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 the same grounds applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
A new rejection in view of Nakamura et al (2017/0197566) has been made below to address the amendments made.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, replace “13” with --12--. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-6 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al (2010/0254059) in view of Nakamura et al (2017/0197566).
In re Claims 1, 12, and 13, Higuchi teaches an electrical component as seen in Figure 2 comprising: a switching element (35); and a control circuit (10) coupled to the switching element, wherein the control circuit includes: at least one processor (paragraph 34); and at least one memory (paragraph 34) storing program code that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to: provide a time series of current strength values of an electrical current (I(n) sampled every sampling interval Δt) flowing in the electrical component registered in time steps that are consecutive (paragraphs 44-54), the electrical current being led through the switching element (paragraphs 42-54); operate a thermal model of the electrical component, wherein the thermal model is a first order recursive filter (inclusion of (n-1) as seen in Formula (1)) that filters squared current strength values of the time series (I(n-1)2 as seen in Formula (1)) and generates, as a respective output value in each of the time steps, a presently estimated temperature value that is compared to a limit value (paragraphs 54-57); determine a temperature of the electrical component from the current strength values using the thermal model (paragraphs 54-57); and in response to determining that the temperature is greater than the limit value, switch the switching element to an electrically blocking state in which the electrical current is interrupted (paragraph 57).
Higuchi does not teach sending a state signal as claimed.
Nakamura teaches an arrangement as seen in Figure 5 similar to that of Higuchi comprising a control circuit 30 controlling a switching element 20 in a vehicular setting (paragraph 2). Nakamura further teaches that the control circuit notifies an outside controller (ECU) via a notification unit 60 the switching state of the switching element so that a driver can ultimately be notified to make repairs (paragraphs 131 and 143).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a notification unit as taught by Nakamura as part of the control circuit of Higuchi to send a state signal since Nakamura teaches that by doing so a driver can ultimately be notified to make needed repairs.
In re Claim 2, Higuchi teaches the filter contains a term for a power input that quantifies electrical power produced by a present squared current strength value of a present time step (I(n-1)2 as seen in Formula (1)).
In re Claim 3, Higuchi teaches the filter contains a term for heat dissipation from the electrical component, and the heat dissipation results from a characteristic for a thermal resistance (paragraph 50) of a material of the electrical component (as seen in Formula (1)).
In re Claim 4, Higuchi teaches the filter contains a mathematical term with an ambient temperature (“reference temperature”) at a present time step n, and a value of the mathematical term is provided from measured values of the ambient temperature (paragraphs 40, 54, and 78).
In re Claim 5, Higuchi teaches a sampling interval of Δt (paragraph 53), which results in a sampling rate of 1/ Δt.
In re Claim 6, Higuchi teaches the filter models a temperature-dependent material property of a material of the electrical component (paragraph 52) and uses an output value of a preceding time step as a present temperature of the material (ΔTw(n-1) as seen in Formula (1), paragraph 55).
In re Claim 10, Higuchi teaches the electrical component is a cable (i.e., wire harness) [paragraph 31].
In re Claim 11, Higuchi teaches the switching element 35 is a semiconductor switch (paragraph 37).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al (2010/0254059) in view of Nakamura et al (2017/0197566) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Maruyama et al (2011/0080681).
In re Claim 7, Higuchi teaches utilizing various parameters in the filter (paragraphs 48-53) related to the wire harness being measured, but does not specifically teach that the parameters are length related.
Maruyama teaches that when estimating a temperature of a wire utilizing similar parameters, that the parameters per length (paragraphs 33-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to insure that the aforementioned parameters relied on in the filter of Higuchi are per length as taught by Maruyama to insure that the temperature estimated is applicable to wire harnesses of various lengths.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, and 14-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In re Claims 8 and 9, Higuchi fails to teach the filter implements the specific formula as claimed.
In re Claims 14-19, Nakamura fails to teach that the state signal further indicates the temperature.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights