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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 2026-07-29 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-20 remain pending in this application. Claim(s) 1, 12 and 16 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2026-07-29, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 12-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 12-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and its dependents, found of page 12, last paragraph, through page 13 lines 1-5 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.
Applicant's arguments, Regarding Claim 1, found on page 13 lines 5-12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Izutani does not teach a first capacitor in series with a second capacitor but rather describes that the capacitors are connected in parallel to the detection resistances.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, Izutani teaches the capacitors connected to each other in the same way as shown in Figure 5 of the instant specification, which is a potential applied to the top of one capacitor and the bottom of the other, with the same potential between the capacitors. The connection of the capacitors to the voltage divider is not a claimed element, only the connection of the capacitors to each other is structurally defined in the claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 and its dependents, found of page 11, 2nd paragraph, 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.
Applicant's arguments, Regarding Claim 16, found on page 11 3rd paragraph, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, that Izutani’s teaching of the capacitors connected in parallel to the detection resistors is a different arrangement than that recited in claim 16.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, the elements of claim 16, so far as they are understood by the examiner, only require that there are two capacitors, a voltage divider, a switch to connect the capacitors to the voltage divider and one or more controllers to control the operation of the capacitors. There is no structural requirement in claim 16 that would render the argued teaching to be incompatible with the invention as claimed.
Applicant's arguments, Regarding Claim 12 and its dependents have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Izutani nor Wolf teach "responsive to the comparing" the measured voltage against a threshold voltage, "determining whether one or more of the first capacitor or the second capacitor is connected or disconnected from the noise filter.” Applicant further asserts Izutani determines a capacitor condition from the time or rate of voltage change and not from comparing to a threshold and that Wolf teaches comparing a difference between two electric potentials to a predetermined threshold value but Wolf does not compare “the measured voltage” as recited in claim 12 and Wolf does not determine whether a capacitor is connected or disconnected from a noise filter, therefore the combination fails to teach the claimed causal link between "comparing the measured voltage against a threshold voltage" and "determining whether one or more of the first capacitor or the second capacitor is connected or disconnected from the noise filter."
The examiner respectfully disagrees, In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner did not rely on Wolf to teach whether a capacitor is connected or disconnected from a noise filter. Wolf is only relied upon to teach the comparing of measured voltages to a threshold voltage. The elements of the claim not taught by Wolf are taught by Izutani as stated in the previous office action and reiterated below.
Applicant further argues, with respect to claims 1, 12, 16 and their dependents that Izutani teaches that the determining is whether the capacitors are broken down as an open-failure inspection rather than a determination of connection status.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, the determination of a connection status is a very broad limitation and the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation would include whether an element in a circuit is open as an open is, by definition, a break or gap in a circuit i.e. a lack of connection.
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.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izutani et al (US-20230236254-A1 – From applicant IDS) in view of Wolf et al. (US-20120281443-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Izutani teaches a method comprising performing, with one or more controllers, operations including:
connecting a first capacitor (Figs 1-4: capacitor, 29) of a noise filter and a second capacitor (Figs 1-4: capacitor, 28) of the noise filter to a voltage divider (Figs 1-4: detection resistors, 23 & 24);
measuring, at a voltage detector connected to the voltage divider, a voltage at the first capacitor and the second capacitor, as a measured voltage (Figs 1-4: measurement circuit, 25);
comparing the measured voltage change against a predetermined change (Para [0080] teaches the controller can determine whether the capacitors are broken down based on the time of charge/discharge); and
responsive to the comparing, determining whether one or more of the first capacitor or the second capacitor is connected or disconnected from the noise filter (Para [0080]).
Izutani does not teach that the threshold is a threshold for only a measured voltage. However, Wolf teaches a comparison of a voltage measured to a threshold voltage (Para [0028] teaches comparing an electric potential to a predetermined threshold value). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the controller of the combination to compare a measured voltage to predetermined threshold value. A motivation for this modification is a specific voltage value used as a predetermined value has the advantage of ensuring that only the failure of a capacitor can trigger it and not environmental factors such as temperature, as taught by Wolf in Para [0028].
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Izutani in view of Wolf, as presented with respect to claim 12, teaches wherein determining whether one or more of the first capacitor or the second capacitor is connected or disconnected from the noise filter comprises determining that that the first capacitor and the second capacitor are connected to the noise filter based on the measured voltage being greater than the threshold voltage (Wolf - The voltage drop across the resistor 26 will change if one of the capacitors is disconnected as the resistor, 24, will be shorted, Para [0054]-[0055], therefore a first threshold exists at a period of time that can determine that the capacitors are operating normally).
