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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 15 and 21, the recitation “any of claims 1”, on line 3, should be changed to say – to claim 1--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-8, 10-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2-8 and 10-14, the limitation “a feedback control circuit of a new energy electronic lock” are recited on lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this “a feedback control circuit of a new energy electronic lock” is the same “a feedback control circuit of a new energy electronic lock”, on lines 1-2 of claim 1 or different “a feedback control circuit of a new energy electronic lock”. Clarification is required.
Claims 16-20, the limitation “a feedback control circuit of a new energy electronic lock” are recited on lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this “a feedback control circuit of a new energy electronic lock” is the same “a feedback control circuit of a new energy electronic lock”, on lines 1-2 of claim 15 or different “a feedback control circuit of a new energy electronic lock”. Clarification is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kurumizawa et al. (hereinafter Kurumizawa, US 2012/0252250 A1).
For claim 1, Kurumizawa discloses a feedback control circuit of a new energy electronic lock applied to a new energy automobile (Figs. 1-2 of Kagawa disclose a feedback control circuit 52 of a new energy electronic lock 22 applied to a new energy automobile 10 via receptacle 103 – see Kurumizawa, Figs. 1-2 and 4-5, paragraphs [0002], 0027] and [0039]), comprising:
a driving module (Figs. 1 and 4 of Kurumiawa disclose for receiving a locking signal and generating a lock driving signal, and driving an electronic lock to be locked through the lock driving signal (Figs. 1 and 4 of Kurumizawa disclose a driving module a power plug lock motor 27, a worm gear mechanism 29, plate 38 and locking lever 43, and switch mechanism 48 which altogether constitute a driving module 27, 29, 38, 43, 48 for receiving a locking signal from control unit 52 and generating a lock driving signal, and driving an electronic lock 22 via lock motor 27 to be locked through the lock driving signal – see Kurumiawa, Figs. 1 and 4, paragraphs [0029], [0034] and [0039]); and
a control unit which is connected to a feedback pin of the driving module and is configured to obtain first driving current during the locking process of the electronic lock and to determine a locking state of the electronic lock based on the first driving current (Fig. 1 of Kurumiawa discloses a control unit 52 which is connected to a feedback pin of the driving module 27, 29, 38, 43, 48 and is configured to obtain first driving current during the locking process of the electronic lock and to determine a locking state of the electronic lock based on the first driving current – see Kurumiawa, Figs. 1 and 4, paragraphs [0038]-[0040]).
Claim 15 is "method" claim which are either same or similar to that of the "apparatus" claim 1. Explanation is omitted.
For claim 21, Kurumizawa discloses an electronic lock for a new energy automobile (Figs. 1-2 and 4-5 of Kurumizawa disclose an electronic lock 22 for a new energy automobile 10 – see Kurumizawa, Figs. 1-2 and 4-5, paragraphs [0023] and [0027]), wherein the electronic lock is provided with a feedback control circuit of a new energy electronic lock according to any of claim 1 (same as explanation in claim 1 above).
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 2-5, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 19-20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurumizawa et al. (hereinafter Kurumizawa, US 2012/0252250 A1) in view of Kagawa et al. (hereinafter Kagawa, US 2016/0056589 A1).
For claim 2, Kurumizawa discloses all limitations as applied in claim 1 above. Kurumizawa discloses the electronic lock which is silent for including a self-feedback unit; the self-feedback unit is configured to generate a pulse signal or an analog voltage signal representing the locking state of the electronic lock; and the control unit is further configured to determine the locking state of the electronic lock based on a duty cycle ratio of the pulse signal or magnitude of the analog voltage signal. However, Kagawa discloses the electronic lock which includes a self-feedback unit (Figs. 1 and 3 of Kagawa disclose the electronic lock A1 which includes a self-feedback unit 28 – see Kagawa, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraph [0023]); and the self-feedback unit is configured to generate a pulse signal or an analog voltage signal representing the locking state of the electronic lock (Figs. 1 and 3 of Kagawa disclose the self-feedback unit 28 configured to generate an analog voltage signal via amplifier 280 representing the locking state of the electronic lock A1 -- see Kagawa, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraph [0027]); and the control unit is further configured to determine the locking state of the electronic lock based on a duty cycle ratio of the pulse signal or magnitude of the analog voltage signal (Figs. 1 and 3 of Kagawa discloses the control unit 200 is further configured to determine the locking state of the electronic lock 23 based on a duty cycle ratio of the pulse signal or magnitude of the analog voltage signal – see Kagawa, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs [0012], 0027] and [0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Kurumizawa to incorporate teaching of Kagawa for purpose of improving the safety.
For claim 3, Kurumizawa in view of Kagawa disclose the feedback control circuit of a new energy electronic lock according to claim 2, wherein, an amplifying circuit and a sampling module are further provided between the control unit and the driving module (Figs. 1 and 3 of Kagawa disclose an amplifying circuit 280 and a sampling module 33 which are further provided between the control unit 200 and the driving module 230 – see Kagawa, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs [0027], [0029] and [0044]-[0046]);
The amplifying circuit is connected to the feedback pin of the driving module, and the amplifying circuit is configured to pull the initial driving current in the locking process of the electronic lock up to generate a voltage, which is then amplified, to obtain an amplifier voltage (see Kagawa, Fig. 3, paragraph [0027]);
the sampling module is configured to convert the amplified voltage into the first driving current to be transmitted to the control unit (see Kagawa, Fig. 1, paragraph [0029]).
For claim 4, Kurumizawa in view of Kagawa disclose the feedback control circuit of a new energy electronic lock according to claim 3, wherein the sampling module is further configured to transmit the pulse signal or the analog voltage signal to the control unit (see Kagawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0029] and [0045]).
For claim 5, Kurumizawa in view of Kagawa the feedback control circuit of a new energy electronic lock according to claim 3, wherein the amplifying circuit comprises:
an operational amplifier which is connected with an analog ground and a VCC (see Fig. 3 of Kagawa discloses an operational amplifier 280 which is connected with an analog ground and a VCC); and
a limit resistor which is connected to the feedback pin of the driving module, and the other end of which is grounded (see Kagawa, Fig. 3);
the limit resistor pulls the initial driving current up to the voltage and inputs the voltage to the operational amplifier (see Kagawa, Fig. 3).
one end of the second voltage-dividing current limiting resistor is coupled to the other end of the first voltage-dividing current limiting resistor;
the other end of the second voltage-dividing current limiting resistor is grounded.
For claim 10, Kurumizawa discloses all limitation as applied to claim 1 above. Kurumizawa discloses the feedback control circuit which is silent for comprising:
a voltage detection circuit which is connected to a voltage input pin of the driving module; and
the voltage detection circuit is configured to detect a voltage state of the VCC inputted to the voltage input pin.
However, Kagawa discloses the feedback control circuit which comprises:
a voltage detection circuit which is connected to a voltage input pin of the driving module (Fig. 1 of Kagawa discloses a voltage detection circuit 31 which connected to a voltage input pin of the driving module 21-22, 25, 27, 32 – see Kagawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0023]-[0024]); and
the voltage detection circuit is configured to detect a voltage state of the VCC inputted to the voltage input pin (see Kagawa, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0024]-[0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Kurumizawa to incorporate teaching of Kagawa for purpose of providing critical real-time monitoring of supply voltage and protecting equipment from under/overvoltage damage.
For claim 12, Kurumizawa discloses all limitation as applied to claim 1 above. Kurumizawa discloses the feedback control circuit which is silent for comprising:
an overtemperature protection circuit which is connected to an overtemperature protection pin of the driving module;
the overtemperature protection pin outputs a temperature signal corresponding to the temperature of the driving module to the overtemperature protection circuit; and
the overtemperature protection circuit is configured to perform voltage pull-up and filtering of the temperature signal and then input it to the control unit.
However, Kagawa discloses the feedback control circuit comprising:
an overtemperature protection circuit which is connected to an overtemperature protection pin of the driving module (Fig. 1 of Kagawa discloses an overtemperature protection circuit 29 which is connected to an overtemperature protection pin of the driving module 2 – see Kagawa, Fig. 1, paragraph [0023]);
the overtemperature protection pin outputs a temperature signal corresponding to the temperature of the driving module to the overtemperature protection circuit (see Kagawa, Fig. 1, paragraph [0044]); and
the overtemperature protection circuit is configured to perform voltage pull-up and filtering of the temperature signal and then input it to the control unit (see Kagawa, Fig. 1, paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify teaching of Kurumizawa to incorporate teaching of Kagawa for purpose of protecting equipment from overheat damage.
For claim 14, Kurumizawa in view of Kagawa disclose the feedback control circuit of a new energy electronic lock according to claim 3, wherein the control unit is further configured to:
determine the locking state of the electronic lock corresponding to the first driving current based on the first driving current and pre-configured corresponding relationship between a preset first driving current interval and the locking state of the electronic lock (see Kagawa, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs [0022], [0027], [0029] and [0045]).
Claims 16 and 19 are "method" claims which are either same or similar to that of the "apparatus" claims 14 and 2, respectively. Explanation is omitted.
For claim 20, Kurumizawa in view of Kagawa disclose the control method of a feedback control circuit of a new energy electronic lock according to claim 19, wherein the determining the locking state of the electronic lock based on a duty cycle ratio of the pulse signal or magnitude of the analog voltage signal (Figs. 1 and 3 of Kagawa disclose the determining the locking state of the electronic lock based on magnitude of the analog voltage signal via amplifier 280 – see Kagawa, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraph [0027], comprises:
determining the locking state of the electronic lock corresponding to a duty cycle ratio of the pulse signal based on the duty cycle ratio of the pulse signal and pre-configured corresponding relationship between a preset duty cycle ratio interval and the locking state of the electronic lock; or
determining the locking state of the electronic lock corresponding to the analog voltage signal based on the analog voltage signal and pre-configured corresponding relationship between a preset voltage interval and the locking state of the electronic lock (see Kagawa, Figs. 1 and 3, paragraphs [0027], [0029], [0033] and [0045]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 11, 13, 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-3852. The examiner can normally be reached (571)270-3852.
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, EDUARDO COLON-SANTANA can be reached at (571)272-2060. 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.
/THAI T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846