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 filed 10/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Remarks (at 10) first address the 112(b) rejections. The remarks contend the meets and bounds of the claims are clear, citing to paragraphs 21, 26 and 29. In response, one skilled in the art could not, in fact, find the meets and bounds of the claimed configuration as the disclosure gives no guidance on any configurations of the switches since the manner the connections are configured and reconfigured is absent in the disclosure. While the disclosure indeed recites configuring the switches, it is only set forth a broad genus of operation, which lacks the necessary particulars required for 112 support. As detailed in the rejections below.
The remaining Remarks are moot in view of new grounds of rejection found below.
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 1-15 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.
With respect to claims 1 and 10 the Remarks broadly recite support for the amendments is found in paragraphs (18, 20-22, 26-29, 41 and 42). The claims have been newly amended to recite the
connect, by configuring the plurality of semiconductor switches to connect the plurality of input buses and the plurality of output buses in a configuration corresponding to the safety rating of the switch, the first electrical load to the second power network to provide an uninterrupted supply of power to the first electrical load in the recovery configuration.
The Remarks do not address the clause in particular however, it appears paragraphs 0021-22 address this operation. It is clear from the paragraphs there is no disclosure of the any of the configurations of the semiconductor switches. Rather the semiconductor switches themselves are a single element (360 switch) and blocks in Fig. 4:395. No configurations of any kind are shown or described and no configurations are described in association with any safety ratings. While skilled artisan may recognize different switching positions are possible there is not a single configuration shown or described to show written description support for a configuration corresponding to the safety rating of the switch, the first electrical load to the second power network to provide an uninterrupted supply of power to the first electrical load in the recovery configuration. This is no disclosure of the particulars required for the claimed operation without sufficient examples or structural features proper written description support for the newly amended claims is not found.
The claims are additionally amended to have elements of the “having a safety rating” however a safety rating is not, in fact, an inherent property of a network or switch rather it is certified or developed to comply with a specific ASIL or other safety standard. The amended claims lie in contrast to the original disclosure. Where the disclosure describes the power networks associated with a safety rating (paragraph 0021). It is therefore new matter to now require the networks to have a safety rating rather than the recited associated with. Applicant should remove the new matter from the claims.
Lastly the claims recite “a switch having a safety rating equal to” the first and second rating. There is not recitation in the disclosure to support this claim limitation. Again, this is new matter and must be removed from the claims.
With respect to claim 4 and 13 the claims recite reconfiguring the switches in a manner to comply with the ASIL-D requirements. The disclosure similarly fails to provide any description of manner such a configuration or reconfiguration is made. Here again the lack of particulars required for the claimed operation without sufficient examples or structural features proper written description support for the newly amended claims is not found.
Claims 1-15 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 enablement requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The claims presently require processor which is configured to “connect, by configuring the plurality of semiconductor switches to connect the plurality of input buses and the plurality of output buses in a configuration corresponding to the safety rating of the switch, the first electrical load to the second power network to provide an uninterrupted supply of power to the first electrical load in the recovery configuration.” However, the disclosure lacks any teaching or instructions necessary for implementation. The specification gives no examples of any of the configurations of the plurality of semiconductor elements claimed nor does the disclosure detail the manner one skilled in the art would configure the claimed semiconductor elements to arrive at the claimed configuration. Therefore, the claims do not enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention. This defect is extended in the claims 4 and 13 where a reconfiguring of the connections made by the switches is recited to comply with the ASIL-D requirement.
Claims 4 and 13 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 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. The claim requires the monitoring operation by the switch to identify failure under the ASIL-D requirements however paragraph 0021 does not describe the operation of the to identify failure under the ASIL-D requirements therefore the claim contains new matter. Therefore, the claims are unclear.
Claims 1-15 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. The claims set for the configuration of semiconductor switches and reconfiguration of the switches however it is not clear what placement or configuration of the switches is being claimed. The Remarks (at 10) cite one skilled in the art would readily ascertain the meets and bounds of this limitation. To the contrary a skilled artisan would not find the meets and bounds of the claimed configuration or reconfiguration as the disclosure simply lacks any guidance on how the switches are configured to meet the claimed safety rating. Therefore, the claims are unclear. Furthermore, the claims are amended to have elements of the “having a safety rating” however a safety rating is not in fact an inherent property of a network or switch rather it is certified or developed to comply with a specific ASIL or other safety standard. In other words, said limitations are not physical features. The amended claims lie in contrast to the disclosure. Where the disclosure describes the power networks associated with a safety rating (paragraph 0021). It is therefore unclear if the certified and rated network is the network has or merely the claims have the ability to be rated and for example are therefore associated with a safety rating.
Claims 4 and 13 further recite “identify failure under the ASIL-D requirement” it is unclear what failure is identified. It is not clear what function is being performed or what failure is being detected therefore the claim is unclear.
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, 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitani et al. (US 20220271560) in view of Morita (US 20230318345) in view of Mauro (US 202240239348).
With respect to claims 10-11, 14, 2-3, 6 Mitani teaches a system for maintaining a continuous power supply, the system comprising:
an array of switches (see switches 34, 54 in Fig. 1) connected to a plurality of input buses (see input bus from 14a/b) and a plurality of electrical loads (12) in a default configuration, wherein each of the plurality of electrical loads comprise at least one of a sensor or a computing system; a power supply sensor (see intelligent power unit detecting overcurrent paragraph 0017-18); and a processor (paragraph 0053) connected to the array of semiconductor switches and configured to receive sensor data (see arithmetic and judging units/operations paragraph 053) from the power supply sensor, wherein the processor transitions (see switched by electrical signal paragraph 0026) the array of semiconductor switches to a recovery configuration (during abnormality Fig .4) upon detection of a condition based on the sensor data. Mitani does not teach the use of details of the loads or the use of a system for autonomous driving. Morita teaches the known use of sensor (camera, radar) load used in an autonomous driving platform (see self-driving paragraph 0062). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the teachings of Mitani to an autonomous system with sensing or computing loads for the benefit of protecting the supply of power to critical loads during abnormal power conditions. Mitani further teaches the electronic switches however does not teach the switches are semiconductors. Morita teaches the known use of semiconductor switches (for example Fig. 1) in power bus control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Mitani to try semiconductor switches for the benefit of rapid switching control.
Morita and Mitani do not teach the rating details of power networks however does detail the networks are for a vehicle with a self-driving mode of operation (paragraph 0062). Mauro for example teaches networks with a safety rating (see networks 10 and 12) self-driving mode. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Morita and Mitani to use networks with a safety rating for the predictable result ensuring critical load operation.
Morita and Mitani do not teach the rating details of the switch. Mauro teaches the known use of switch elements with an equal or higher rating (connection with of network 10 with 21) associated with critical functions of a self-driving. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Morita and Mitani to use networks with a safety rating for the predictable result ensuring critical load operation.
Mitani details the controlling of a plurality of switches in the power networks for the achieving of power stability (paragraph 0072). Mauro teaches the fusion of differing safety ratings and control of semiconductor control system in a processor or control unit (25) corresponding to differing safety ratings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Mitani to control the switches consistent with the safety rating of the network for the predictable result of ensuring safety critical operation are stably operated (paragraph 0022)
With respect to claim 12 and 1 Mitani teaches the default configuration of the array of semiconductor switches comprises: a first input bus (see for example 58a) of the plurality of input buses connected to a first electrical load (12a) of the plurality of electrical loads, and a second input bus (58c) of the plurality of input buses connected to a second electrical load (12c) of the plurality of electrical loads; and wherein the recovery configuration (see Fig. 6) of the array of semiconductor switches comprises: the first input bus connected to the second electrical load (see power flow shown in Fig. 6), and the second input bus connected to the second electrical load.
With respect to claim 8 Mitani teaches a battery (see batteries in Fig. 1). Mitani does not teach the battery is connected with the use of semiconductor switches. Morita teaches the known use of semiconductor switches (for example Fig. 1) in power bus control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Mitani to try semiconductor switches for the benefit of rapid switching control.
Claims 9, 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitani et al. (US 20220271560) in view of Morita (US 20230318345) in view of Mauro (US 202240239348) in view of Park et al. (US 20240166054)
With respect to claims 15 and 7 Mitani teaches the processor however does not teach an indication associated with the connection of the array of semiconductor switches and the plurality of electrical loads to an autonomous driving platform. Park teaches the known use of an indication (paragraph 0095) associated with the connection of the switches and the plurality of electrical loads to an autonomous driving platform. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Mitani to include the use of an indication in order to inform the user of an abnormal condition.
With respect to claim 9 Mitani as modified above teaches the use of a battery and the plurality of semiconductor switches however does not teach for example power networks 14a/b are battery networks. Park teaches the know use of power networks with batteries (200/400) are configured to connect the battery to the first electrical load and the second electrical load in response to detecting an additional condition associated with the first power network and the second power network. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify batteries as the power network sources for the predictable result of power the vehicle with stored energy.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitani et al. (US 20220271560) in view of Morita (US 20230318345) in view of Mauro (US 202240239348) in view of Yousuf et al. (US 20220080992)
With respect to claim 5 Mitani teaches the power networks however does not teach the ASIL rating. Yousuf teaches power networks and are ASIL-B rated (paragraph 0046-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Mitani to include the use of an ASIL-B rated networks for the benefit of ensuring the safety of the vehicle.
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 Michael Fin whose telephone number is (571)272-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7429. 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.
MICHAEL FIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/MICHAEL R. FIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836