Regarding Claim 14, Izutani teaches being above/below a threshold and determining whether a capacitor is broken down or operable based on the comparison to the threshold (Izutani - Para [0057-0058] teaches that when the rate of change of the measurement is less than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be broken down or if the time is greater than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be good. Furthermore, Izutani teaches that the specific capacitor that is broken down can be determined based on whether a measured voltage is increasing or decreasing as shown in Figs 7-9). Izutani does not teach that the threshold is a threshold for only a measured voltage. However, Wolf teaches a comparison of a voltage measured to a threshold voltage (Para [0028] teaches comparing an electric potential to a predetermined threshold value). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the controller of the combination to compare a measured voltage to predetermined threshold value. A motivation for this modification is a specific voltage value used as a predetermined value has the advantage of ensuring that only the failure of a capacitor can trigger it and not environmental factors such as temperature, as taught by Wolf in Para [0028].
Regarding Claim 15, Izutani teaches being above/below a threshold and determining whether a capacitor is broken down or operable based on the comparison to the threshold (Izutani - Para [0057-0058] teaches that when the rate of change of the measurement is less than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be broken down or if the time is greater than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be good. Furthermore, Izutani teaches that the specific capacitor that is broken down can be determined based on whether a measured voltage is increasing or decreasing as shown in Figs 7-9). Izutani does not teach that the threshold is a threshold for only a measured voltage. However, Wolf teaches a comparison of a voltage measured to a threshold voltage (Para [0028] teaches comparing an electric potential to a predetermined threshold value). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the controller of the combination to compare a measured voltage to predetermined threshold value. A motivation for this modification is a specific voltage value used as a predetermined value has the advantage of ensuring that only the failure of a capacitor can trigger it and not environmental factors such as temperature, as taught by Wolf in Para [0028].
The combination of Izutani in view of Wolf does not explicitly teach determining that the measured voltage is zero volts; and responsive to determining that the measured voltage is zero volts, determine that the first capacitor and the second capacitor are disconnected from the noise filter. However, Izutani teaches determining a fault based on a voltage reading compared to an expected or threshold value (Refer to Izutani in at least Para [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have programmed a controller to detect a fault when a measurement of 0 volts is obtained and determining if a capacitor has been disconnected based on this measured value. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a controller could be programmed from the teachings of Izutani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as programming controllers to determine faults is very well known in the art as demonstrated by Izutani.
Regarding Claim 16, Izutani teaches a system comprising:
a testing circuit (Figs 1-4: measurement portion, 2) configured to test one or more capacitors, the testing circuit comprising:
a voltage divider (Figs 1-4: detection resistors, 23 & 24);
a voltage detector configured to measure a voltage at a first capacitor and a second capacitor, as a measured voltage (Figs 1-4: measurement circuit, 25);
a switch configured to connect the first capacitor and the second capacitor to the voltage divider (Figs 1-4: switch, 21 or 22); and
one or more controllers (Figs 1-4: controller, 3) configured to (i) control an operation of the switch to connect the first capacitor and the second capacitor to the voltage divider (Para [0033] teaches the controller controls the switch), and to (ii) determine, from an output of the voltage detector, whether one or more of the first capacitor or the second capacitor are connected to a main circuit (Para [0043] teaches the controller can determine whether the capacitors are broken down based on the voltage measured).
Izutani does not teach that the determination of connection or disconnection of the first or second capacitor is based on a comparison of the measured voltage against a threshold. However, Wolf teaches a comparison of the measured voltage against a threshold (Para [0028] teaches comparing an electric potential to a predetermined threshold value). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the controller of the Izutani to compare a measured voltage to predetermined threshold value. A motivation for this modification is a specific voltage value used as a predetermined value has the advantage of ensuring that only the failure of a capacitor can trigger it and not environmental factors such as temperature, as taught by Wolf in Para [0028].
Regarding Claim 17, Izutani teaches being above/below a threshold and determining whether a capacitor is broken down or operable based on the comparison to the threshold (Izutani - Para [0057-0058] teaches that when the rate of change of the measurement is less than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be broken down or if the time is greater than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be good). Izutani does not teach that the threshold is a threshold for only a measured voltage. However, Wolf teaches a comparison of a voltage measured to a threshold voltage (Para [0028] teaches comparing an electric potential to a predetermined threshold value). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the controller of the combination to compare a measured voltage to predetermined threshold value. A motivation for this modification is a specific voltage value used as a predetermined value has the advantage of ensuring that only the failure of a capacitor can trigger it and not environmental factors such as temperature, as taught by Wolf in Para [0028].
Regarding Claim 18, Izutani teaches being above/below a threshold and determining whether a capacitor is broken down or operable based on the comparison to the threshold (Izutani - Para [0057-0058] teaches that when the rate of change of the measurement is less than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be broken down or if the time is greater than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be good. Furthermore, Izutani teaches that the specific capacitor that is broken down can be determined based on whether a measured voltage is increasing or decreasing as shown in Figs 7-9). Izutani does not teach that the threshold is a threshold for only a measured voltage. However, Wolf teaches a comparison of a voltage measured to a threshold voltage (Para [0028] teaches comparing an electric potential to a predetermined threshold value). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the controller of the combination to compare a measured voltage to predetermined threshold value. A motivation for this modification is a specific voltage value used as a predetermined value has the advantage of ensuring that only the failure of a capacitor can trigger it and not environmental factors such as temperature, as taught by Wolf in Para [0028].
Regarding Claim 19, Izutani teaches being above/below a threshold and determining whether a capacitor is broken down or operable based on the comparison to the threshold (Izutani - Para [0057-0058] teaches that when the rate of change of the measurement is less than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be broken down or if the time is greater than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be good. Furthermore, Izutani teaches that the specific capacitor that is broken down can be determined based on whether a measured voltage is increasing or decreasing as shown in Figs 7-9). Izutani does not teach that the threshold is a threshold for only a measured voltage. However, Wolf teaches a comparison of a voltage measured to a threshold voltage (Para [0028] teaches comparing an electric potential to a predetermined threshold value). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the controller of the combination to compare a measured voltage to predetermined threshold value. A motivation for this modification is a specific voltage value used as a predetermined value has the advantage of ensuring that only the failure of a capacitor can trigger it and not environmental factors such as temperature, as taught by Wolf in Para [0028].
The combination of Izutani in view of Wolf does not explicitly teach wherein the third threshold is greater than a first threshold used to determine a disconnection of the first capacitor; and responsive to determining that the measured voltage is above the third threshold, determine that the second capacitor is disconnected from the noise filter. However, Both Izutani and Wolf teach determining a fault based on a voltage reading compared to an expected or threshold value (Refer to Wolf in at least Para [0028] and Izutani in at least Para [0039]) and Izutani further teaches distinguishing between which capacitor is at fault based on differences in the measured values (as shown in Figs 7-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have programmed a controller to detect a fault when at a measurement threshold greater than a different threshold in order to determine which capacitor has been disconnected based on this measured value. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a controller could be programmed from the teachings of Izutani and Wolf. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as programming controllers to determine faults is very well known in the art as demonstrated by Izutani and Wolf.
Regarding Claim 20, Izutani teaches being above/below a threshold and determining whether a capacitor is broken down or operable based on the comparison to the threshold (Izutani - Para [0057-0058] teaches that when the rate of change of the measurement is less than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be broken down or if the time is greater than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be good. Furthermore, Izutani teaches that the specific capacitor that is broken down can be determined based on whether a measured voltage is increasing or decreasing as shown in Figs 7-9). Izutani does not teach that the threshold is a threshold for only a measured voltage. However, Wolf teaches a comparison of a voltage measured to a threshold voltage (Para [0028] teaches comparing an electric potential to a predetermined threshold value). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the controller of the combination to compare a measured voltage to predetermined threshold value. A motivation for this modification is a specific voltage value used as a predetermined value has the advantage of ensuring that only the failure of a capacitor can trigger it and not environmental factors such as temperature, as taught by Wolf in Para [0028].
The combination of Izutani in view of Wolf does not explicitly teach determining that the measured voltage is zero volts; and responsive to determining that the measured voltage is zero volts, determine that the first capacitor and the second capacitor are disconnected from the noise filter. However, Izutani teaches determining a fault based on a voltage reading compared to an expected or threshold value (Refer to Izutani in at least Para [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have programmed a controller to detect a fault when a measurement of 0 volts is obtained and determining if a capacitor has been disconnected based on this measured value. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a controller could be programmed from the teachings of Izutani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as programming controllers to determine faults is very well known in the art as demonstrated by Izutani.
Claim(s) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izutani in view of Isaksson (US-20210129675-A1) in view of Wolf.
Regarding Claim 1, Izutani teaches a noise filter including a first capacitor (Figs 1-4: capacitor, 29) connected in series with a second capacitor (Figs 1-4: capacitor, 28); and
a testing circuit (Figs 1-4: measurement portion, 2) configured to test one or more of the first capacitor or the second capacitor, the testing circuit including:
a voltage divider comprising a plurality of resistors (Figs 1-4: detection resistors, 23 & 24);
a voltage detector configured to measure a voltage at the voltage divider, as a measured voltage; (Figs 1-4: measurement circuit, 25);
a switch configured to connect the noise filter to the voltage divider (Figs 1-4: switch, 21 or 22); and
one or more controllers (Figs 1-4: controller, 3) configured to (i) control an operation of the switch to connect the noise filter to the voltage divider (Para [0033] teaches the controller controls the switch), and to (ii) determine, from an output of the voltage detector, whether one or more of the first capacitor or the second capacitor are connected to the noise filter (Para [0043] teaches the controller can determine whether the capacitors are broken down based on the voltage measured).
Izutani does not teach an inverter to convert DC power from a battery to AC power to drive a motor. However, Isaksson teaches an inverter to convert DC power from a battery (Fig 1: battery, 2) to AC power to drive a motor (Fig 1: motor, 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Izutani with the inverter and motor of Isaksson. A motivation for this modification is an inverter and motor may be used within an electric/hybrid vehicle, as taught in Isaksson (See abstract).
The combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson does not teach that the determination of connection or disconnection of the first or second capacitor is based on a comparison of the measured voltage against a threshold. However, Wolf teaches a comparison of the measured voltage against a threshold (Para [0028] teaches comparing an electric potential to a predetermined threshold value). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the controller of the combination to compare a measured voltage to predetermined threshold value. A motivation for this modification is a specific voltage value used as a predetermined value has the advantage of ensuring that only the failure of a capacitor can trigger it and not environmental factors such as temperature, as taught by Wolf in Para [0028].
Regarding Claim 2, Izutani further teaches wherein the voltage divider and the noise filter are connected to a positive DC voltage source and to a negative DC voltage source (Figs 1-4 show the circuit is connected to a battery).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson in view of Wolf, as presented with respect to claim 1, does not teach wherein the plurality of resistors comprise a first resistor, a second resistor, a third resistor, and a fourth resistor,
wherein the first resistor is connected to a positive DC voltage source and the second resistor,
wherein the second resistor is connected to the third resistor, and
wherein the voltage detector is connected to the third resistor and the fourth resistor.
However, Wolf further teaches wherein the plurality of resistors comprise a first resistor, a second resistor, a third resistor, and a fourth resistor (Fig 2 shows at least a first through 4th resistors),
wherein the first resistor is connected to a positive DC voltage source and the second resistor (The resistors labeled as 25 are indicated in Figure 2 as being any number of resistors as shown by the ellipses between them, therefore the first resistor, which is at the top of the plurality of resistors labeled 25, is connected to the DC source and the second resistor, which is at the bottom of the plurality of resistors labeled 25),
wherein the second resistor is connected to the third resistor (Fig 2 shows the second resistor connected to the third resistor, 24), and
wherein the voltage detector (Fig 2: voltage meter, 80) is connected to the third resistor (Fig 2: 24) and the fourth resistor (Fig 2: 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the voltage divider of the combination to include four resistors. A motivation for this modification is to allow a very large voltage to be scaled down allowing for a safer measurement.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson in view of Wolf, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches being above/below a threshold and determining whether a capacitor is broken down or operable based on the comparison to the threshold (Izutani - Para [0057-0058] teaches that when the rate of change of the measurement is less than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be broken down or if the time is greater than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be good | Wolf teaches in Para [0028] comparing an electric potential to a predetermined threshold value). These features are necessarily taught by the combination of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson in view of Wolf, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches being above/below a threshold and determining whether a capacitor is broken down or operable based on the comparison to the threshold (Izutani - Para [0057-0058] teaches that when the rate of change of the measurement is less than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be broken down or if the time is greater than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be good. Furthermore, Izutani teaches that the specific capacitor that is broken down can be determined based on whether a measured voltage is increasing or decreasing as shown in Figs 7-9 | Wolf teaches in Para [0028] comparing an electric potential to a predetermined threshold value). These features are necessarily taught by the combination of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, The combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson in view of Wolf teaches being above/below a threshold and determining whether a capacitor is broken down or operable based on the comparison to the threshold (Izutani - Para [0057-0058] teaches that when the rate of change of the measurement is less than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be broken down or if the time is greater than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be good. Furthermore, Izutani teaches that the specific capacitor that is broken down can be determined based on whether a measured voltage is increasing or decreasing, as shown in Figs 7-9 | Wolf teaches in Para [0028] comparing an electric potential to a predetermined threshold value).
The combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson in view of Wolf does not explicitly teach wherein the third threshold is greater than a first threshold used to determine a disconnection of the first capacitor; and responsive to determining that the measured voltage is above the third threshold, determine that the second capacitor is disconnected from the noise filter. However, both Izutani and Isaksson teach determining a fault based on a voltage reading compared to an expected or threshold value (Refer to Isaksson in at least Para [0015] and Izutani in at least Para [0039]) and Izutani further teaches distinguishing between which capacitor is at fault based on differences in the measured values (as shown in Figs 7-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have programmed a controller to detect a fault when at a measurement threshold greater than a different threshold in order to determine which capacitor has been disconnected based on this measured value. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a controller could be programmed from the teachings of Izutani and Isaksson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as programming controllers to determine faults is very well known in the art as demonstrated by Izutani and Isaksson.
Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson in view of Wolf teaches being above/below a threshold and determining whether a capacitor is broken down or operable based on the comparison to the threshold (Izutani - Para [0057-0058] teaches that when the rate of change of the measurement is less than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be broken down or if the time is greater than a predetermined time then the capacitors can be determined to be good. Furthermore, Izutani teaches that the specific capacitor that is broken down can be determined based on whether a measured voltage is increasing or decreasing as shown in Figs 7-9 | Wolf teaches in Para [0028] comparing an electric potential to a predetermined threshold value).
The combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson in view of Wolf does not explicitly teach determining that the measured voltage is zero volts; and responsive to determining that the measured voltage is zero volts, determine that the first capacitor and the second capacitor are disconnected from the noise filter. However, both Izutani and Isaksson teach determining a fault based on a voltage reading compared to an expected or threshold value (Refer to Isaksson in at least Para [0015] and Izutani in at least Para [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have programmed a controller to detect a fault when a measurement of 0 volts is obtained and determining if a capacitor has been disconnected based on this measured value. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a controller could be programmed from the teachings of Izutani and Isaksson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as programming controllers to determine faults is very well known in the art as demonstrated by Izutani and Isaksson.
Regarding Claims 8-9, the combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson in view of Wolf does not explicitly teach an additional voltage divider comprising a plurality of additional resistors; and an additional voltage detector configured to measure an additional voltage at the additional voltage divider, wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to (iii) determine, from the output of the voltage detector and the additional output of the additional voltage detector, whether one or more of the first capacitor or the second capacitor are operating at a reduced capacity; and
wherein determining whether one or more of the first capacitor or the second capacitor are operating at the reduced capacity comprises comparing the output with the additional output. However, it has been held In re Harza, 274F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adding a voltage divider would allow the predictable result of providing another circuit to measure voltage with. One of ordinary skill would also recognize that a measurement on one voltage divider could be compared the measurement of another voltage divider as this is simply a comparison of two voltages, which is taught in Izutani, Isaksson and Wolf both separately and in the combination. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add an additional voltage divider as a means of redundancy, which is a very well-known reason to add additional parallel components.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson does not teach wherein the plurality of resistors have values of 500 KOhm, 500 KOhm, 500 KOhm and 5 KOhm respectively. However, Wolf does teach resistors in the bridge circuit containing the values of totaling 10 MOhm and one of them being 10 kOhm. Wolf further elaborates in at least Para [0035] that a smaller resistor contributes less total voltage drop, as is very well known in the art, and this lower voltage drop subjects circuit components, like the switch of Wolf, to limited voltage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the resistors of the combination to be different values. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that lowering one resistor amongst a plurality of resistors would result in a lower voltage drop and one of ordinary skill in the art would know the advantages lower voltages bring based on at least the teachings of Wolf, but also as it is very well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson in view of Wolf, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches the battery configured to supply the DC power to the inverter (Isaksson - Can be seen in Figure 1, the battery, 2, supplies power to the inverter, 19); and
the motor configured to receive the AC power from the inverter to drive the motor (Isaksson - Fig 1: motor, 4),
wherein the system is provided as a vehicle including the inverter, the battery, and the motor (Isaksson - Abstract teaches a vehicle). These features are necessarily taught by the combination of claim 1.
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 JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, F 10:30-17:00 ET.
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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
