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 respectfully argues “the Kasai-Peter combination is not supported by an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning, because the Office Action does not explain why a skilled artisan would have selected Peter’s particular +5V-referenced diagnostic/bias resistors and imported them into Kasai’s different malfunction-detection architecture.” In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation recited in the non-final office action is “better regulated current control along with overcurrent protection”. Peter teaches in the Abstract “a device for controlling and regulating the current through an electronic consumer”.
Applicant respectfully argues “Peter’s cited resistor R45 is part of a diagnostic amplifier input.” 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., diagnostic amplifier input) 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).
Applicant respectfully argues “Kasai’s Fig. 7 bridge and malfunction judgment system therefore use a voltage-sum comparison architecture, not the present application’s freewheeling-mode current-difference node V2”. 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., freewheeling-mode current-difference node) 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). Takahara of US20230308025 teaches that the term reflux diode, as used by Kasai, is another name for a freewheeling diode ([0026]). Therefore, the diodes taught by Kasai are still freewheeling diodes.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 & 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai et al., US6335600 (hereinafter referred to as Kasai, and in view of Peter et al., US4951188 (hereinafter referred to as Peter).
In regards to claim 1, Kasai teaches an H-bridge circuit (bridge circuit 31; [Fig. 7]) for energizing (controls an electric motor; [Col. 1, Ln. 13-16]) an inductor (DC motor 10; [Fig. 7]), comprising: four switches (switching elements SW1-SW4; [Fig. 7]); and freewheeling diodes (reflux diodes D11-D14 or Di1-Di4; [Fig. 7]), wherein a respective freewheeling diode of the freewheeling diodes is connected in parallel (parallel; [Col. 5, Ln. 60-62]) with each respective switch of the switches ([Fig. 7]).
Kasai does not teach the H-bridge circuit comprising: measuring arrangements; measuring resistors; and resistors, wherein a first resistor of the resistors relates to a positive reference voltage, and a second and third resistor of the resistors have the same resistance value.
Peter teaches the H-bridge circuit comprising: measuring arrangements (IC6/1 & IC6/2; [Fig. 1B]); measuring resistors (R1 & R2; [Fig. 1B]); and resistors (R40, R45, R47, R56-R60; [Fig. 1B]), wherein a first resistor (R45; [Fig. 1B]) of the resistors relates to a positive reference voltage (5V; [Fig. 1B]), and a second (R40; [Fig. 1B]) and third resistor (R47; [Fig. 1B]) of the resistors have the same resistance value (75k; [Col. 7, Ln. 3-4]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kasai in order to incorporate the H-bridge circuit comprising: measuring arrangements; measuring resistors; and resistors, wherein a first resistor of the resistors relates to a positive reference voltage, and a second and third resistor of the resistors have the same resistance value as taught by Peter. The motivation for doing so would be to have a better regulated current control along with overcurrent protection.
In regards to claim 3, Kasai teaches the H-bridge circuit further comprising: short-circuit resistors (resistors R1, R2, R5, & R6; [Fig. 7]), two of the short-circuit resistors being connected to ground (R1 and R2; [Fig. 7]), and two of the short-circuit resistors (R5 and R6; [Fig. 7]) being connected to a battery (battery 24; [Fig. 7]) voltage (power voltage Vb; [Fig. 7]).
In regards to claim 4, Kasai does not teach wherein resistance values of the resistors are significantly higher than resistance values of the measuring resistors.
Peter teaches wherein resistance values of the resistors (75k; [Col. 7, Ln. 3-4]) are significantly higher than resistance values of the measuring resistors (10 milliohms; [Col. 6, Ln. 61-62]) (Examiner’s Note: Peter teaches across the different embodiments of the resistors being in the thousands of ohms and the measuring resistors being in the range of milliohms.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Kasai in order to incorporate wherein resistance values of the resistors are significantly higher than resistance values of the measuring resistors as taught by Peter. The motivation for doing so would be to have a better regulated current control along with overcurrent protection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 allowed.
The claimed combination found within independent claims 5 & 6 is/are considered novel and unobvious in view of the prior art of record. The closest prior art is considered to be
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to independent claim 5, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination or limitations including “wherein the short-circuit resistors are high-impedance when there is no short-circuit, and wherein directions of currents flowing through the measuring resistors differing in their polarity sign.”
Claim 7 is allowed due to dependence on claim 5.
In regards to independent claim 6, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination or limitations including “wherein a measuring arrangement of the measuring arrangements is used to measure, in a freewheeling mode, whether there is a difference between the currents flowing through the measuring resistors in which case at least one of the short circuit resistors becomes less resistive.”
Claim 8 is allowed due to dependence on claim 6.
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 SAMANTHA L FAUBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 5PM.
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 5712701682. 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.
SAMANTHA LYNETTE FAUBERT
Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights