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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2024 and 04/22/2025 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 (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 1-5, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHO et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0124672).
Regarding claim 1, CHO et al. teaches a retention circuit diagnostic system (100) comprising: a first retention circuit (110) configured to output a retention signal for controlling a contactor (1) (as shown in fig. 1 and disclosed in para. 0043-0045); and a controller (120) configured to transmit a first signal related to a state control of the contactor (1) (applied in the first detection mode, as disclosed in para. 0048-0049), and to transmit a second signal for activating the first retention circuit (110), and configured to diagnose the first retention circuit (110) based on the retention signal (applied in the second detection mode, as disclosed in para. 0050-0055).
Regarding claim 2, CHO et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, CHO et al. teaches wherein the controller (120) is configured to determine that the first retention circuit (110) operates normally based on the retention signal being within a predetermined level range (as disclosed in para. 0053-0055).
Regarding claim 3, CHO et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, CHO et al. teaches wherein the controller (120) is configured to determine whether the contactor (1) is in an open state or in a closed state (as disclosed in para. 0048-0049), and is configured to transmit the second signal to the first retention circuit (110) based on the contactor being in the open state (as disclosed in para. 0050-0055).
Regarding claim 4, CHO et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, CHO et al. teaches wherein the controller (120) is configured to initialize the first retention circuit (110) based on completion of a diagnosis of the first retention circuit (110) (as disclosed in para. 0053-0055).
Regarding claim 5, CHO et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, CHO et al. teaches wherein the controller (120) is configured to output fault information based on the first retention circuit (110) performing an abnormal operation (as disclosed in para. 0056).
Regarding claim 16, CHO et al. teaches a diagnosis method of a retention circuit (110), the diagnosis method comprising: transmitting a first signal related to a state control of a contactor (1) (applied in the first detection mode, as described in para. 0048-0049), and a second signal for activating the retention circuit (110) (applied in the second detection mode, as described in para. 0050-0055), to the retention circuit (110); obtaining a retention signal output from the retention circuit (110) (as disclosed in para. 0048); and diagnosing whether the retention circuit performs a normal operation based on the retention signal (as disclosed in para. 0048).
Regarding claim 19, CHO et al. teaches the limitations of claim 16, in addition, CHO et al. teaches wherein the transmitting of the first signal and the second signal to the retention circuit (110) comprises: obtaining a state of the contactor (1) (as disclosed in para. 0048); and transmitting the second signal to the retention circuit (110) based on the contactor being in an open state (as disclosed in para. 0050-0055).
Regarding claim 20, CHO et al. teaches the limitations of claim 16, in addition, CHO et al. teaches initializing the retention circuit (as disclosed in para. 0050-0055).
Claims 9-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osawa (US PGPUB 2006/0087775).
Regarding claim 9, Osawa teaches a retention circuit diagnostic system comprising: a first retention circuit (contactor coil in 2, as disclosed in para. 0049) configured to output a first retention signal (Vsub) for controlling a first contactor (moving contact and fixed contact in 2, as disclosed in para. 0049); a second retention circuit (contactor coil in 3, as disclosed in para. 0049) configured to output a second retention signal (Vsub) for controlling a second contactor (moving contact and fixed contact in 3, as disclosed in para. 0049); and a controller (5) configured to generate a test signal for testing each of the first retention circuit and the second retention circuit (as disclosed in para. 0053-0055), and configured to diagnose at least one of the first retention circuit or the second retention circuit based on at least one of the first retention signal or the second retention signal (as disclosed in para. 0058-0069).
Regarding claim 10, Osawa teaches the limitations of claim 9, in addition, Osawa teaches wherein the controller (5) is configured to determine that the first retention circuit performs an abnormal operation based on the first retention signal being out of a level range (as discussed in para. 0058-0064).
Regarding claim 11, Osawa teaches the limitations of claim 9, in addition, Osawa teaches wherein the controller (5) is configured to output fault information based on one of the first retention circuit or the second retention circuit performing an abnormal operation (as shown in fig. 3 and disclosed in para. 0066-0069).
Regarding claim 15, Osawa teaches the limitations of claim 9, in addition, Osawa teaches wherein the first contactor (moving contact and fixed contact in 2) is connected to a high potential terminal (1) (as disclosed in para. 0047), and wherein the second contactor (moving contact and fixed contact in 3) is connected to a low potential terminal (1) (as disclosed in para. 0047).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHO et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0124672) in view of Osawa (US PGPUB 2006/0087775).
