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 .
Status of Claims
This final action is in response to Applicant’s amended filing of 03/24/2026.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 10-11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 10 rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) against claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are only partially persuasive. The Examiner acknowledges that Araki does not disclose “the single ground loss detection resistor in only one of the first ground line or the second ground line” and therefore cannot anticipate the claim under 35 USC § 102(a)(1). However, the Examiner asserts that claim 1 is still unpatentable over Araki. While Araki’s resistor 16 is connected to both ground lines Ga and Gb and not only one or the other, its use as a single resistor is still to detect loss in one or the other ground line by measuring a change in voltage and/or current across the resistor, with the value indicating which ground line has lost connection (see at least Fig. 7 and ¶ [0098-0104]). This provides the same function as the single ground loss detection resistor described in the specification (see at least ¶ [0033-0035]) and discloses the claimed invention except for the ground loss detection resistor being connected to only one of the first ground line or the second ground line. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to omit the connection of the resistor to both ground lines – and relegating it to the first or the second ground line – since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. The rejection over obviousness of design choice is reiterated below.
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 1-6, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki et al. (US 20200158788 A1; reference provided in IDS filed 06/20/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Araki discloses a method for detecting a loss of ground detection in a controller for a vehicle (see at least abstract and ¶ [0021]) comprising:
evaluating the measured current with a microcontroller of at least one of the first unit and the second unit to determine whether a loss of the connection has occurred at one of the first and second ground terminals (see at least ¶ [0086-0098] and Figs. 5-7 disclosing first and second microcomputers 12a and 12b to measure currents Ia and/or Ib to determine if ground lines Ga and Gb are open).
While Araki discloses ascertaining current in at least one of a first ground line which connects a first unit to a first ground terminal and a second ground line which connects a second unit to a second ground terminal and having a single ground loss detection resistor in one of the first and the second ground lines (see at least ¶ [0086-0098-0104] and Figs. 5-7 disclosing first and second ground lines Ga and Gb connected to microcomputers 12a and 12b to measure currents Ia and Ib to grounding terminals Ta- and Tb- using resistor 16), it does not explicitly disclose the single ground loss detection resistor in only one of the first ground line or the second ground line.
However, Araki’s resistor 16 is arranged to detect either the first or second ground line loss of connection by observing differences in voltage across the connecting ends of the resistor (see at least Fig. 7 and ¶ [0098-0104]). This provides the same function as the single ground loss detection resistor described in the specification (see at least ¶ [0033-0035]) and discloses the claimed invention except for the ground loss detection resistor being connected to only one of the first ground line or the second ground line. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to omit the connection of the resistor to both ground lines – and relegating it to the first or the second ground line – since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Regarding claim 2, Araki discloses the evaluating microcontroller and the ground loss detection resistor are arranged in the second unit (see at least ¶ [0035-0036] disclosing second microcomputer 12b and resistor 14b used to detect open ground current).
Regarding claim 3, Araki discloses the first and second unit comprises a printed circuit board (see at least ¶ [0041-0042] disclosing the microcomputers connected through a circuit board).
Araki does not explicitly disclose a first and second printed circuit board, wherein the first printed circuit board is connected to the first ground terminal via the first ground line and the second printed circuit board is connected to the second ground terminal via the second ground line.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present invention to have a first and second printed circuit board for corresponding first and second units, ground terminals, and ground lines since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. 549 F.2d 833 (7th Cir. 1977).
Regarding claim 4, Araki discloses detecting a ground interruption under at least one of normal operating conditions and purely using operating current (see at least ¶ [0060] and [0067] disclosing the resistors measuring currents against determination values to assess if the lines are open or if they are operating under normal conditions).
Regarding claim 5, Araki discloses the actual flowing current is measured (see at least ¶ [0060] disclosing resistors 14a and 14b used to measure flowing currents Ia and Ib).
Regarding claim 6, Araki discloses identifying a loss of connection via the second ground line when the current falls below a first current threshold value (see at least ¶ [0070] disclosing first and second threshold determination values TH1 and TH2 for resistor 14b to determine if a ground line is open);
and identifying a loss of connection via the first ground line when the current falls below a second current threshold value (see at least ¶ [0070] disclosing first and second threshold determination values TH1 and TH2 for resistor 14b to determine if a ground line is open).
Regarding claim 11, Araki discloses a controller for a vehicle (see at least abstract and ¶ [0021]) comprising:
a first unit (see at least ¶ [0027-0030] and Figs. 5-7 disclosing first microcomputer);
a second unit (see at least ¶ [0027-0030] and Figs. 5-7 disclosing second microcomputer);
a microcontroller of at least one of the first unit and the second units (see at least ¶ [0027-0030] and Figs. 5-7 disclosing first and second microcomputers as part of a control circuit);
a first ground terminal connected to the first unit by a first ground line (see at least ¶ [0086-0098] and Figs. 5-7 disclosing first ground line Ga connected to microcomputer 12a to measure current Ia and Ib to grounding terminal Ta- using resistor 14a);
and a second ground terminal connected to the second unit by a second ground line (see at least ¶ [0086-0098] and Figs. 5-7 disclosing second ground line Gb connected to microcomputer 12b to measure current Ib to grounding terminal Tb- using resistor 14b).
While Araki discloses a single ground loss detection resistor arranged in one of the first ground line and the second ground line, wherein the microcontroller is able to detect whether a loss of the connection has occurred at one of the ground terminals by measuring the current in one of the first and the second ground lines (see at least ¶ [0086-0098-0104] and Figs. 5-7 disclosing first and second ground lines Ga and Gb connected to microcomputers 12a and 12b to measure currents Ia and Ib to grounding terminals Ta- and Tb- using resistor 16), it does not explicitly disclose the single ground loss detection resistor arranged in only one of the first ground line or the second ground line.
However, Araki’s resistor 16 is arranged to detect either the first or second ground line loss of connection by observing differences in voltage across the connecting ends of the resistor (see at least Fig. 7 and ¶ [0098-0104]). This provides the same function as the single ground loss detection resistor described in the specification (see at least ¶ [0033-0035]) and discloses the claimed invention except for the ground loss detection resistor being connected to only one of the first ground line or the second ground line. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to omit the connection of the resistor to both ground lines – and relegating it to the first or the second ground line – since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Regarding claim 12, Araki discloses the ground loss detection resistor is a printed circuit board resistor (see at least ¶ [0041-0043] disclosing resistors are part of circuit boards).
Regarding claim 14, Araki discloses the loss of detection is for a redundant ground connection (see at least ¶ [0002] disclosing a drive control system for driving a motor is doubled to be made redundant).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki et al., as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Ajima et al. (US 20150303844 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Araki does not explicitly disclose selecting a level of minimum required current for the evaluation depending on the offset error of the analog-to-digital converter.
However, Ajima suggests selecting a level of minimum required current for the evaluation depending on the offset error of the analog-to-digital converter (see at least ¶ [0049] and Fig. 8 disclosing and A/D converter (ADC) receiving a minimum pulse current in a current detection sensor while factoring in offset error to correct).
While Ajima is not directed toward using and characterizing an ADC for a grounding circuit, it is utilized in a vehicle like the vehicle in Araki, which similarly implements ADCs in its grounding circuits (see at least ¶ [0031]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the current and offset characterizations of Ajima into the grounding circuit of Araki with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward detecting current in vehicle electrical systems using ADCs. This would allow the system to be more accurate in detecting and measuring current by characterizing the ADC and its offset.
Regarding claim 8, Araki does not explicitly disclose the minimum current is selected to be greater, the greater the offset error is.
However, Ajima suggests the minimum current is selected to be greater, the greater the offset error is (see at least Fig. 6 depicting the larger the current input is the larger the result is with the offset).
While Ajima is not directed toward using and characterizing an ADC for a grounding circuit, it is utilized in a vehicle like the vehicle in Araki, which similarly implements ADCs in its grounding circuits (see at least ¶ [0031]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the current and offset characterizations of Ajima into the grounding circuit of Araki with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward detecting current in vehicle electrical systems using ADCs. This would allow the system to be more accurate in detecting and measuring current by characterizing the ADC and its offset.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki et al., as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Oohashi et al. (US 20090119034 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Araki does not explicitly disclose correcting the resistance value of the ground loss detection resistor by the ambient temperature.
However, Oohashi suggests correcting the resistance value of the ground loss detection resistor by the ambient temperature (see at least abstract, ¶ [0036] and [0067-0068], and Fig. 4B disclosing an electronic vehicle controller taking temperature into account when determining resistance and correcting calculated values of resistance accordingly).
While Oohashi is not directed toward adjusting resistance values for a grounding circuit, it is utilized in a vehicle like the vehicle in Araki, which similarly measures current resistance in vehicle system circuitry. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the temperature corrections of Oohashi into the grounding circuit of Araki with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward measuring resistance in vehicle electrical systems. This would allow the system to be more accurate in detecting and measuring current by accounting for discrepancies caused by temperature.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki et al., as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Doynov et al. (US 20220224108 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Araki suggests the ground line of the first printed circuit board or the second printed circuit board comprises the loss detection resistor (see at least ¶ [0041-0042] and [0098-0104] disclosing the microcomputers connected through a circuit board with ground lines meeting at resistor 16).
Araki does not explicitly disclose correcting a nominal resistance of the ground loss detection resistor by the tolerances of the i) first printed circuit board or ii) the second printed circuit board, which comprises the loss detection resistor.
However, Doynov suggests correcting a nominal resistance of the ground loss detection resistor by the tolerances of the i) first printed circuit board or ii) the second printed circuit board, which comprises the loss detection resistor (see at least ¶ [0086-0087] disclosing a printed circuit board (PCB) having characteristic impedance that must be accounted to conduct proper analytical and modeling techniques for impedance in a circuit).
While Doynov is directed toward accounting for impedance in a circuit and not resistance, the electrical term for impedance includes both resistance and reactance, thus allowing the techniques to characterize impedance to apply and characterize resistance. Additionally, while Doynov is not directed toward accounting for impedance values for a grounding circuit, it is applicable in vehicle systems (see at least ¶ [0080]) like the vehicle in Araki, which similarly measures current resistance in vehicle system circuitry. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the characteristic circuit board corrections of Doynov into the grounding circuit of Araki with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward measuring resistance in vehicle electrical systems. This would allow the system to be more accurate in detecting and measuring current by accounting for discrepancies caused by the characteristic impedance/resistance of the circuit board.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki et al., as applied to claim 11, and in further view of Horton (US 20200317172 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Araki does not explicitly disclose the controller is for a brake system of the vehicle.
However, Horton suggests the controller is for a brake system of the vehicle (see at least ¶ [0042] and [0046-0047] disclosing ground lines in the electrical systems of a vehicle braking system).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing choice of the present invention to incorporate the vehicle grounding circuit of Araki into the braking system of Horton with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward operating grounding circuitry into vehicle systems. This would help the braking system be electrically grounded and overcome potential high voltage shocks from damaging systems.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/J.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights