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 2026-02-20 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-20 remain pending in this application. Claim(s) 6 have been amended. No Claim(s) have been canceled or newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12 and its dependent 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 filed 2026-02-20 with respect to claims 1 and 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 1 and 16 contain similar recitations as those discussed with respect to claim 12, however the main contention in claim 12 that applicant argues distinguishes it from the prior art is the inclusion of “comparing the measured voltage against a threshold voltage”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, neither claim 1 or claim 16 include the recitation from claim 12 nor do they include a recitation of comparing to any threshold at all.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-15 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.
Claim 12 recites, “comparing the measured voltage against a threshold voltage” in line 7. There is improper antecedent basis for the phrase “the measured voltage” in the limitation above. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by “the measured voltage” as lines 5-6 indicate that a voltage is measured at the first capacitor and the second capacitor and therefore it cannot be known from the claim whether “the measured voltage” should refer to the voltage measured at the first capacitor or the voltage measured at the second capacitor. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any prior art reference that compares a voltage to a threshold voltage in a capacitance circuit will read on this limitation.
Additionally Claim 12 recites, “measuring, at a voltage detector connected to the voltage divider, a voltage at the first capacitor and the second capacitor” in lines 5-6. However, it is unclear how the voltage is measured based on the embodiment disclosed in Figure 5. Figure 5 shows a voltage detector (560) connected to the voltage divider (550) which is then connected to the positive terminal of resistor 558. The embodiment in Figure 5 shows that the voltage detector measures the voltage across resistor 558. Therefore, it is unclear if the voltage of the capacitors is actually being measured, or if the voltage of the capacitors is being calculated or otherwise determined based on the voltage measured at resistor 558. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this limitation such that prior art that measures directly the voltage of capacitors or one that calculates/determines voltage based on another measured voltage is sufficient to read on the claim.
Claim 13 recites “the measured voltage” in line 4. It is unclear what is meant by “the measured voltage” as lines 5-6 of claim 12 indicate that a voltage is measured at the first capacitor and the second capacitor and therefore it cannot be known from the claim whether “the measured voltage” should refer to the voltage measured at the first capacitor or the voltage measured at the second capacitor. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any prior art reference that compares a voltage to a threshold voltage in a capacitance circuit will read on this limitation.
Claim 14 recites “the measured voltage” in line 4. It is unclear what is meant by “the measured voltage” as lines 5-6 of claim 12 indicate that a voltage is measured at the first capacitor and the second capacitor and therefore it cannot be known from the claim whether “the measured voltage” should refer to the voltage measured at the first capacitor or the voltage measured at the second capacitor. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any prior art reference that compares a voltage to a threshold voltage in a capacitance circuit will read on this limitation.
Claim 15 recites “the measured voltage” in line 4. It is unclear what is meant by “the measured voltage” as lines 5-6 of claim 12 indicate that a voltage is measured at the first capacitor and the second capacitor and therefore it cannot be known from the claim whether “the measured voltage” should refer to the voltage measured at the first capacitor or the voltage measured at the second capacitor. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any prior art reference that compares a voltage to a threshold voltage in a capacitance circuit will read on this limitation.
Regarding Claims 13-15, These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Izutani et al (US-20230236254-A1 – From applicant IDS).
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).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izutani in view of Isaksson (US-20210129675-A1).
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 (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).
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 11, the combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson, 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.
Claims 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izutani in view of Isaksson in view of Wolf et al. (US-20120281443-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson 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 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 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). The combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson 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 5, the combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson 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). The combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson 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 6, The combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson 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). The combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson 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 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 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). The combination of Izutani in view of Isaksson 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 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 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 then 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.
Claims 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izutani in view of Wolf.
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 (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 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.
Conclusion
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-F 09:30-17:30 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
Prosecution Insights