Regarding claim 6, CHO et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
CHO et al. fails to specifically teach a second retention circuit, wherein the controller is configured to transmit the first signal and the second signal to the second retention circuit, and to diagnose the second retention circuit based on a retention signal output from the second retention circuit. However, Osawa teaches a second retention circuit (contactor coil in 3, as disclosed in para. 0049), wherein the controller (5) is configured to transmit the first signal (Vsub) and the second signal (OPERATION SIGNAL) to the second retention circuit (as shown in fig. 1), and to diagnose the second retention circuit based on a retention signal output from the second retention circuit (as disclosed in para. 0058-0069).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have a second retention circuit, wherein the controller is configured to transmit the first signal and the second signal to the second retention circuit, and to diagnose the second retention circuit based on a retention signal output from the second retention circuit as taught by Osawa with the invention of CHO et al. in order to have multiple contactors and monitor their efficiency.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of CHO et al. and Osawa teaches the limitations of claim 6, in addition, CHO et al. teaches wherein the first retention circuit (110) is configured to receive at least one of the first signal (applied in the first detection mode, as disclosed in para. 0048-0049) or the second signal, and Osawa teaches wherein the second retention circuit (contactor coil in 3) is configured to receive at least one of the first signal (Vsub) or the second signal (OPERATION SIGNAL) (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, CHO et al. teaches the limitations of claim 16.
CHO et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the first signal is of a high level, and wherein the method further comprises determining that the retention circuit performs a normal operation based on the retention signal being within a high level range. However, Osawa teaches wherein the first signal is of a high level (12V-16V), and wherein the method further comprises determining that the retention circuit (2) performs a normal operation based on the retention signal being within a high level range (12V-16V) (as shown in fig. 2-3).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the first signal as of a high level, and wherein the method further comprises determining that the retention circuit performs a normal operation based on the retention signal being within a high level range as taught by Osawa with the invention of CHO et al. in order to protect the contactors from overheating.
Regarding claim 18, CHO et al. teaches the limitations of claim 16.
CHO et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the first signal is of a low level, and wherein the method further comprises determining the retention circuit performs a normal operation based on the obtained retention signal being within a low level range. However, Osawa teaches wherein the first signal is of a low level (12V-16V), and wherein the method further comprises determining that the retention circuit (2) performs a normal operation based on the retention signal being within a low level range (12V-16V) (as shown in fig. 2-3).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the first signal as of a low level, and wherein the method further comprises determining that the retention circuit performs a normal operation based on the retention signal being within a low level range as taught by Osawa with the invention of CHO et al. in order to protect the contactors from not receiving sufficient operating power.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa (US PGPUB 2006/0087775) in view of Gonring (US PGPUB 2022/0242538).
Regarding claim 12, Osawa teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Osawa fails to specifically teach a third retention circuit, wherein the controller is configured to diagnose the third retention circuit based on a third retention signal output from the third retention circuit based on the test signal. However, Gonring teaches a third retention circuit (114C), wherein the controller (130) is configured to diagnose the third retention circuit (114C) based on a third retention signal output from the third retention circuit based on the test signal (as disclosed in para. 0044).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have a third retention circuit, wherein the controller is configured to diagnose the third retention circuit based on a third retention signal output from the third retention circuit based on the test signal as taught by Gonring with the invention of Osawa in order to have multiple contactors and monitor their efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 13-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to specifically teach a contactor drive circuit configured to drive the contactor, wherein the retention signal output from the first retention circuit and the retention signal output from the second retention circuit are logically added together to generate an ORed signal to be input to the contactor drive circuit, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art fails to specifically teach a first contactor drive circuit configured to drive the first contactor; and a second contactor drive circuit configured to drive the second contactor, wherein the first retention signal and the third retention signal are logically added together to generate an ORed signal input to the first contactor drive circuit, and wherein the second retention signal and the third retention signal are logically added together to generate another ORed signal input to the second contactor drive circuit, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art fails to specifically teach wherein the test signal comprises a first signal related to a state control of the first contactor, a second signal for activating the first retention circuit, the second retention circuit, and the third retention circuit, and a third signal related to a state control of the first contactor, wherein at least one of the first signal or the second signal is input to the first retention circuit, wherein at least one of the second signal or the third signal is input to the second retention circuit, and wherein at least one of the first signal, the second signal, or the third signal is input to the third retention circuit, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights