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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on (5/24/24 3/23/26) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 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 1-8, 10-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Douglass et al. (US PG PUB NO 2017/0363674).
[CLAIM 1] Regarding claim 1, Douglass discloses a system, comprising: a motive electrical power path and a power distribution unit (Douglass discloses in the Abstract, an “electrical power system” which form a selectively used distribution path) a having a current protection circuit (Douglass paragraph [0003] discloses a fusible element to prevent component damage) disposed in the motive electrical power path, the current protection circuit comprising a fuse (at least one fuse 200); and a controller (Douglass discloses in the Abstract a controller), comprising: a fuse status circuit (Douglass, Abstract) structured to determine a fuse event value (Douglass, Abstract discloses monitoring at least one fuse fatigue parameter and provide a service life therefrom); and a fuse management circuit structured to provide a fuse event response (Douglass, paragraph [0003] discloses selectively melting fuse elements to prevent component damage).
PNG
media_image1.png
590
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 2] Regarding claim 2, Douglass discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a fuse life description circuit structured to determine a fuse life remaining value (Douglass, paragraph [0028] discloses service life), wherein the fuse event value comprises a representation that the fuse life remaining value is below a threshold value wherein the fuse management circuit is further structured to provide the fuse event response further based on the fuse life remaining value (Douglass, paragraph [0003] discloses selectively melting fuse elements to prevent component damage based on measured values).
[CLAIM 3] Regarding claim 3, Douglass discloses the system of claim 2, wherein providing the fuse event response comprises providing at least one of a fault code or a notification of the fuse event value (Douglass, paragraph [0029] introduces preventing damage by observing fault conditions and 25 other instances reciting “fault”).
[CLAIM 4] Regarding claim 4, Douglass discloses the system of claim 2, wherein providing the fuse event response comprises adjusting a maximum power rating for the motive electrical power path (Douglass, paragraph [0034] discloses “high voltage power fuses”. Additionally, it discloses 1) higher voltage operation and 2) lower short circuit operation each of which involves associated fuses).
[CLAIM 5] Regarding claim 5, Douglass discloses the system of claim 2, wherein providing the fuse event response comprises adjusting a configuration of the current protection circuit (Douglass preferably modifies current protection circuit to prevent inadvertent melting in a fuse event response).
[CLAIM 6] Regarding claim 6, Douglass discloses the system of claim 2: wherein the current protection circuit further comprises a contactor coupled in a parallel arrangement to the fuse; wherein the fuse management circuit is further structured to provide a contactor activation command in response to the fuse event value (Douglass, paragraph [0040] discloses “terminal blades” which are contactors associated with the fuse 200); and wherein the contactor is responsive to the contactor activation command (Douglass, paragraph [0108] discloses terminal blades and where selective terminals “are varied to mate with additional terminals.” This requires current protection commands for mating).
[CLAIM 7] Regarding claim 7, Douglass discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the fuse management circuit is further structured to provide the contactor activation command as a contactor closing command in response to the fuse event value comprising one of a thermal wear event (Douglass, paragraph [0108] discloses terminal blades and where selective terminals “are varied to mate with additional terminals.” This requires current protection commands for mating and would be based on circuit protection and predicted remining fuse life/wear).
[CLAIM 8] Regarding claim 8, Douglass discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the fuse management circuit is further structured to adjust a current threshold value for the contactor activation command in response to the fuse life remaining value (Douglass, paragraph [0093] discloses in part “The system 300 may provide an alert or notification to power system personnel sometime at a predetermined accumulated damage threshold below 1.0 (e.g., when the accumulated damage is about 0.80 or about 80% of service life is consumed). The notification may alert personnel to the fatigued condition of the fuse 352 with an estimated service life remaining to give ample opportunity for the fuse to be proactively replaced before it fails due to advance fatigue.” This advanced diagnosis can be combined if desired to activate the terminal blades see also paragraph [0108] “where selective terminals “are varied to mate with additional terminals”).
[CLAIM 10] Regarding claim 10, Douglass discloses a method, comprising: determining a fuse event value (Douglass, Abstract discloses monitoring at least one fuse fatigue parameter and provide a service life therefrom) for a fuse disposed in a current protection circuit (Douglass paragraph [0003] discloses a fusible element to prevent component damage), the current protection circuit disposed in a motive electrical power path of a vehicle (Douglass discloses in the Abstract, an “electrical power system” which form a selectively used distribution/power path); and providing, via a fuse management circuit, a fuse event response based on the fuse event value (Douglass, paragraph [0003] discloses selectively melting fuse elements to prevent component damage).
[CLAIM 11] Regarding claim 11, Douglass discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising determining a fuse life remaining value, wherein the fuse event value comprises a representation that the fuse life remaining value is below a threshold value (Ideally the fuse opens if below threshold value/life span), and providing the fuse event response further based on the fuse life remaining value (Douglass, paragraph [0003] discloses selectively melting fuse elements to prevent component damage based on measured values).
[CLAIM 12] Regarding claim 12, Douglass discloses the method of claim 11, wherein providing the fuse event response comprises adjusting a maximum power rating for the motive electrical power path or adjusting a maximum power slew rate for the motive electrical power path (Douglass, paragraph [0034] discloses “high voltage power fuses”. Additionally, it discloses 1) higher voltage operation and 2) lower short circuit operation each of which involves associated fuses).
[CLAIM 13] Regarding claim 13, Douglass discloses the method of claim 11, wherein providing the fuse event response comprises adjusting a configuration of the current protection circuit (Douglass preferably modifies current protection circuit to prevent inadvertent melting in a fuse event response).
[CLAIM 14] Regarding claim 14, Douglass discloses the method of claim 11: wherein the current protection circuit further comprises a contactor coupled in a parallel arrangement to the fuse; wherein the fuse management circuit is further structured to provide a contactor activation command in response to the fuse event value (Douglass, paragraph [0040] discloses “terminal blades” which are contactors associated with the fuse 200); and wherein the contactor is responsive to the contactor activation command (Douglass, paragraph [0108] discloses terminal blades and where selective terminals “are varied to mate with additional terminals.” This requires current protection commands for mating).
[CLAIM 15] Regarding claim 15, Douglass discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the fuse management circuit is further structured to provide the contactor activation command as a contactor closing command in response to the fuse event value comprising one of a thermal wear event (Douglass, paragraph [0108] discloses terminal blades and where selective terminals “are varied to mate with additional terminals.” This requires current protection commands for mating and would be based on circuit protection and predicted remining fuse life/wear).
[CLAIM 16] Regarding claim 16, Douglass discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the fuse management circuit is further structured to adjust a current threshold value for the contactor activation command in response to the fuse life remaining value (Douglass, paragraph [0093] discloses in part “The system 300 may provide an alert or notification to power system personnel sometime at a predetermined accumulated damage threshold below 1.0 (e.g., when the accumulated damage is about 0.80 or about 80% of service life is consumed). The notification may alert personnel to the fatigued condition of the fuse 352 with an estimated service life remaining to give ample opportunity for the fuse to be proactively replaced before it fails due to advance fatigue.” This advanced diagnosis can be combined if desired to activate the terminal blades see also paragraph [0108] “where selective terminals “are varied to mate with additional terminals”).
[CLAIM 18] Regarding claim 18, Douglass discloses the method of claim 10, wherein providing the fuse event response comprises providing at least one of a fault code or a notification of the fuse event value (Douglass, paragraph [0029] introduces preventing damage by observing fault conditions and 25 other instances reciting “fault”).
[CLAIM 19] Regarding claim 19, Douglass discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising determining an accumulated fuse event description in response to the fuse event response, and storing the accumulated fuse event description (Douglass, paragraph [0088] recites “Each peak current in each zone represents an amount of strain that can be calculated according to known relationships, so the strain corresponding to each peak can be accumulated to estimate the amount of fatigue that the fuse element is experiences with each peak current cycle and/or an estimated service life remaining. Algorithms can be developed to monitor the fuse current in a system similar to the system 300 described above, wherein one of the controllers 362 and 364 may calculate the strain accumulation for advising service life actions.” The act of the controller monitoring the fuse current lends itself to storing an accumulated amount).
[CLAIM 20] Regarding claim 20, Douglass discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising providing the accumulated fuse event description (Douglass discloses “monitoring”), wherein providing the accumulated fuse event description comprises at least one of: providing at least one of a fault code or a notification of the accumulated fuse event description (Douglass, paragraph [0029] introduces preventing damage by observing fault conditions (e.g. fault or a code) and 25 other recited instances of “fault”).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1. Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglass et al. (US PG PUB NO 2017/0363674) in view of HIirahara (US 4,189,695).
[CLAIM 9] Regarding claim 9, Douglass discloses the system of claim 2.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein providing the fuse event response comprises adjusting a cooling system interface for a cooling system at least selectively thermally coupled to the fuse in response to the fuse life remaining value.
-Nevertheless, Hirahara discloses cooling/insulating oil 2 surrounding a fuse 6.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Douglass to have fuse cooling as taught by Hirahara with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce temperature and extend remaining life.
PNG
media_image2.png
741
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 17] Regarding claim 17, Douglass discloses the method of claim 11.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein providing the fuse event response comprises adjusting a cooling system interface for a cooling system at least selectively thermally coupled to the fuse in response to the fuse life remaining value.
-Nevertheless, Hirahara discloses cooling/insulating oil 2 surrounding a fuse 6.
- Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Douglass to have fuse cooling as taught by Hirahara with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce temperature and extend remaining life.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM PST.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached on (571)272-.4530. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights