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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 07/16/2024 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102022200600.3, filed on 01/20/2022.
Status of Application
Claims 9-30 are pending.
Claims 9, 16, and 23 are the independent claims.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 02/19/2026.
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 23-30 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 23-30 have incorrect dependencies. Because of this, the claims are introducing “The low-voltage supply arrangement” without any prior antecedent basis and some claims have no further limitation (Claim 28). Applicant is required to correct the claim dependencies. For examination purposes, the office has updated the claim dependencies and the updates are attached (Attachment sent in previous office action).
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.
Claim(s) 9-13, 15-20, 22-27, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP-3042805-B1 (“Haas”) in view of US-9891262-B2 to Kullick et. al. (“Kullick”), further in view of US-20180275180-A1 (“Muller”).
Regarding claim 23, Haas teaches a voltage supply arrangement for a vehicle (Haas Fig. 1), comprising:
a plurality of low-voltage networks (Haas [0013] “connected in ground”) that are galvanically isolated from one another (Haas [0001]), each of the low-voltage networks comprising a DC/DC converter (Haas ref 25, 27) configured to connect to a voltage supply system (Haas ref 58) and to an energy storage device (Haas ref 16, 34, and 36) and a supply bus (Haas ref 22 and/or ref 10, ) for supplying voltage consumers (Haas Fig. 1 and [0013]);
a control circuitry configured to carry out a check of insulation between the low-voltage networks by (Haas [0001], Fig. 1, and claim 1):
impressing a voltage change on the voltage supply system or on the supply bus of one of the low-voltage networks via the DC/DC converter of said low-voltage network (Haas Fig. 3-4 and [0016] – [0019]);
receiving a respective voltage detected on the supply buses of at least the other low-voltage networks (Haas [0019] “the detection means 40 now detects, for example, the voltage U2that falls across the load 22 b”);
evaluating the detected voltages for an insulation defect between the low-voltage networks (Haas [0019] “the evaluation means 44 concludes that there is an insulation damage”);
and deriving and outputting a checking decision (Haas [0007]-[0008], [0019] – [0022]), wherein the control circuitry is further configured to:
(ii) disconnect non-safety-critical low-voltage consumers from the respective supply bus before the insulation is checked via a semiconductor switch (Haas [0020] “the detection means 40 or evaluation means 44 provide that they can carry out a decoupling of the corresponding higher frequency signal in the corresponding frequency band.” And [0021] “decoupling coil”).
Haas does not teach that the voltage supply arrangement is low-voltage, the supply system is high-voltage, and that the control circuitry is further configured to deactivate or maintain in a deactivated state at least some of the low-voltage consumers supplied via the supply buses before the voltage change is impressed. However, Kullick teaches that the voltage supply arrangement is low-voltage, the supply system is high-voltage, and that the control circuitry is further configured to deactivate or maintain in a deactivated state at least some of the low-voltage consumers supplied via the supply buses before the voltage change is impressed (Kullick Claim 1 and 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the apparatus of Haas to incorporate the teachings of Kullick such that the voltage supply arrangement is low-voltage, the supply system is high-voltage, and that the control circuitry is further configured to deactivate or maintain in a deactivated state at least some of the low-voltage consumers supplied via the supply buses before the voltage change is impressed. Doing so would allow for various combinations of passive and/or active methods on the account of the plurality of couplings, improving insulation monitoring (Kullick col 2 line 49 – col 3 line 4).
Haas as modified by Kullick does not teach evaluating the detected voltages by determining whether the impressed voltage change causes a corresponding change in voltage on another supply bus due to charge flow indicative of an insulation defect between the voltage networks. However, Muller teaches evaluating the detected voltages by determining whether the impressed voltage change causes a corresponding change in voltage on another supply bus due to charge flow indicative of an insulation defect between the voltage networks (Muller [0016] “In particular, it is envisaged that the insulation monitor carry out a resistance-based method, in which a test voltage is applied to a high-voltage network to be tested, and a current flowing out via the high-voltage network is measured at the same time. An electrical resistance of the high-voltage network can be determined on the basis of the known test voltage and the measured current. Should an electrical resistance value determined for a particular high-voltage network deviate from a given threshold value, it can be assumed that an insulation layer of the high-voltage network has been damaged” and [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Muller to Haas as modified by Kullick such that the circuitry evaluates the detected voltages by determining whether the impressed voltage change causes a corresponding change in voltage on another supply bus due to charge flow indicative of an insulation defect between the voltage networks. Doing so would ensure a routine monitoring of electrical insulation for a vehicle (Muller [0008]).
Regarding claim 24, Haas as modified by Kullick and Muller teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 23. Haas further discloses that the control circuitry is
configured to impress the voltage change in the form of a pulse (Haas [0004] and Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 25, Haas as modified by Kullick and Muller teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 23. Haas further discloses that the control circuitry is configured to consecutively impress the voltage change for all low-voltage networks (Haas [0004] and Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 26, Haas as modified by Kullick and Muller teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 23. Haas further discloses that the control circuitry is configured to impress the voltage change when the vehicle is not in active operation Haas [0005] – [0006].
Regarding claim 27, Haas as modified by Kullick and Muller teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 26. Haas further discloses that the control circuitry is configured to impress the voltage change after the vehicle has been started and/or after the vehicle has been shut off (Haas [0005] – [0006]).
Regarding claim 29, Haas as modified by Kullick and Muller teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 23. Muller further discloses that the insulation is checked on a periodic basis (Muller Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Muller to Haas as modified by Kullick and Muller such that the insulation is checked on a periodic basis. Doing so would ensure a routine monitoring of electrical insulation for a vehicle (Muller [0008]).
Regarding claim 30, Haas as modified by Kullick and Muller teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 23. Haas further discloses that the control circuitry is configured to compare the detected voltages to threshold values and perform a temporal correlation analysis to evaluate the detected voltages (Haas [0019]).
With respect to Claims 9-13, all limitations have been examined with respect to the arrangement in claims 23-27. The arrangement taught/disclosed in claims 23-27 can clearly perform the method of claims 9-13. Therefore claims 9-13 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 16-20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the arrangement in claims 23-27. The arrangement taught/disclosed in claims 23-27 can clearly perform the method of claims 9-13. Therefore claims 9-13 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 15, all limitations have been examined with respect to the arrangement in claims 29. The arrangement taught/disclosed in claims 29 can clearly perform the method of claims 15. Therefore claims 15 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 22, all limitations have been examined with respect to the arrangement in claims 29. The arrangement taught/disclosed in claims 29 can clearly perform the system of claims 22. Therefore claims 29 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 14, 21, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas in view of Kullick, further in view of Muller and DE-102011083600-A1 to Falk et. al. (“Falk”).
Regarding claim 28, Haas as modified by Kullick and Muller teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 23. Haas as modified by Kullick and Muller does not teach the control circuitry is configured to initiate the voltage change by a diagnostic command received from a central control center. However, Falk teaches that the control circuitry is configured to initiate the voltage change by a diagnostic command received from a central control center (Falk [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Falk to Haas as modified by Kullick and Muller such that the control circuitry is configured to initiate the voltage change by a diagnostic command received from a central control center. Doing so would modes and/or safety-relevant electrical variables can be changed (Falk [0012]).
With respect to Claims 14, all limitations have been examined with respect to the arrangement in claims 28. The arrangement taught/disclosed in claims 28 can clearly perform the method of claims 14. Therefore claims 14 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 21, all limitations have been examined with respect to the arrangement in claims 28. The arrangement taught/disclosed in claims 28 can clearly perform the system of claims 21. Therefore claims 21 are rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 02/192026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. While the claim numbering has been updated, Applicant has forgotten to update the claim dependencies and the same updated claims from the examiner for examination purposes were attached in the previous office action.
With respect to the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all of the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
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 JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights