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 with respect to claim(s) 16 and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16, 17 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doernbach et al. (US 10676052 B2)
Regarding claim 16, Doernbach et al. teach a device for monitoring a power distributor of a motor vehicle, the power distributor being configured to connect and disconnect two on-board electrical subsystems (60, 62 and Fig. 5), the device comprising:
at least one main path (10 on the left of Fig. 2), and at least one additional path connected in parallel to the main path, (10 on the right of Fig. 2) the main path and the additional path being arranged between an on-board electrical subsystem (58, Fig. 5) for at least one safety-relevant load (Note column 13, lines 63-67, column 14, lines 1-3) and a further on-board electrical subsystem (60, Fig. 5) for at least one non-safety-relevant load , (Note column 13, lines 63-67, column 14, lines 1-3) the main path includes a switch (Note 30, Fig. 2) , and the additional path includes a switch (Note 30, Fig. 2), wherein the power distributor includes at least one evaluation device configured to detect a state that is critical to the on-board electrical subsystem for the safety-critical load,(note 44, voltage monitoring unit, column 12, lines 8-17) including overcurrent and/or undervoltage or overvoltage at the on-board electrical subsystem for the safety-critical load, and to open the switch of the main path and/or the switch of the additional path, when the critical state is detected; (Note claim 1, each of said switching units being configured such that a blocking of the associated said power output is effected if, in the event of a voltage drop at the associated said power output and/or at said intermediate tap to below a first setpoint value, a fault situation is ascertained, and wherein, the greater the voltage drop, the more rapidly the blocking of the associated said power output is effected.) and
at least one monitoring device (45, current monitor, Fig. 2) configured to monitor, independently of the evaluation device, a current flowing via the additional path and to actuate at least the switch of the additional path. (Note column 3, lines 6-20, Specified as a fault situation in this case, in particular, is the case/operating state in which power/current flows out of the power distributor via a power output, while the voltage at the corresponding power output or at the intermediate tap is below a specified first setpoint value. This means that the fault situation exists, in particular, when a so-called hard short circuit occurs. The switching-off, disconnection or blocking by the switching of the switch-off element is therefore to be effected very rapidly, and accordingly a power distributor presented here is preferably realized in such a manner that the reaction time, i.e. the time difference between the drop of the voltage, at a power output or at the intermediate tap, and the blocking or the completion of the blocking of the corresponding power output is less than approximately 10 ms, preferably less than approximately 5 ms, and in particular less than 1 ms.)
Regarding claim 17, Doernbach et al. teach A device for monitoring a power distributor of a motor vehicle, the power distributor being configured to connect and disconnect two on-board electrical subsystems (60, 62, Fig. 5), the device comprising:
at least one main path (10 on the left of Fig. 2), and at least one additional path connected in parallel to the main path, (10 on the right of Fig. 2) the main path and the additional path being arranged between an on-board electrical subsystem (58, Fig. 5) for at least one safety-relevant load (Note column 13, lines 63-67, column 14, lines 1-3) and a further on-board electrical subsystem (60, Fig. 5) for at least one non-safety-relevant load , (Note column 13, lines 63-67, column 14, lines 1-3) the main path includes a switch (Note 30, Fig. 2) , and the additional path includes a switch (Note 30, Fig. 2), wherein the power distributor includes at least one evaluation device configured to detect a state that is critical to the on-board electrical subsystem for the safety-critical load,(note 44, voltage monitoring unit, column 12, lines 8-17) including overcurrent and/or undervoltage or overvoltage at the on-board electrical subsystem for the safety-critical load, and to open the switch of the main path and/or the switch of the additional path, when the critical state is detected; (Note claim 1, each of said switching units being configured such that a blocking of the associated said power output is effected if, in the event of a voltage drop at the associated said power output and/or at said intermediate tap to below a first setpoint value, a fault situation is ascertained, and wherein, the greater the voltage drop, the more rapidly the blocking of the associated said power output is effected.) and
at least one monitoring device (45, current monitor, Fig. 2) configured to monitor, independently of the evaluation device, a current flowing via the additional path and to actuate at least the switch of the additional path. (Note column 3, lines 6-20, Specified as a fault situation in this case, in particular, is the case/operating state in which power/current flows out of the power distributor via a power output, while the voltage at the corresponding power output or at the intermediate tap is below a specified first setpoint value. This means that the fault situation exists, in particular, when a so-called hard short circuit occurs. The switching-off, disconnection or blocking by the switching of the switch-off element is therefore to be effected very rapidly, and accordingly a power distributor presented here is preferably realized in such a manner that the reaction time, i.e. the time difference between the drop of the voltage, at a power output or at the intermediate tap, and the blocking or the completion of the blocking of the corresponding power output is less than approximately 10 ms, preferably less than approximately 5 ms, and in particular less than 1 ms.)
wherein the monitoring device includes at least one wake-up comparator, which activates the monitoring device when the current flowing via the additional path reaches a threshold value. (Note claim 5)
Regarding claim 29, Doernbach et al. teach wherein the additional path has at least one resistor for current limitation and/or as a measuring resistor for detecting the current. (56, Fig. 2, Note all paths are connected to all the elements in the power distributor 2, suggesting the resistor for current limitation is in the paths)
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 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doernbach et al. (US 10676052 B2) in view of Volp (US 4659942).
Regarding claim 30, Doernbach et al. does not teach wherein the evaluation device is a hardware circuit without a controller.
Volp teach wherein the evaluation device is a hardware circuit without a controller. (Note 21, Fig. 2, column 4, lines 32-35)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Doernbach et al. to include the teaching of wherein the evaluation device is a hardware circuit without a controller to simplify the circuit.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doernbach et al. (US 10676052 B2) in view of Fernandez Pueyo et al. (US 20220190583, hereafter Fernandez).
Doernbach et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 23, Doernbach et al. does not teach wherein the switch of the main path is open in a sleep mode or a wake-up phase, while the switch of the additional path is closed in the sleep mode or the wake-up phase, and/or the evaluation device is not active in the sleep mode or the wake-up phase.
Fernandez teach wherein the switch (202, Fig. 6a) of the main path is open in a sleep mode or a wake-up phase, while the switch (203) of the additional path is closed in the sleep mode or the wake-up phase, and/or the evaluation device is not active in the sleep mode or the wake-up phase. (Note [0028] When the vehicle 240 moves from the active mode to the sleep mode, the controller 120 controls the auxiliary switch 211 to transition from the open state to the closed state. In response to this transition, the controller 120 measures the loads 220 and determines that the loads 220 are in a low consumption mode (e.g., 20 mA). In this case, the controller 120 controls the power switching device 202 to open and the controller 120 may then transition into a sleep mode.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Doernbach et al. to include the teaching of wherein the switch of the main path is open in a sleep mode or a wake-up phase, while the switch of the additional path is closed in the sleep mode or the wake-up phase, and/or the evaluation device is not active in the sleep mode or the wake-up phase to move the vehicle from an active mode to sleep mode. (Note Fernandez par. 0028)
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doernbach et al. (US 10676052 B2) in view of Shi (US 5654859).
Doernbach et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 25, Doernbach et al. does not teach the monitoring device activatable when there is a fault in the main path and/or a fault in the power distributor and/or a fault in the evaluation device.
Shi et al. teach the monitoring device (control of 502) activatable when there is a fault in the main path and/or a fault in the power distributor and/or a fault in the evaluation device. (Further, power distribution module 502 would operate in substantially the same manner as power distribution module 402 (described in conjunction with FIG. 4) to automatically isolate a short circuit failure in power source 102 from load 110 and allow power from power source 112 to continue to provide power to load 110. Thus, power distribution modules 402 and 502 eliminate single-point failures in power distribution system 500 while reducing power dissipation, voltage drop and cross-strapping time.) (Note column 7, lines 24-33) Note Examiner interprets isolating as activatable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Doernbach et al. to include the teaching of the monitoring device activatable when there is a fault in the main path and/or a fault in the power distributor and/or a fault in the evaluation device to minimize overall power consumption of the device.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doernbach et al. (US 10676052 B2) in view of Kageyama et al. (US 20200369228).
Doernbach et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 28, Doernbach et al. does not teach wherein the monitoring device includes at least one power supply, which can be activated only when the current flowing through the additional path reaches a threshold value.
Kageyama et al. teach wherein the monitoring device (vehicle body controller 26, par. 0045) includes at least one power supply, which can be activated only when the current flowing through the additional path reaches a threshold value. [0047] Furthermore, in the operation in Step (C), particularly when relay 15 cannot be connected due to vehicle battery 12 running out of power (in other words, when vehicle 20 cannot be activated due to electrical junction box 13 being unable to be activated), the electric power stored in power storage 17 of backup power supply 14 is used to activate controller 16 and activate, in particular, battery relay 15A among the plurality of relays 15.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Doernbach et al. to include the teaching of wherein the monitoring device includes at least one power supply, which can be activated only when the current flowing through the additional path reaches a threshold value to prevent wear and tear on the backup power supply when not needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 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.
Regarding claim 18, wherein the monitoring device is configured to distinguish between at least two time ranges in which different threshold values for the current flowing via the additional path are provided.
Claims 19-22,24, 26 and 27 are allowed.
Upon conclusion of a comprehensive search of the pertinent prior art, the Office indicates that the claims are allowable.
Regarding independent claim 19 , patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of:
wherein the monitoring device includes at least one dynamic overcurrent comparator, an associated threshold value is selected as a function of a time duration during which the current flows via the additional path as claimed in combination with all other limitations of claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights