DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections – Nonstatutory Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
5. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The following table summarizes the correspondence between the limitations of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485 and the limitations of claim 1 of the present application.
Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485
Claim 1 of Present Application
An apparatus, comprising one or more electrolytic capacitors and a device configured to estimate a lifetime consumption of the one or more electrolytic capacitors, the device comprising:
a) a temperature sensor which is thermally insulated from an ambient by being arranged
either between two equal electrolytic capacitors connected in parallel with each other, or
on a case of the electrolytic capacitors and covered with a layer of thermally insulating material and
b) a controller which is suitable to estimate the lifetime consumption based on measurement data of the temperature sensor;
wherein the controller estimates the lifetime consumption of the at least one electrolytic capacitor during a time segment to be proportional to a quotient of the time segment over the lifetime determined for case temperature and effective ripple current which are measured or assumed to occur during the time segment;
wherein the controller estimates the effective ripple current, by considering a number of phases and/or a mode and/or a waveform on an input of the apparatus, an output mode of the apparatus and a given or measured output power value or a given or measured current value or a given or measured input voltage value;
wherein the controller a) determines the lifetime consumption and its uncertainty in regular time segments; b) whereby each time segment is represented by a mean temperature and a mean effective ripple current which are averages over all suitable measurements obtained during the time segment, and c) whereby a total lifetime consumption is a sum over all previously determined lifetime consumptions, and whereby the total lifetime consumption is determined and stored.
An apparatus, comprising one or more electrolytic capacitors and a device configured to estimate a lifetime consumption of the one or more electrolytic capacitors, the device comprising:
a) a temperature sensor which is thermally insulated from an ambient by being arranged
either between two equal electrolytic capacitors connected in parallel with each other or
on a case of the electrolytic capacitor and covered with a layer of thermally insulating material and
b) a controller which is suitable to estimate the lifetime consumption based on measurement data of the temperature sensor;
wherein the controller a) determines the lifetime consumption and its uncertainty in regular time segments; b) whereby each time segment is represented by a mean temperature and a mean effective ripple current which are averages over all suitable measurements obtained during the time segment and c) whereby a total lifetime consumption is a sum over all previously determined lifetime consumptions, and whereby the total lifetime consumption is determined and stored.
Therefore, the apparatus of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485 teaches the apparatus of claim 1 of the present application.
6. Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485 describes the controller as being configured to estimate the effective ripple current, by considering a number of phases and/or a mode and/or a waveform on an input of the apparatus, an output mode of the apparatus and a given or measured output power value or a given or measured current value or a given or measured input voltage value. Therefore, the apparatus of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485 teaches the apparatus of claim 4 of the present application.
7. Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485 describes the controller as being configured to estimate the lifetime consumption of the at least one electrolytic capacitor during a time segment to be proportional to a quotient of the time segment over the lifetime determined for case temperature and effective ripple current which are measured or assumed to occur during the time segment. Therefore, the apparatus of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485 teaches the apparatus of claim 11 of the present application.
8. Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485 is directed to the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein a) the apparatus allows a user to specify a usage cycle with is expected to be repeated in the future and wherein the controller determines the lifetime consumption and its uncertainty either in time segments or continuously during the usage cycle, and wherein the controller determines the usage cycle lifetime consumption by integrating the continuously determined lifetime consumptions over the usage cycle or by adding the lifetime consumption of all time segments of the usage cycle and determines the uncertainty of the usage cycle lifetime consumption b) whereby the usage cycle lifetime consumption is used by the controller to determine a preliminary predicted lifetime by extrapolating the total lifetime consumption linearly, c) whereby the preliminary predicted lifetime is a duration between a beginning of the life of the capacitor and the time at which the extrapolation of the total lifetime consumption reaches a value which indicates an end of the lifetime, d) whereby the controller comprises a clock counting an age of the one or more electrolytic capacitors, e) whereby a residual lifetime is estimated by the controller to be the smaller one of the following two numbers: i) the preliminary predicted lifetime minus a current age of the one or more electrolytic capacitors ii) a maximum age of the one or more electrolytic capacitors minus the current age of the one or more electrolytic capacitors, f) and whereby the residual lifetime is returned together with its uncertainty. Therefore, the apparatus of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485 teaches the apparatus of claim 14 of the present application.
9. Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485 is directed to the apparatus according to claim 10, wherein a) the controller records the case temperature measurements or the lifetime consumptions and the estimated effective ripple current of the usage cycle during its specification and compares these recorded data sequences to the data sequences produced during times which are assumed to be repetitions of the usage cycle and b) wherein the controller issues a signal to the user if it detects that a deviation between the recorded and the measured data is greater than a threshold, thereby warning about a loss in quality in the residual lifetime estimate and asking the user to specify a new usage cycle. Therefore, the apparatus of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485 teaches the apparatus of claim 15 of the present application.
10. Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485 is directed to the apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the extrapolation of the preliminary predicted lifetime and/or the resulting residual lifetime are regularly updated such that the latest available data about age and total lifetime consumption are considered by the extrapolation. Therefore, the apparatus of claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485 teaches the apparatus of claim 16 of the present application.
11. Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485 is directed to the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the controller comprises an interface and stores the temperature, the effective ripple current and the lifetime consumption for every time segment, such that they or a statistic derived from them can be exported through the interface. Therefore, the apparatus of claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,485 teaches the apparatus of claim 17 of the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
12. 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.
13. Claims 4-7, 11-13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Per claim 4, it is unclear if the limitation “the effective ripple current” refers to the limitation “a mean effective ripple current” recited in claim 1 or a measurement used in deriving the mean effective ripple current in a time segment. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 5-7 are consequently rejected due to their dependence on claim 4.
Per claims 11, 13, and 17, it is unclear if the limitation “the effective ripple current” refers to the limitation “a mean effective ripple current” recited in claim 1 or a measurement used in deriving the mean effective ripple current in a time segment. Appropriate correction is required.
Per claims 11 and 13, it is unclear if the limitation “the case temperature” refers to the limitation “a mean temperature” recited in claim 1 or a measurement used in deriving the mean temperature in a time segment. Appropriate correction is required.
Per claim 12, the limitation “the quotient” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. To note, claim 11 recites the limitation “a quotient” but claim 12 depends on claim 10.
Per claim 15, it is unclear if the limitation “the case temperature measurements” refers to the measurements used in deriving the mean temperature in a time segment, as described in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Per claim 15, it is unclear if the limitation “the estimated effective ripple current” refers to the limitation “a mean effective ripple current” recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. To note, claim 4 describes estimating an effective ripple current.
Per claim 17, it is unclear if the limitation “the temperature” refers to the limitation “a mean temperature” recited in claim 1 or a measurement used in deriving the mean temperature in a time segment. Appropriate correction is required.
Pertinent Prior Art
14. Kato – US 2015/0130380
This document discloses a method for determining a lifetime L of a main-circuit capacitor 4, which may be an aluminum electrolytic capacitor, of a motor control device. An internal temperature Tx of the capacitor 4 is calculated based on an ambient temperature Ta of the capacitor 4 and a ripple current IR that flows to the capacitor 4. A lifetime L of the capacitor 4 is determined based on the calculated internal temperature Tx (Fig. 1; ¶30-33).
However, this document is silent on, in particular, the following feature disclosed in independent claim 1 of the present application: “wherein the controller a) determines the lifetime consumption and its uncertainty in regular time segments; b) whereby each time segment is represented by a mean temperature and a mean effective ripple current which are averages over all suitable measurements obtained during the time segment and c) whereby a total lifetime consumption is a sum over all previously determined lifetime consumptions, and whereby the total lifetime consumption is determined and stored.”
Claim Objections
15. Claims 8-9 are objected to due to the following informalities.
Per claim 8, it appears that the clause “e) whereby the lifetime consumption of the bulk capacitor is estimated with a device comprises:” should be revised to “e) whereby the lifetime consumption of the bulk capacitor is estimated with a device comprising:”
Per claim 9, it appears that the clause “f) whereby the lifetime consumption of the bulk capacitor is estimated with a device comprises:” should be revised to “f) whereby the lifetime consumption of the bulk capacitor is estimated with a device comprising:”
16. In light of the rejections to claims 1, 4-7, and 11-17, claim 2-3 and 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Per claim 2, the prior art of record is silent on the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the device further comprises: a) a meter which can measure an output or input data which is a property of a voltage, a power and/or a current which is influenced by or which influences the one or more electrolytic capacitors, and b) wherein the controller is suitable to include measured output or input data in its estimation of the lifetime consumption of the one or more electrolytic capacitors. Claim 3 is consequently objected to due to its dependence on claim 2.
Per claims 8-9, the prior art of record is silent on the power supply apparatus disclosed in these claims.
Per claim 10, the prior art of record is silent on the controller estimates a lifetime of the at least one electrolytic capacitor by calculating a product of a first capacitor type depending constant and the first and second exponential functions disclosed in this claim.
Conclusion
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAS A. SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-4787. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, alt. Fri, 8-5 EST.
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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/JAS A SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852