DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/21/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
Claim 1 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.
Regarding claim 1, recites “in case of a defect”. Even when read in light of specification, which generally refers to a defect of a switching element [0006], the term defect fails to provide reasonable certainty as to scope because it does not define the type of defect, the affected component or the condition under which the limitation is triggered. Further recites “does not have a critical influence on a vehicle batter” this phrase if a subjective term of degree that lacks any objective boundary or measurable standard for determining what constitute a “critical” influence, and the specification provides no criteria by which a person of ordinary skill in the art could determine the scope of this limitation or assess infringement. Additionally, the limitation “configured to … deduce a correct function” is result oriented and indefinite, as neither the claim not the specification provides an objective standard for what constitutes “correct function” or how such function is made.
Claims 2-4 are also reject as being depended on rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehrke (WO2011085958A1) in view of Melcher (EP1083658A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gehrke teaches a circuit arrangement for checking the turn-off capability of an electronic fuse in the form of a first electronic switch, said electronic fuse being used as an interrupter switch between a voltage supply and at least one control device (device for monitoring an electrical consumer circuit, fig. 1 transistors 13, 14 are arranged in current paths 11, 12 between a voltage supply and a consumer 19 and are controlled to interrupt current flow and detect fault conditions [0023, 26, 30], thereby functioning as electronic interrupter switches providing protection which corresponds to electronic fuse), comprising:
a second electronic switch connected in parallel with the first electronic switch (fig. 1 parallel branches 20, 21 including transistors 21, 23 arranged in parallel with transistors 13-14 [0027]),
said second electronic switch having a lower current-carrying capacity than the first electronic switch and configured to supply the connected control devices if the latter are in an operating mode with reduced current consumption (“a second, parallel switching path… takes over the interrupted supply load” during testing [0030], corresponding to supplying the load during conditions in which the main path is interrupted and load demand is sufficiently low to avoid impairment, as for the relative current carrying capacity, providing a secondary parallel switching path with reduced capacity relative to main switching path is well known design choice for axillary or diagnostic current supply paths to reduce cost, thermal load and component size, especially where the auxiliary path is only required to supply reduced current during testing or fault conditions),
in case of a defect to limit the second electronic switch's current to a value which does not have a critical influence on a vehicle battery serving as voltage supply (fault detection and control of switching based on measured current behavior and protection of the supply system during abnormal operation [0031-32], wherein controlling current through semiconductor switches during fault conditions inherently limits current to avoid damaging the supply source, which is a standard protective function of such circuits),
in case where the second electronic switch is turned on, to generate a smaller voltage drop across the second electronic switch's load path than the first electronic switch when the second electronic switch carries the same current as the first electronic switch (parallel switching paths with different conduction roles, selection of a switch having a lower on resistance (and thus smaller voltage drop at equal current) for an auxiliary or parallel conduction path is a routine and well understood design choice in semiconductor circuits, as voltage drop is determined by device characteristics (e.g rds (on)) and selecting devices with different conduction characteristics to achieve desired voltage behavior yields predictable results),
wherein the first electronic switch and the second electronic switch are controlled by a control and diagnosis circuit (fig. 1 28 controlling switched 13-14, 22-23 [0028]),
controlled by a control unit configured to check the first electronic switch, functioning as a fuse, with regard to the first electronic switch's turn-off capability if the second electronic switch is switched on (switching capability of the transistors is tested by briefly switching off… transistors, while the parallel path maintains supply [0030], thereby checking turn off capability of the first switch under conditions where the second switch is conducting),
wherein the circuit arrangement switches on the second electronic switch before the first electronic switch is switched off and the first electronic switch is switched on before the second electronic switch is switched off (parallel switching path takes over supply during switching such that “short shutdown time… does not impair the operation of the electrical consumer” [0030], while necessarily requires overlapping switching operation where the second switch is turned on before the first is turned off and vice versa to maintain uninterrupted current flow, as otherwise supply interruption would occur),
and wherein the control and diagnosis circuit is configured to check the voltage drop across the two electronic switches (measurement of electrical parameters including current and behavior during switching events [0031], which inherently involved voltage across switching elements as part of electrical behavior evaluation)
Gehrke does not explicitly teach to deduce a correct function of the electronic switches in the case of a reduction of the voltage when the second electronic switch is switched on and the first electronic switch is switched off.
However, Melcher in a relevant art teaching checking voltage drop across a switch and using it to determine operating condition (the current flowing through the transistor is determined from the drain source voltage [0017-18]), and deducing correct or faulty function of a switch based on voltage behavior (faulty states are detected solely by observing the voltage curve of the drain source voltage [0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gehrke to deduce correct function of the switches based on voltage reduction as taught by Melcher to improve diagnostic accuracy of switch functionality, enable fault detecting using inherent electrical characteristics of the switches and avoid the need of additional sensing components.
PNG
media_image1.png
548
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Gehrke does not explicitly teach wherein the two electronic switches are embodied as MOSFETs.
However, Melcher in a relevant art teaching c wherein the two electronic switches are embodied as MOSFETs (the transistor is a MOSFET having drain source path. The current flowing through the transistor is determined from the drain source voltage [0016-17]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gehrke to deduce correct function of the switches based on voltage reduction as taught by Melcher to improve diagnostic accuracy of switch functionality, enable fault detecting using inherent electrical characteristics of the switches and avoid the need of additional sensing components.
Regarding claims 3, 4, Gehrke teaches wherein the turn-off capability of the first electronic switch is checked (switching capability of the transistor is tested by briefly switching off … transistor [0030])
Gehrke further teaches that the testing is performed during a “short shutdown time… that does not impair the operation of the electrical consumer” [0030], thereby requiring that the diagnostic operation be carried out under operating conditions in which the load can tolerate the switching event, however does not explicitly teach in time ranges in which the control device does not have a high current demand.
However, Melcher in a relevant art teaches performing diagnostic evaluation of switching elements during operation based on voltage behavior [0017], detecting faults without disrupting circuit operation “faulty states are detected …. Solely by observing the voltage curve” [0020].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the diagnostic switching operation of Gehrke during time ranges in which the load has reduced current demand, since Gehrke already requires that testing be conducted under conditions that do not impair operation of the electrical consumer [0030], selecting time intervals of lower current demand is a predictable and effective way to ensure that such switching does not adversely affect system operation. Melcher further reinforces performing diagnostic evaluation during normal operation without disruption [0017-20]. Selecting such operating conditions constitutes a routine optimization yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
SHIRAISHI (U.S. Publication 20130320986) discloses SWITCH FAILURE DIAGNOSIS DEVICE AND ELECTRIC STORAGE APPARATUS.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAQI R NASIR whose telephone number is (571)270-1425. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
/TAQI R NASIR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights