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 .
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 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.
Claim 1, 2 and 5 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 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] where the value of the supply voltage Vlink is to be measured [see col. 21, ll. 19-26], the input stage comprising:
a potential divider having an upper resistance and a lower resistance [see voltage divider 48-50], 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 48-50] being connected via amplifier 40 to the input of the ADC [see 42],
a switchable lower resistance [see compensating resistor 196 corresponding to the switchable lower resistance and col. 18, ll. 35-52] which is connected in series with a switch [see semi-conductor 194 corresponding to the switch] between the centre tap of the potential divider [see voltage divider 48-50] and the ground, and
a control circuit [see amplifier 40 and 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 and to hold the switch [see 194] closed when the voltage at the centre tap is above the threshold value [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 amplifier 40, flip flop 190A and/or comparators 182/184 which includes processing the control logic corresponding to the control circuit] 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 [see 194] to hold the switch closed (ON), col. 18, ll. 14-52.
Regarding claim 5, Finger in [Fig. 7] discloses a supply voltage monitoring apparatus according claim 1, comprising a processing unit [see voltmeter 46 corresponding to the processing unit] which receives the digital signal output from the ADC and maps the digital signal to a value for the supply voltage [see col. 6, ll. 30-67].
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.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finger (US 4,460,870).
Regarding claim 3, Finger in [Fig. 7] discloses a supply voltage monitoring apparatus according to claim 1, except in which the control circuit comprises a second potential divider comprising a second upper resistance in series with a second lower resistance connected between the centre tap and the ground, a voltage at the centre tap of the second potential divider varying as a function of the supply voltage and controlling the opening or closing of the switch.
However, Finger in [Fig. 4] a previous/different embodiment discloses the control circuit comprises a second potential divider [see 98-100] comprising a second upper resistance [see 98] in series with a second lower resistance [see 100] connected between the centre tap and the ground, a voltage at the centre tap of the second potential divider [see 98-100] varying as a function of the supply voltage and controlling the opening or closing of the switch [see 172 and col. 9, ll. 20-68].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filling date of the invention to add the second potential divider as taught in Fig. 4 connected between the centre tap and ground and across the first potential divider as disclosed in Fig. 7 in order to thus lower the effective resistance of the lower branch of the voltage divider and to thus decrease the effective voltage outputs.
Regarding claim 7, Finger in [Fig. 7] discloses a supply voltage monitoring apparatus according claim 3, further comprising a processing unit [see meter 46] which receives the digital signal output from the ADC [see 42] and maps the digital signal to a value for the supply voltage [see col. 6, ll. 30-67].
Claims 4, 6, 8 and 9 are 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 claims 4 and 6, Finger in [Fig. 7] discloses a supply voltage monitoring apparatus according to claims 2 and 3, 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 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.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Finger in view of Gotz et al. discloses the supply voltage monitoring apparatus according to claims 4 and 6. Further, Finger in [Fig. 7] discloses a processing unit [see meter 46] which receives the digital signal output from the ADC [see 42] and maps the digital signal to a value for the supply voltage [see col. 6, ll. 30-67].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argues that Finger fails to disclose a switchable lower resistance that is in series with a switch between a center tap of a potential divider and ground, and where a control circuit holds the switch open or closed based on a threshold voltage at the center tap. However, the examiner does not agree with the Applicants assessment. Finger in col. 18, ll. 35-52 explicitly states that a high voltage closes the switch [see 194] to add the resistor [see 196] to “dynamically alter the effective resistance of the low leg of the voltage divider [see voltage divider 48-50]”. A low voltage then opens the switch [see 194] to remove the resistor [see 196] and resets the voltage divider [see 48-50] to its original value. While Finger gives the resistor [196] a name “compensation” is irrelevant. Further, Finger clearly shows resistor [196] in series with the switch [194] between the center tap of the potential divider [see voltage divider 48-50] and the ground.
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 claimed configuration in claim 1 provides a distinct advantage by dynamically altering the effective resistance of the lower leg of the divider based on voltage thresholds ) 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.
Applicants argues Finger does not disclose the recitation of claims 5 (similar claim 7), further comprising a processing unit which receives the digital signal output from the ADC and maps the digital signal to a value for the supply voltage. The examiner will like to point out this processing unit in claim 5 is not (and does not have to be) the same processing unit as in claim 2. While “Finger does not describe any logic, algorithm, or computational method” – none are claimed. Claim 5 simply states the processing unit “maps” the digital signal. No citations to the spec have been provided to support any specific definition that must be incorporated. apparatus according claim 1, comprising a processing unit [see voltmeter 46 corresponding to the processing unit] which receives the digital signal output from the ADC and maps the digital signal to a value for the supply voltage [see col. 6, ll. 30-67]. The Applicant was put on notice that “maps” reads on a volt meter 46 in Fig. 7 and see col. 6, ll. 30-67. Applicant has not amended the claim to remove the ambiguity. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 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 9/30/25
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836