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 any grounds applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Previously cited reference Tsuchiya et al (2024/0120733) has been utilized in the new rejection below to address the amendments made.
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) 1-4 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al (DE 10 2017 214 302 A1 with reference made to the Applicant submitted translation) in view of Tsuchiya et al (2024/0120733).
In re Claim 1, Becker teaches an in-vehicle cutoff device as seen in Figure 2 comprising: a first input terminal (positive terminal of battery 2, paragraph 23) to which direct-current (DC) power of a first polarity is supplied; a first output terminal (positive terminal of load 3, paragraph 23); a first conductor wire (4a, paragraph 23) connecting the first input terminal and the first output terminal; a second input terminal (negative terminal of 2) to which DC power having a second polarity opposite to the first polarity is supplied; a second output terminal (negative terminal of 3); a second conductor wire (4b, paragraph 23) connecting the second input terminal and the second output terminal; a first current detector (9, paragraph 31) provided on the second conductor wire (as seen in Figure 2) configured to detect a current flowing through the first conductor wire or the second conductor wire; a second current detector (16, paragraph 37) provided on the second conductor wire (as seen in Figure 2) configured to detect a current flowing through the first conductor wire or the second conductor wire; a pyrotechnic circuit breaker (5a and/or 5b, paragraph 34) configured to irreversibly disconnect the first conductor wire; and a cutoff controller (8 and 15) configured to receive a first detection signal transmitted from the first current detector and a second detection signal transmitted from the second current detector, the first detection signal corresponding to the current detected by the first current detector, the second detection signal corresponding to the current detected by the second current detector, the cutoff controller configured to control a cutoff operation of the pyrotechnic circuit breaker, wherein the cutoff controller causes the cutoff operation of the pyrotechnic circuit breaker to perform the cutoff operation when both of a first current value generated based on the first detection signal and a second current value generated based on the second detection signal exceed an overcurrent threshold (paragraphs 31-33, 37, and 38).
Becker does not teach a first and second relay as claimed and does not teach that no pyrotechnic circuit breaker is disposed on the second conductor wire.
Tsuchiya teaches an in-vehicle cutoff device as seen in Figure 4 that is similar to that of Becker that includes two pyro-fuses 134A and 134C (paragraph 97), a controller 120 (paragraph 94), and a current detector 138 (paragraph 100). Tsuchiya further teaches including a first relay 136A on a first conductor wire 131A and second relay 136B on a second conductor 131B as seen in Figure 4. Tsuchiya teaches that the inclusion of the relays allows for additional cutoff characteristics in response to an overcurrent, wherein in certain overcurrent conditions, the relays are able to respond and provide cutoff quicker than the pyro-fuses to prevent any dangerous situations such as smoking (paragraphs 104-111 and 126-129).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include first and second relays as taught by Tsuchiya with the cut-off device of Becker since Tsuchiya teaches that by doing so in certain overcurrent situations the relays are able to provide cutoff faster than the pyro-fuses of Becker to prevent dangerous conditions such as smoking.
Furthermore, Tsuchiya teaches as seen in Figure 10 that the pyro-fuse 134C connected in the second conductor 131B can be omitted (paragraph 149).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to omit the pyrotechnic circuit breaker 5b in the second conductor of Becker since Tsuchiya teaches it as a known alternative to providing a pyrotechnic breaker in both the first and second conductor and since it would allow for a simplified and less costly protection scheme.
In re Claims 2-4, based on the basic principles of electric current flow in electric circuits, the current flowing through the first and second conductor wires (4a and 4b) of Becker is the same, and so is the current flowing through each of the detectors 9 and 16.
In re Claims 11 and 14, Becker teaches an in-vehicle cutoff device as seen in Figure 2 comprising: a first input terminal (positive terminal of battery 2, paragraph 23) to which direct-current (DC) power of a first polarity is supplied; a first output terminal (positive terminal of load 3, paragraph 23); a first conductor wire (4a, paragraph 23) connecting the first input terminal and the first output terminal; a second input terminal (negative terminal of 2) to which DC power having a second polarity opposite to the first polarity is supplied; a second output terminal (negative terminal of 3); a second conductor wire (4b, paragraph 23) connecting the second input terminal and the second output terminal; a first current detector (9, paragraph 31) provided on the second conductor wire (as seen in Figure 2) configured to detect a current flowing through the first conductor (current through the first and second conductor is the same; a second current detector (16, paragraph 37) provided on the second conductor wire (as seen in Figure 2) configured to detect a current flowing through the first conductor wire or the second conductor wire; a pyrotechnic circuit breaker (5a paragraph 34) provide on the first conductor wire, configured to irreversibly disconnect the first conductor wire; and a cutoff controller (8 and 15) configured to receive a first detection signal transmitted from the first current detector and a second detection signal transmitted from the second current detector, the first detection signal corresponding to the current detected by the first current detector, the second detection signal corresponding to the current detected by the second current detector, the cutoff controller configured to control a cutoff operation of the pyrotechnic circuit breaker, wherein the cutoff controller causes the cutoff operation of the pyrotechnic circuit breaker to perform the cutoff operation when both of a first current value generated based on the first detection signal and a second current value generated based on the second detection signal exceed an overcurrent threshold (paragraphs 31-33, 37, and 38).
Becker does not teach that the first current detector is provided on the first conductor wire or that the pyrotechnic circuit breaker is provide between the first input terminal and the first current detector.
Tsuchiya teaches a similar cutoff device as discussed above. Furthermore, Tsuchiya demonstrates in Figures 1 and 4 that a current detector circuit 138 as seen in Figure 4 and in particular a current detector comprising two detector components 38A and 38B as seen in Figure 1 can be provided on the first conductor wire (31, 131A) to measure the current in the overall circuit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively provide both current detectors of Becker on the first conductor wire as taught by Tsuchiya since Tsuchiya demonstrates that the overall current measured by the current detectors is capable of being done when they are provided on the first conductor.
Additionally, Becker as modified by Tsuchiya does not specifically teach placing the pyrotechnic breaker effectively upstream from the first current detector.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the pyrotechnic circuit breaker effectively upstream of the first current detector as a matter of space management or other design factor since it was known in the art that regardless of series position in a circuit, when a switch opens the current is interrupted.
In re Claim 12, Becker teaches an in-vehicle cutoff device as seen in Figure 2 comprising: a first input terminal (positive terminal of battery 2, paragraph 23) to which direct-current (DC) power of a first polarity is supplied; a first output terminal (positive terminal of load 3, paragraph 23); a first conductor wire (4a, paragraph 23) connecting the first input terminal and the first output terminal; a second input terminal (negative terminal of 2) to which DC power having a second polarity opposite to the first polarity is supplied; a second output terminal (negative terminal of 3); a second conductor wire (4b, paragraph 23) connecting the second input terminal and the second output terminal; a first current detector (9, paragraph 31) provided on the second conductor wire (as seen in Figure 2) configured to detect a current flowing through the second conductor wire; a second current detector (16, paragraph 37) provided on the second conductor wire (as seen in Figure 2) configured to detect a current flowing through the second conductor wire; a pyrotechnic circuit breaker (5a and/or 5b, paragraph 34) configured to irreversibly disconnect the first conductor wire; and a cutoff controller (8 and 15) configured to receive a first detection signal transmitted from the first current detector and a second detection signal transmitted from the second current detector, the first detection signal corresponding to the current detected by the first current detector, the second detection signal corresponding to the current detected by the second current detector, the cutoff controller configured to control a cutoff operation of the pyrotechnic circuit breaker, wherein the cutoff controller causes the cutoff operation of the pyrotechnic circuit breaker to perform the cutoff operation when both of a first current value generated based on the first detection signal and a second current value generated based on the second detection signal exceed an overcurrent threshold (paragraphs 31-33, 37, and 38).
Becker does not teach that no pyrotechnic circuit breaker is disposed on the second conductor wire.
Tsuchiya teaches an in-vehicle cutoff device as seen in Figure 4 that is similar to that of Becker as discussed above. Furthermore, Tsuchiya teaches as seen in Figure 10 that the pyro-fuse 134C connected in the second conductor 131B can be omitted (paragraph 149).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to omit the pyrotechnic circuit breaker 5b in the second conductor of Becker since Tsuchiya teaches it as a known alternative to providing a pyrotechnic breaker in both the first and second conductor and since it would allow for a simplified and less costly protection scheme.
In re Claim 13, Becker teaches an in-vehicle cutoff device as seen in Figure 2 comprising: a first input terminal (positive terminal of battery 2, paragraph 23) to which direct-current (DC) power of a first polarity is supplied; a first output terminal (positive terminal of load 3, paragraph 23); a first conductor wire (4a, paragraph 23) connecting the first input terminal and the first output terminal; a second input terminal (negative terminal of 2) to which DC power having a second polarity opposite to the first polarity is supplied; a second output terminal (negative terminal of 3); a second conductor wire (4b, paragraph 23) connecting the second input terminal and the second output terminal; a first current detector (9, paragraph 31) provided on the second conductor wire (as seen in Figure 2) configured to detect a current flowing through the first conductor wire or the second conductor wire; a second current detector (16, paragraph 37) provided on the second conductor wire (as seen in Figure 2) configured to detect a current flowing through the first conductor wire or the second conductor wire; a pyrotechnic circuit breaker (5a and/or 5b, paragraph 34) configured to irreversibly disconnect the first conductor wire; and a cutoff controller (8 and 15) configured to receive a first detection signal transmitted from the first current detector and a second detection signal transmitted from the second current detector, the first detection signal corresponding to the current detected by the first current detector, the second detection signal corresponding to the current detected by the second current detector, the cutoff controller configured to control a cutoff operation of the pyrotechnic circuit breaker, wherein the cutoff controller causes the cutoff operation of the pyrotechnic circuit breaker to perform the cutoff operation when both of a first current value generated based on the first detection signal and a second current value generated based on the second detection signal exceed an overcurrent threshold (paragraphs 31-33, 37, and 38).
Becker does not teach a first and second relay as claimed and does not teach that no pyrotechnic circuit breaker is disposed on the second conductor wire.
Tsuchiya teaches an in-vehicle cutoff device as seen in Figure 4 that is similar to that of Becker that includes two pyro-fuses 134A and 134C (paragraph 97), a controller 120 (paragraph 94), and a current detector 138 (paragraph 100). Tsuchiya further teaches including a first relay 136A on a first conductor wire 131A downstream from the pyro-fuse 134A and second relay 136B on a second conductor 131B as seen in Figure 4. Tsuchiya teaches that the inclusion of the relays allows for additional cutoff characteristics in response to an overcurrent, wherein in certain overcurrent conditions, the relays are able to respond and provide cutoff quicker than the pyro-fuses to prevent any dangerous situations such as smoking (paragraphs 104-111 and 126-129).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include first and second relays as taught by Tsuchiya with the cut-off device of Becker since Tsuchiya teaches that by doing so in certain overcurrent situations the relays are able to provide cutoff faster than the pyrofuses of Becker to prevent dangerous conditions such as smoking.
Furthermore, Tsuchiya teaches as seen in Figure 10 that the pyro-fuse 134C connected in the second conductor 131B can be omitted (paragraph 149).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to omit the pyrotechnic circuit breaker 5b in the second conductor of Becker since Tsuchiya teaches it as a known alternative to providing a pyrotechnic breaker in both the first and second conductor and since it would allow for a simplified and less costly protection scheme.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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 Claim 15, neither Becker nor Tsuchiya teach or suggest placing the current detectors on lines of opposite polarity.
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