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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 11/3/2025.
Note: Claim 2 has a status identified of “Currently amended,” but no claim feature appears to be amended. This claim is therefore being interpreted to have a status identifier of “previously presented.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previous drawing objections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s arguments and amendments.
With regard to the arguments on pages 5—7 directed towards the previous 112(a) rejections,
Applicant cites MPEP 2164.06(c) noting that the omission of details which are well known in the art is not improper, but the Examiner respectfully notes that this is an enablement standard, and not a written description standard, and MPEP 2164 is directed toward enablement, not written description. In enablement, the test is simply whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably recognize at least one well-known way to implement a claim feature, and that when applicant relies upon such a way, no further explanation is necessary because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize how to implement that feature.
While written description is similar, the difference is that with written description, applicant must still reasonably apprise a person of ordinary skill in the art as to what applicant is doing to implement a claim feature in order to then be able to rely upon that which is well-known in the art, should applicant desire to rely upon such knowledge. This is why in MPEP 2163(3)(a), the written description section of the MPEP, it is explained and has been held that “What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail. See Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94.” Here it has been held not that the original disclosure can be silent on how applicant implements a claim feature, but rather, that applicant does not have to provide a large amount of detail. Meaning, applicant must still reasonably provide a sufficient disclosure such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the manner that applicant is implementing a claim feature, but can then rely upon that which was known in the art for any detailed explanation of that manner without further elaboration. As an example, had applicant originally disclosed that a microprocessor was used to implement an also disclosed formula, then such a disclosure would reasonably demonstrate written description, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing a feature (i.e. by way of a microprocessor and formula), and applicant could then rely upon that knowledge and skill of one of ordinary skill to implement such a feature without further explanation, because how to implement a formula on a microprocessor is well-known. However, by not providing the microprocessor or formula, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner that applicant is implementing the claim feature. Such a person may be able to figure “a” way to implement the feature (enablement), but would not recognize applicant’s way (written description) to implement the feature.
To that point, the cited sections of the disclosure do not reasonably remedy the situation, because none of the disclosed devices are well-known devices that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize. For example, a “diagnosis pulse request unit” or “diagnosis unit” are not well-known devices, as best understood. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what these devices are or the manner in which applicant implements such devices. A person of ordinary skill would not recognize whether applicant had created their own specific devices for the above devices, or if not, which devices applicant intended to be those devices as claimed. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the arguments on pages 7-9 directed towards Takamura et al. (Takamura) (WO 2019/069433 A1),
Applicant argues that Takamura does not disclose the dark test feature because the auto-tuning process in Figure 18 is not part of the dark test process itself. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claim do not define the limits for what can and cannot be considered as part of the overall dark test process. Takamura does disclose a dark test as acknowledged by applicant, and it discloses the various steps/structural features of the claim. As such, Takamura reasonably discloses the claim feature both because the argued auto-tuning process can be considered part of the overall dark test process, and because there is no distinction between when the process or device is configured to perform the claim feature. Meaning, if the device of Takamura can perform the steps of features of the claim, then it can do so at any time, including during a dark test. What applicant is essentially doing is naming a period of time, but then arguing that the prior art does not meet the claim features because it does not perform the claim steps during that point in time. However, because the prior art discloses the features of the claim, it can reasonably perform it during any named period of time, and thus disclose the claim feature. This is especially true for the apparatus claim, as no dark test is present in the claim. An apparatus claim is solely directed towards a final product, and not when it is used. As such, by disclosing the structural features of the claim, the prior art reasonably discloses the claim .
Applicant then argues that Takamura does not set any particular upper limit value and does not determine a device is abnormal based upon that upper limit value. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that applicant also acknowledges that Takamura sweeps (increases) a value (time-out time or diagnostic pulse width) until the detection pulse reaches are exceeds a reference value. That reference value is an upper limit, because the detection pulse must reach or exceed this value. Furthermore, as previously explained, the device is also designed to detect a similar failure as application in the output switch circuit (see paragraph [0058]), and that during the normal and ordinary use of the device, when a failure does occur, the sweeping of the pulse width will not be successful, and thus whatever pulse width value the system stops at where an failure is determined is the upper limit value. This reasonably discloses the argued claim feature.
Applicant further argues that Takamura is unable to adapted to fluctuations in characteristics due to temperature, but the Examiner respectfully notes that 1) applicant is arguing what applicant believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would know but without evidence (see MPEP 2145(I)), and 2) such a feature is not claimed, and thus not required to be met by the prior art.
Lastly, applicant argues that the features previously identified as conditional are function and define a functional relationship, and that conditional limitations are limiting because they define how the invention behaves when the recited condition exists. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner notes that while the conditional language may define how the device or claim behaves “when the recited condition exists” as argued by applicant, that argued condition is not required, and thus not positively recited. For example, if applicant claims that when a device acts abnormally, a correction is performed. Such a correction is conditional, in that it is never performed when the device acts normally. If the device always acts normally, then this condition is never invoked. Applicant, respectfully, does not cite any authority that demonstrates that a conditional limitation is limiting to the extent that it must be met by the prior art. In fact, MPEP 2111.04(II) does address such an issue, where it expressly states “In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14” (emphasis added).
Here, the Board address the same issue currently being argued, and the Board expressly ruled that such a conditional limitation is not required to be met by the prior art, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, when the condition is not invoked. As such, so long as a reasonable period of time exists that the condition is not invoked, and the prior art otherwise discloses the claim feature, then the prior art can reasonably be stated discloses the claim features even if it does not disclose what occurs when the condition is invoked.
Next, the Examiner respectfully notes that conditional language and functional language are not the same thing are and not synonymous, even if they can be similar at times, and such a distinction was noted by the above Board decision. Functional language further defines a function and capability of a device, whereas conditional language merely defines what happens should a specific condition occur. As an example, claiming that a computer is configured to determine A when B happens is a recitation of functional language. This is because regardless of whether condition B occurs, the computer is always configured to determine A should B happen. However, claiming that when B occurs, A is determined does not require A to ever be determined if for example B were never invoked. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner further notes that a conditional limitation can appear in an apparatus claim, depending on the manner it is claimed. For example, as currently claimed, applicant is now claiming that the output diagnosis unit “is configured to” diagnose that the output switch circuit is abnormal in response to the diagnosis pulse width reaching or exceeding a specified upper limit. Such a feature, while including a conditional limitation, is actually functional language and is positively recited. However, the newly added “wherein, in response to an output On status” paragraph in the second to last paragraph of the claim is not functional and it is being claimed as a conditional limitation. This “in response to” paragraph is not part of any configuration of any device, and is instead being claimed to describe what happens should a condition occur. As such, in this instance, similar to reciting such a feature in a method claim, this phrase is not positively recited and can be said to be met when the condition is not invoked.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claims 1 and 3,
The phrases “repeating the test process while only increasing the diagnosis pulse during the dark test until the response pulse can be detected” on lines 10-11 of Claim 1 and “repeat the instruction and the determination while only increasing the diagnosis pulse until the response pulse can be detected” on lines 15-16 of Claim 3 introduce new matter. MPEP 2173.05(i) explains “"Rather, as with positive limitations, the disclosure must only 'reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.' ... While silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation, there may be circumstances in which it can be established that a skilled artisan would understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in a disclosure." Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 2022 USPQ2d 569 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 589 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172). Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement” (emphasis added).
Applicant previously claimed that the above test process was performed while gradually increasing the diagnosis pulse during the dark test, but it never disclosed that it “only increased” it during the dark test. Applicant does disclose that the pulse width is increased when the switch is normal until the output device does not respond, but this is not the situation being claimed. Applicant is claiming that the pulse is being increased until the response “is” detected.” In this circumstance, applicant does not originally disclose that applicant “only” increases the pulse as claimed. Even if what applicant discloses is the increasing of the pulse, by being silent on whether it is decreased, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that applicant never decreased or contemplated decreasing the pulse. Consistent with the above MPEP section explaining that “silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation,” here, the original disclosure is silent as to whether it only increases the pulse as now claimed. Similarly, with regard to Claim 3, the original disclosure does not originally disclose that the pulse is only creased while repeating the instruction and determination as claimed. These phrases therefore introduce new matter.
The phrases “outputting, to the output switch circuit, a switch signal having an OFF pulse form with a diagnosis pulse width; and determining whether or not a response pulse having an OFF pulse form can be detected from an output detection signal obtained by digitally converting the voltage signal output from the output switch circuit, repeating the test process while only increasing the diagnosis pulse width during the dark test until the response pulse can be detected, and determining that the output switch circuit is abnormal in response to the diagnosis pulse width reaching or exceeding a specified upper limit value, and the determining that the output switch circuit is abnormal is not performed in response to the diagnosis pulse width being less than the specified upper limit value, wherein, in response to an output ON status, in which the output switch circuit outputs an ON status to the output device, being continued for a certain period of time, starting the dark test with the output ON status being kept to output the ON status to the output device, and the specified upper limit value is set to a value corresponding to a response speed of the output device to which the output switch circuit is connected” on lines 4 to the end of Claim 1 and “an output detection circuit configured to acquire an output detection signal obtained by digitally converting the voltage signal; an output controller configured to output, to the output switch circuit, a switch signal indicating ON or OFF; and an output diagnosis unit configured to execute a dark test for diagnosing presence or absence of an abnormality in the output switch circuit, wherein in the dark test, the output diagnosis unit is configured to instruct the output controller to output an output switch signal having an OFF pulse form with a diagnosis pulse width, determine whether or not a response pulse having an OFF pulse form can be detected from the output detection signal, repeat the instruction and the determination while only increasing the diagnosis pulse width until the response pulse can be detected, and diagnose that the output switch circuit is abnormal in response to the diagnosis pulse width reaching or exceeding a specified upper limit value and configured not to diagnose that the output switch circuit is abnormal in response to the diagnosis pulse width being less than the specified upper limit value, wherein, in response to an output ON status, in which the output switch circuit outputs an ON status to the output device, being continued for a certain period of time, starting the dark test with the output ON status being kept to output the ON status to the output device, and the specified upper limit value is set to a value corresponding to a response speed of the output device to which the output switch circuit is connected ” on lines 4 to the end of Claim 3 lack proper written description.
At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably disclose any details of any of the devices that implement the above claim features. For example, and as expressly recited in Claim 3, applicant discloses an output detection circuit, output controller, and output diagnosis unit. However, applicant does not reasonably provide any disclosure as to the manner3- in which any of these devices are implemented. The method claim relies upon these same structure features to implement the above method steps, in light of the disclosure and as seen in Claim 3, and as such the method claim has the same issues. While applicant does disclose a PLC, such a device is not reasonably all of the above three distinctly recited devices, and applicant does not reasonably disclose the PLC is any one of the above noted devices. The original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which any of the devices are implemented, and as such, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the devices are configured to implement the above claim features of either the method of Claim 1 or features of Claim 3. These claims therefore lack proper written description.
As to Claims 2 and 4,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-4 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase wherein, in response to an output ON status, in which the output switch circuit outputs an ON status to the output device, being continued for a certain period of time, starting the dark test with the output ON status being kept to output the ON status to the output device” in the second to last paragraph is indefinite.
Applicant recites “an output ON status,” an “ON status” that is output, and previously recites an ON being indicated by an output on line 2 of the claim. Applicant is therefore distinctly recited three different ON signals that are output, but where the difference and relationship between these signals or outputs are unclear. For example, both the ON status output by the switch circuit in the above phrase and the ON output from the output switch circuit in line 2 refer to the same output, as best understood, but are being distinctly recited. As such, the difference and relationship between these various outputs are unclear.
As to Claim 3,
The phrase wherein, in response to an output ON status, in which the output switch circuit outputs an ON status to the output device, being continued for a certain period of time, starting the dark test with the output ON status being kept to output the ON status to the output device” in the second to last paragraph is indefinite.
1) At issue here is that Claim 3 is an apparatus claim, but applicant is positively reciting a use of the apparatus where applicant claims that this the output switch circuit “outputs an ON status,” and continues to do so “for a certain period of time.” As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” As such, this phrase is indefinite, because it is indefinite to recite a positive use of an apparatus inside an apparatus claim, as such features amount of method steps of using an apparatus inside an apparatus claim.
2) Applicant recites “an output ON status,” an “ON status” that is output, and previously recites an ON being indicated by an output on lines 2-3 of the claim. Applicant is therefore distinctly recited three different ON signals that are output, but where the difference and relationship between these signals or outputs are unclear. For example, both the ON status output by the switch circuit in the above phrase and the ON output from the output switch circuit in line 2 refer to the same output, as best understood, but are being distinctly recited. As such, the difference and relationship between these various outputs are unclear.
As to Claims 2 and 4,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takamura et al. (Takamura) (WO 2019/069433 A1).
Note: the cited paragraphs for Takamura come from the provided English machine translation.
As to Claim 1,
Takamura discloses A dark test method for diagnosing presence or absence of an abnormality in an output switch circuit ( switch of 23D) configured to output a voltage signal for switching ON and OFF an output device (Figures 11,12), (Paragraphs [0112],[0113]), comprising performing a test process including: outputting, to the output switch circuit, a switch signal having an OFF pulse form (detection pulse / Off signal) with a diagnosis pulse width (Paragraphs [0112]-[0115]), (Figures 11,12); and determining whether or not a response pulse having an OFF pulse form can be detected from an output detection signal obtained by digitally converting the voltage signal output from the output switch circuit (Paragraphs [0042],[0115],[0116] / note device 20D, which is a version of 20X, includes a microcomputer, and thus must digitally convert any input data), repeating the test process while only increasing the diagnosis pulse width during the dark test until the response pulse can be detected (Paragraph [0112] / note the pulse width is swept and thus reasonably increased until a response pulse can be detected, and that during that time it is increased it is only increased), and determining that the output switch circuit is abnormal in response to the diagnosis pulse width reaching or exceeding a specified upper limit value (Paragraphs [0058],[0151],[0152]), (Figure 18), and the determining that the output switch circuit is abnormal is not performed in response to the diagnosis pulse width being less than the specified upper limit value (Paragraphs [0058],[0151],[0152]), (Figure 18), wherein, in response to an output ON status, in which the output switch circuit outputs an ON status to the output device, being continued for a certain period of time, starting the dark test with the output ON status being kept to output the ON status to the output device, and the specified upper limit value is set to a value corresponding to a response speed of the output device to which the output switch circuit is connected (Paragraphs [0058],[0151],[0152]), (Figure 18).
(Note: 1) The last three paragraphs are conditional features, and there is no requirement that the output switch is actually determined to be abnormal. Meaning, these features are not positively recited or required when no abnormality is determined. While applicant also claims that the determination of abnormality if not performed when the pulse is less than the upper value, this determination is a subset of the overall abnormality determination in that it is part of the process for determining an abnormality. 2) The prior art also reasonably discloses the last step of determining because it explicitly adjusts (sweeps) the pulse width until a value can be detected (Paragraphs [0151],[0152]). However, the device is also designed to detect a similar failure as application in the output switch circuit (see paragraph [0058]), and that during the normal and ordinary use of the device, when a failure does occur, the sweeping of the pulse width will not be successful, and thus whatever pulse width value the system stops at where an failure is determined is the upper limit value. 3) Lastly, because the system is expressly designed to detect a failure of the switch, any determination of this failure must reasonably occur when the test / detection pulse used does not return a desired result, thus causing the system to identify a failure. See for example paragraph [0093] which explains that when a test pulse signal is not correctly received, a fault is detected. The only reasonably way that it can be known that the pulse signal is not correctly received is to compare it to one or a range of expected values. As such, a determination of the switch being abnormal must occur due to a determination that the received signal exceeds this desired range or equals one that is known to not be desired.)
As to Claim 2,
Takamura discloses storing, as a preceding pulse width value, the diagnosis pulse width used at a time when the response pulse could be detected, and at a time of a subsequent dark test, using the preceding pulse width value as a reference to determine the diagnosis pulse width for an initial test process (Paragraphs [0112],[0116]).
As to Claim 3,
Takamura discloses An abnormality diagnosis apparatus for diagnosing presence or absence of an abnormality in an output switch circuit (switch of 23D) configured to output a voltage signal for switching ON and OFF an output device (Figures 11,12), (Paragraphs [0112],[0113]), comprising: an output detection circuit ( part of 31D that acquires the detection signal from 24D for example or just 31D) configured to acquire an output detection signal obtained by digitally converting the voltage signal (Paragraphs [0042],[0108]); an output controller (portion of 31D that controls the switch of 23D or just 31Y) configured to output, to the output switch circuit, a switch signal indicating ON or OFF (Figures 11,12), (Paragraphs [0045],[0112],[0113] / note that element 20D is just an implementation of 20X and where some elements were merely omitted from the illustration but are otherwise present as explained in paragraph [0108]); and an output diagnosis unit (all of 31D) configured to execute a dark test for diagnosing presence or absence of an abnormality in the output switch circuit, wherein in the dark test (Paragraphs [0108],[0116]), the output diagnosis unit performs a test process which involves instructing the output controller to output an output switch signal having an OFF pulse form (detection pulse / Off signal) with a diagnosis pulse width (Paragraphs [0112]-[0115]), (Figures 11,12), and determining whether or not a response pulse having an OFF pulse form can be detected from the output detection signal (Paragraphs [0042],[0115],[0116]), repeats the test process while gradually increasing the diagnosis pulse width until the response pulse can be detected (Paragraph [0112] / note the pulse width is swept and thus reasonably gradually increased until a response pulse can be detected), and diagnoses that the output switch circuit is abnormal when the diagnosis pulse width reaches or exceeds a specified upper limit value (Paragraphs [0058],[0151],[0152]), (Figure 18) and configured not to diagnose that the output switch circuit is abnormal in response to the diagnosis pulse width being less than the specified upper limit value (Paragraphs [0058],[0151],[0152]), (Figure 18 / note the device does not diagnose the abnormality until the limit is reached), wherein, in response to an output ON status, in which the output switch circuit outputs an ON status to the output device, being continued for a certain period of time, starting the dark test with the output ON status being kept to output the ON status to the output device, and the specified upper limit value is set to a value corresponding to a response speed of the output device to which the output switch circuit is connected (Paragraphs [0058],[0151],[0152]), (Figure 18 / any value used must be one that the system can reasonably process, and thus must correspond to a response speed of the device).
(Note: 1) The feature of diagnosing only requires a device reasonably capable of performing this function, and the prior art is substantially similar to that of applicant such that it would reasonably be capable of such a feature should the diagnosis pulse width reaches or exceeds a specified upper limit value. 2) The prior art also reasonably discloses the last feature of diagnosing because it explicitly adjusts (sweeps) the pulse width until a value can be detected (Paragraphs [0151],[0152]). However, the device is also designed to detect a similar failure as application in the output switch circuit (see paragraph [0058]), and that during the normal and ordinary use of the device, when a failure does occur, the sweeping of the pulse width will not be successful, and thus whatever pulse width value the system stops at where an failure is determined is the upper limit value. 3) Furthermore, because the system is expressly designed to detect a failure of the switch, any determination or diagnosis of this failure must reasonably occur when the test / detection pulse used does not return a desired result, thus causing the system to identify a failure. See for example paragraph [0093] which explains that when a test pulse signal is not correctly received, a fault is detected. The only reasonably way that it can be known that the pulse signal is not correctly received is to compare it to one or a range of expected values. As such, a determination of the switch being abnormal must occur due to a determination that the received signal exceeds this desired range or equals one that is known to not be desired. 4) Lastly, the second to last claim feature of “wherein, in response to an output ON status” recitation is a conditional limitation, and the prior art reasonably meets this limitation when this feature is not invoked, such as when the OFF status is present.)
As to Claim 4,
Takamura discloses the output diagnosis unit is further configured to store, as a preceding pulse width value, the diagnosis pulse width used at a time when the response pulse could be detected, and at a time of a subsequent dark test, uses the preceding pulse width value as a reference to determine the diagnosis pulse width for an initial test process (Paragraphs [0112],[0116]).
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 DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights