors the digital signal” (the name of the output of the ADC). Further, a digital signal is just 0 and 1 – unclear why you would need to compare it to a threshold. The threshold value of claim 1 is more closely associated with an analog value. In any case – the lack of basis for “output signal” means that it doesn’t have to be the ADC output. The language of claim 1 “when the voltage at the centre tap” supports the interpretation that the “output signal” is the voltage at the centre tap.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. The Examiner's assertion of generic transistor interchangeability ignores the functional role of the MOSFET in Applicant's invention defined by the claims. As described in the specification (e.g., " [0036]-[0038], [0042]): the MOSFET's low Rdson enables effective parallel resistance, its voltage-controlled gate enables precise threshold behavior, and its gradual turn-on characteristic smooths the ADC input transition (see Figure 3) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. secondary functional advantages not addressed, the cited art does not address dynamic measurement range extension, resolution preservation at low supply voltages, or non-linear divider haviour are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, as discussed above in claim 4 by the cited references it is well known to one of ordinary skill in the prior art that the bipolar junction transistors as taught by Finger can be interchangeable with other known switches, such as the MOSFET as taught by Gotz et al. for various advantages reasons as mentioned above. Furthermore in Applicant’s specification of US2024/0201233 it discloses that the switch may comprise a MOSET or other transistor and gate or base of the transistor which may be supplied with the voltage signal output at the centre tap of the potential divider or from the microprocessor. Therefore, the two type of switches are well known to be substituted or interchangeable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRENCE RONIQUE WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-2725. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30pm.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7492. 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.
/TERRENCE R WILLOUGHBY/Examiner, Art Unit 2836 7/24/26
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights