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
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 1/20/2026 and supplemental response filed 1/21/2026. The objections to the Specification have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. The rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10 and 12 regarding lack of antecedent basis are withdrawn in light of amendments. The rejection pursuant 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 9 has been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Claims 16-18 are new. The rejection pursuant 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 4, 5, 10, 12 and 14 are maintained. Accordingly, claims 1-18 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
§ 112(b)
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 4, 5, 6, 17 and 10-14 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.
Regarding Claim 4, it is noted that the conditional step “determine that the trigger criterion has been met if a difference between the voltage outputted by the voltage source and the voltage received by the load is greater than a trigger threshold” may never occur.
In particular, claim 4 does not positively recite the condition precedent, (i.e. a difference between the voltage outputted by the voltage source and the voltage received by the load is greater than a trigger threshold), actually occurs, or is ever required to occur, within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the recited “if” conditions need not be satisfied to meet the claim, the recited steps of determining need not occur to satisfy the claim.
As such, the Examiner need not present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "if” step of claim 4, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
Regarding Claim 5, it is noted that the conditional step “determine that the trigger criterion has been met if: a difference between the voltage output by the voltage source and the voltage received by the load has been greater than a secondary trigger threshold throughout a predetermined trigger period; and a start of the predetermined trigger period is set as being a time when the difference between the voltage output by the voltage source and the voltage received by the load is greater than a primary trigger threshold.” may never occur.
In particular, claim 5 does not positively recite the condition precedent, (i.e. a difference between the voltage output by the voltage source and the voltage received by the load has been greater than a secondary trigger threshold throughout a predetermined trigger period; and a start of the predetermined trigger period is set as being a time when the difference between the voltage output by the voltage source and the voltage received by the load is greater than a primary trigger threshold), actually occurs, or is ever required to occur, within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the recited “if” conditions need not be satisfied to meet the claim, the recited steps of determining need not occur to satisfy the claim.
As such, the Examiner need not present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "if” step of claim 5, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Regarding Claim 10, it is noted that the conditional step “deactivate the source and then reactivate the source following a predetermined rest period if the number of recorded trigger events is fewer than an event number threshold greater than one” may never occur.
In particular, claim 10 does not positively recite the condition precedent, (i.e. the number of recorded trigger events is fewer than an event number threshold greater than one), actually occurs, or is ever required to occur, within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the recited “if” conditions need not be satisfied to meet the claim, the recited steps of determining need not occur to satisfy the claim.
As such, the Examiner need not present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "if” step of claim 10, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
Further Regarding Claim 12, it is noted that the conditional step “deactivate the source and prevent reactivation of the source until an unlock signal is received from an interface to the transport refrigeration system if the number of recorded trigger events is equal to an event number threshold greater than one.” may never occur.
In particular, claim 12 does not positively recite the condition precedent, (i.e. the number of recorded trigger events is equal to an event number threshold greater than one), actually occurs, or is ever required to occur, within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the recited “if” conditions need not be satisfied to meet the claim, the recited steps of determining need not occur to satisfy the claim.
As such, the Examiner need not present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "if” step of claim 12, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
Regarding Claim 14, it is noted that the conditional step “set the number of recorded trigger events to zero if the trigger criterion has not been met throughout a predetermined probationary period” may never occur.
In particular, claim 14 does not positively recite the condition precedent, (i.e. the trigger criterion has not been met throughout a predetermined probationary period), actually occurs, or is ever required to occur, within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Since the recited “if” conditions need not be satisfied to meet the claim, the recited steps of determining need not occur to satisfy the claim.
As such, the Examiner need not present evidence establishing the obviousness of the conditional "if” step of claim 14, because it is not required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
Claims 6, 11, 13 and 17 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4, 7, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donnellan et al. (US20210203217A1) in view of Judge (US6194877B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Donnellan teaches an electrical apparatus for a transport refrigeration system [climate control power system 300, Figure 3], the electrical apparatus comprising:
a voltage source [rectifier 309, Figure 3] configured to output a supply voltage [where the rectifier 209 can convert the AC power generated by the generator 308 to a low voltage DC power; 0044];
a DC-DC converter [DC to DC power converter 312, Figure 2] having an input electrically coupled to an output of the voltage source [where the low voltage DC power from the rectifier 309 is distributed to the DC to DC converter; 0046]; and
a controller [controller 313; 0047],
Donnellan does not teach wherein the controller is configured to:
monitor the supply voltage output by the voltage source and a voltage received by the DC-DC converter at the input of the DC-DC converter;
determine whether a trigger criterion has been met based on a comparison of the supply voltage and the voltage received by the DC-DC converter from the input of the DC- DC converter; and
cause the electrical apparatus to enter an error handling mode in response to a determination that the trigger criterion has been met.
However, Judge teaches a method of fault detection in motor vehicles [col. 1, lines 5-10] including where the controller [controller 18, Figure 1] is configured to monitor the supply voltage output by the voltage source [where the method comprises the step of sensing a first voltage at an output of the generator; col. 1, lines 40-43, claim 1] and a voltage received by the DC-DC converter at the input of the DC-DC converter [where the method further comprises the step of sensing a second voltage at the electrical component coupled to receive electrical current from an output of the generator; col. 1, lines 43-44, claim 1];determine whether a trigger criterion has been met based on a comparison of the supply voltage and the voltage received by the DC-DC converter from the input of the DC- DC converter; [where the method comprises the step of comparing a difference of the first voltage and the second voltage to a predetermined voltage; col. 1, lines 44-47, claim 1] and cause the electrical apparatus to enter an error handling mode in response to a determination that the trigger criterion has been met [where if the difference is greater than the predetermined voltage, the method includes the step of reducing or suspending output of electrical current from the generator; col. 1, lines 49-51, claim 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique, voltage regulation, to a known device, a DC-DC converter, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., diagnosing faults at the output of a voltage source to facilitate maintenance and repairs [col. 1, lines 25-30].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Donnellan to have where the monitor the supply voltage output by the voltage source and a voltage received by the DC-DC converter at the input of the DC-DC converter; determine whether a trigger criterion has been met based on a comparison of the supply voltage and the voltage received by the DC-DC converter from the input of the DC- DC converter; and cause the electrical apparatus to enter an error handling mode in response to a determination that the trigger criterion has been met in view of the teachings of Judge where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., diagnosing faults at the output of a voltage source to facilitate maintenance and repairs [col. 1, lines 25-30].
Regarding Claim 2, Donellan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the controller being configured to cause the electrical apparatus to enter the error handling mode includes the controller being configured to at least one of: deactivate the voltage source; and cause an alert to be provided on an interface to the transport refrigeration system.
However, Judge teaches a method of fault detection in motor vehicles [col. 1, lines 5-10] including where the controller [controller 18, Figure 1] is configured to cause the electrical apparatus to enter the error handling mode includes the controller being configured to at least one of: deactivate the voltage source [where powertrain controller suspends output of electrical current from said generator; col. 1, lines 49-52, claim 5]; and cause an alert to be provided on an interface [where engine controller 18 can illuminate fault indication lamp 25; col. 6, lines 10-13] to the transport refrigeration system [a motor vehicle, col. 1, lines 38-41, claim 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device, a DC-DC converter, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., diagnosing faults at the output of a voltage source to facilitate maintenance and repairs [col. 1, lines 25-30].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Donnellan to have where the controller being configured to cause the electrical apparatus to enter the error handling mode includes the controller being configured to at least one of: deactivate the voltage source; and cause an alert to be provided on an interface to the transport refrigeration system in view of the teachings of Judge where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., diagnosing faults at the output of a voltage source to facilitate maintenance and repairs [col. 1, lines 25-30].
Regarding Claim 3, Donellan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where voltage source is a rectifier [rectifier 309, Figure 3].
Regarding Claim 4, Donellan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the controller is configured to determine that the trigger criterion has been met if a difference between the voltage outputted by the voltage source and the voltage received by the DC-DC converter is greater than a trigger threshold [where the method comprises the step of comparing a difference of the first voltage and the second voltage to a predetermined voltage; where if the difference is greater than the predetermined voltage, the method includes the step of reducing or suspending output of electrical current from the generator; col. 1, lines 44-51, claim 1, refer to the rejection of claim 1 in view of Judge above].
Regarding Claim 5, Donellan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach wherein the controller is configured to determine that the trigger criterion has been met if :a difference between the voltage output by the voltage source and the voltage received by the DC-DC converter has been greater than a secondary trigger threshold throughout a predetermined trigger period; and a start of the predetermined trigger period is set as being a time when the difference between the voltage output by the voltage source and the voltage received by the DC-DC converter is greater than a primary trigger threshold.
However, Judge teaches a method of fault detection in motor vehicles [col. 1, lines 5-10] where the controller [engine controller 18; col. 2, liens 55-64] is configured to determine that the trigger criterion has been met if: a difference between the voltage output by the voltage source and the voltage received by the load [where at step 308 the voltage at the positive terminal of the battery and the voltage output of rectifier 143 are compared; col. 4 lines 50-67, Figure 3] has been greater than a secondary trigger threshold throughout a predetermined trigger period [where the difference of voltages must be above the threshold for at least a predetermined time; col. 5, lines 36-40]; and a start of the predetermined trigger period is set as being a time when the difference between the voltage output by the voltage source and the voltage received by the load is greater than a primary trigger threshold [where the voltage must be above the threshold again after a predetermined time, col. 5, lines 36-40] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing false positives by confirming a voltage reading before and after a delay [Judge, col. 5, lines 35-40] .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings to have where the controller is configured to determine that the trigger criterion has been met if: a difference between the voltage output by the voltage source and the voltage received by the load has been greater than a secondary trigger threshold throughout a predetermined trigger period; and a start of the predetermined trigger period is set as being a time when the difference between the voltage output by the voltage source and the voltage received by the load is greater than a primary trigger threshold in view of the teachings of Judge where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing false positives by confirming a voltage reading before and after a delay [Judge, col. 5, lines 35-40] .
Regarding Claim 7, Donellan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the controller is configured to: monitor the voltage output by the voltage source by monitoring a signal received from a voltage sensor of the voltage source; and monitor the voltage received by the DC-DC converter by monitoring a signal received from a voltage sensor of the DC-DC converter.
However, Judge teaches a method of fault detection in motor vehicles [col. 1, lines 5-10] where the controller [engine controller 18; col. 2, lines 55-64] is configured to: monitor the voltage [via voltage regulator 16, Figure 1] output by the voltage source [alternator 14, Figure 1] by monitoring a signal received from a voltage sensor of the voltage source [where terminal 45 of regulator 16 is connected via a voltage divider comprising resistors 70 and 72 to pin AR of IC 42 in order to sense the output voltage of alternator 14; col. 4, line 35 - 38]; and monitor the voltage received by the DC-DC converter [where the method of the present invention applies generally to electrical components coupled to receive electrical current from an output of the generator, claim 1] by monitoring a signal received from a voltage sensor of the DC-DC converter [where terminal 64 of regulator 16 is connected via a voltage divider comprising resistors 66 and 68 to pin SNS of IC 42 to battery 19 in order to sense the voltage of battery 19; col. 4, lines 30-34] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device, DC-DC converter, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., diagnosing faults at the output of a voltage source to facilitate maintenance and repairs [col. 1, lines 25-30].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings to have where the controller is configured to: monitor the voltage output by the voltage source by monitoring a signal received from a voltage sensor of the voltage source; and monitor the voltage received by the DC-DC converter by monitoring a signal received from a voltage sensor of the DC-DC converter in view of the teachings of Judge where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., diagnosing faults at the output of a voltage source to facilitate maintenance and repairs [col. 1, lines 25-30].
Regarding Claim 8, Donellan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 7, and does not teach where the voltage source is configured to: monitor the voltage output by the voltage source using the voltage sensor of the voltage source; and maintain the voltage output by the voltage source within an output voltage tolerance range of an output voltage target value.
However, Judge teaches a method of fault detection in motor vehicles [col. 1, lines 5-10] where the voltage source [alternator 14, Figure 1] is configured to: monitor the voltage output by the voltage source using the voltage sensor of the voltage source [where terminal 45 is also connected to output 20 of rectifier 142, in order to sense the output voltage of alternator 14; col. 4, lines 35-38]; and maintain the voltage output by the voltage source within an output voltage tolerance range of an output voltage target value [where the voltage output 20 of rectifier 142 undergoes fluctuation up to about 3 volts; col. 5, lines 23-25; where the voltage at output 20 of rectifier 143 rises in the event of the intermittent fault because voltage regulator 16 attempts to control the output of alternator 14 to ensure that the Voltage at the positive terminal of battery 19 is at the predetermined target voltage; col. 5, line 65 – col. 6, line 3] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device, DC-DC converter, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing false positives [Judge, col. 5, lines 35-40]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings to have where the voltage source is configured to: monitor the voltage output by the voltage source using the voltage sensor of the voltage source; and maintain the voltage output by the voltage source within an output voltage tolerance range of an output voltage target value in view of the teachings of Judge where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing false positives [Judge, col. 5, lines 35-40]
Regarding Claim 9, Donellan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach wherein the controller is further configured to: record a number of trigger events, each trigger event corresponding to the trigger criterion being met; increment the number of recorded trigger events in response to a determination that the trigger criterion has been met; and cause the electrical apparatus to exit the error handling mode according to the number of recorded trigger events.
However, Judge teaches a method of fault detection in motor vehicles [col. 1, lines 5-10] where the controller [engine controller 18; col. 2, lines 55-64] is further configured to: record a number of trigger events, each trigger event corresponding to the trigger criterion being met [where the engine controller can periodically reenable normal operation of alternator 14 a predetermined number of times where if the fault reappears, engine controller 18 would again limit or suspend the output of alternator; col. 5, lines 45-53]; increment the number of recorded trigger events in response to a determination that the trigger criterion has been met [where if the fault recurs beyond this number of times, implying incrementation, a final determination that a fault exists could be made; col. 6, lines 7-12]; and cause the electrical apparatus to exit the error handling mode according to the number of recorded trigger events [Engine controller 18 could permanently limit or suspend the output of alternator 14, illuminate fault indication lamp 25 and set a diagnostic code in memory to log the fault for retrieval by repair personnel; col. 6, lines 7-12] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing false positives [Judge, col. 5, lines 35-40]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings to have where the controller is further configured to: record a number of trigger events, each trigger event corresponding to the trigger criterion being met; increment the number of recorded trigger events in response to a determination that the trigger criterion has been met; and cause the electrical apparatus to exit the error handling mode according to the number of recorded trigger events in view of the teachings of Judge where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing false positives [Judge, col. 5, lines 35-40]
Regarding Claim 10, Donellan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and does not teach where the controller is configured to deactivate the voltage source and then reactivate the voltage source following a predetermined rest period if the number of recorded trigger events is fewer than an event number threshold greater than one.
However, Judge teaches a method of fault detection in motor vehicles [col. 1, lines 5-10] where the controller [controller 18, Figure 1] is configured to deactivate the voltage source [where engine controller 18 can command Voltage regulator 16 to Suspend generation of output current; col. 5, lines 11-21] and then reactivate the voltage source following a predetermined rest period [where engine controller 18 can peri odically re-enable normal operation of alternator 14; col. 5, lines 41-53] if the number of recorded trigger events is fewer than an event number threshold greater than one [where the engine controller 18 could retry enabling normal voltage commands to voltage regulator 16 a predetermined number of times and then conclude that the Suspension or limitation of output should be permanent (until a vehicle repair is made); col. 5, lines 41-53] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device, DC-DC converter, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing a false positive fault condition [Judge; col. 5, lines 41-45].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings to have where the controller is configured to deactivate the voltage source and then reactivate the voltage source following a predetermined rest period if the number of recorded trigger events is fewer than an event number threshold greater than one in view of the teachings of Judge where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing a false positive fault condition [Judge; col. 5, lines 41-45].
Regarding Claim 15, Donnellan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where a transport refrigeration system, [climate-controlled van 100 that includes a climate controlled space 105 for carrying cargo and a transport climate control system 110, Figure 1] comprising the electrical apparatus of claim 1 [refer to the rejection of claim 1 above]
Regarding Claim 16, Donnellan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 3 and further teaches where the rectifier is a synchronous rectifier [where rectifier 309 is an active rectifier; 0044].
Regarding Claim 18, Donnellan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 8 and further teaches where the output voltage target value is between 48 V and 52 V [where low voltage is between 0 and 60V DC;0019; where in one embodiment the voltage of the converted low voltage DC power is 48 Volts; 0044]; and does not teach the output voltage tolerance range is between 0.2 V and 1.2 V.
However, Judge teaches a method of fault detection in motor vehicles [col. 1, lines 5-10] where the output voltage tolerance range is between 0.2 V and 1.2 V [where voltage at output 20 of rectifier 143 undergoes significant fluctuation, up to about 3 volts,; col. 5, lines 22-35] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable to achieve a recognized result i.e., preventing a false positive fault condition [Judge; col. 5, lines 41-45].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings to have where the output voltage tolerance range is between 0.2 V and 1.2 V in view of the teachings of Judge where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable, tolerance, to achieve a recognized result, i.e., preventing a false positive fault condition [Judge; col. 5, lines 41-45].
Claims 6 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donnellan et al. (US20210203217A1) in view of Judge (US6194877B1) as applied to claim 5 and claim 9 above and in further view of Konecny (US20120063037A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Donellan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 5 and does not teach wherein the primary trigger threshold is greater than the secondary trigger threshold.
However, Konoecny teaches a method to operate a power supply [0008] where the primary trigger threshold is greater than the secondary trigger threshold [where a method is provided to operate a power supply that includes determining a first fault condition to exist if a first power limit is exceeded during a first time period, determining a second fault condition to exist if a second power limit, lower than the first power limit, is exceeded over a second time period, longer than the first time period;0008] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., improve robustness of the power supply with fault handling that accounts for peaks in power output [Konecny, 0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the primary trigger threshold is greater than the secondary trigger threshold in view of the teachings of Konecny where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., improve robustness of the power supply with fault handling that accounts for peaks in power output [Konecny, 0023].
Regarding Claim 14, Donnellan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 8 and does not teach where the controller is configured to: set the number of recorded trigger events to zero if the trigger criterion has not been met throughout a predetermined probationary period.
However, Konecny teaches a method to operate a power supply [0008] where the controller [controller 206, Figure 2] is configured set the number of recorded trigger events to zero if the trigger criterion has not been met throughout a predetermined probationary period [where flag 408 triggers the start of a timer 409 and if the flag 408 is not high in a time period the timer resets; 0026; 0027] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., improve robustness of the power supply with fault handling that accounts for peaks in power output [Konecny, 0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings where the controller is configured to: set the number of recorded trigger events to zero if the trigger criterion has not been met throughout a predetermined probationary period in view of the teachings of Konecny where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., improve robustness of the power supply with fault handling that accounts for peaks in power output [Konecny, 0023].
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donnellan et al. (US20210203217A1) in view of Judge (US6194877B1) as applied to claim 10 above and in further view of Hanson (US5454229A).
Regarding Claim 11, Donnellan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 and does not teach the predetermined rest period is equal to or greater than 1 minute.
However, Hanson teaches a method and apparatus for operating a refrigeration unit [col. 1, lines 36-41] where the predetermined rest period [mandatory minimum delay period T2, col. 8, lines 30-37] is equal to or greater than 1 minute [where the time value can decrement from 15 minutes; col. 8, lines 30-37] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., preventing damage to the engine by limiting the frequency of restarts during long periods of time without supervision.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where the rest period is equal to or greater than 1 minute in view of the teachings of Hanson where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., preventing damage to the engine by limiting the frequency of restarts during long periods of time without supervision.
Regarding Claim 12, Donnellan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 9 and further teaches wherein the controller is configured to deactivate the voltage source [Judge, col. 5, lines 41-53, refer to the rejection of claim 9 in view of Judge above] and does not teach where the controller is configured to prevent reactivation of the voltage source until an unlock signal is received from an interface to the transport refrigeration system if the number of recorded trigger events is equal to an event number threshold greater than one.
However, Hanson teaches a method and apparatus for operating a refrigeration unit [col. 1, lines 36-41] where the controller [controller 96, Figure 1] is configured to prevent reactivation of the voltage source [where the internal combustion engine is restarted if the shutdown count is below a predetermined value; col. 2, lines 24-30; where prime mover arrangement 28 includes internal combustion engine 30 and the power supply 127 is driven by the prime mover arrangement 28; col. 5, lines 6-13] until an unlock signal is received from an interface [where when the number of restarts COUNTX have reached a predetermined value the engine 30 is shut down until manually reset, where manually implies an interface for the user; col. 11, line 61- col.12, line 5] to the transport refrigeration system [refrigeration unit in transport refrigeration applications; col. 3, lines 2-5] if the number of recorded trigger events is equal to an event number threshold greater than one [where COUNTX may be 2, col. 11, line 61- col.12] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing damage to the engine by limiting restarts during long periods of time without supervision.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings where the controller is configured to prevent reactivation of the source until an unlock signal is received from an interface to the transport refrigeration system if the number of recorded trigger events is equal to an event number threshold greater than one in view of the teachings of Hanson where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing damage to the engine by limiting restarts during long periods of time without supervision.
Regarding Claim 13, Donnellan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 10 and does not teach where the event number threshold is equal to or greater than three.
However, Hanson teaches a method and apparatus for operating a refrigeration unit [col. 1, lines 36-41] where the event number threshold is equal to three [where the predetermined shut down count value which will prevent the step of restarting the refrigeration unit is three, claim] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., preventing damage to the engine by limiting restarts during long periods of time without supervision.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings where where the event number threshold is equal to or greater than three in view of the teachings of Hanson where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., preventing damage to the engine by limiting restarts during long periods of time without supervision.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donnellan et al. (US20210203217A1) in view of Judge (US6194877B1) as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Maruyama et al. (US20140055894A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Donnellan, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 5 and does not explicitly teach where: the primary trigger threshold is equal to or greater than 1.5 V.
However, Judge teaches a method of fault detection in motor vehicles [col. 1, lines 5-10] where: the primary trigger threshold is equal to or greater than 1.5 V [where in normal operation of alternator 14, the voltage at output 20 of rectifier 143 undergoes significant fluctuation, up to about 3 volts. This is at least in part due to the output current from alternator 14 being the result of rectification of three alternating current waveforms produced by stator 141; where for a given resistance the threshold voltage for detecting that fault will be larger for a larger output current; col. 5, lines 23-35] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable, threshold voltage, to achieve a recognized result, i.e., preventing false positive fault-detection for a given output current due to current fluctuation [Judge; col. 5, lines 23-35].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of the combined teachings to have where: the primary trigger threshold is equal to or greater than 1.5 V in view of the teachings of Judge where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., preventing false positive fault-detection for a given output current [Judge; col. 5, lines 23-35].
The combined teachings further do not teach the secondary trigger threshold is at least 0.25 V less than the primary trigger threshold.
However, Maruyama teaches a generator which is to be mounted in automotive vehicles such as passenger vehicles or trucks [0008] where the secondary trigger threshold is at least 0.25 V less than the primary trigger threshold [where the load dump protector 140 monitors the output voltage of the alternator 1 outputted by rectifier module groups 5 and 6 and issues an instruction for a load dump protection operation when the first threshold (e.g. 20V) is exceeded and when the voltage decreases below a second threshold (e.g. 16.5V) the load dump protector 140 issues an instruction to stop the load dump protection operation; 0057] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying routine optimization of a known result effective variable, secondary threshold, to achieve a recognized result, i.e., improving the reliability and lifetime of components by accounting for extended periods of overvoltage [Maruyama, 0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings where: the secondary trigger threshold is at least 0.25 V less than the primary trigger threshold in view of the teachings of Maruyama where the modification constitutes routine optimization of a known result-effective variable to achieve a recognized result, i.e., improving the reliability and lifetime of components by accounting for extended periods of overvoltage [Maruyama, 0007].
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments in remarks filed 1/20/2026 with respect to claims 4,5,10,12 and 14 rejected as being indefinite under 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7 and 8 of the remarks that irrespective of whether the condition of the claims is ever met, the respective controller in claims 4, 5, 10, 12 and 14 is configured to perform that step under those circumstances. Applicant further argues contrary to the rejection's assertion, the conditional features of claims 4, 5, 10, 12 and 14 do positively limit the respective electrical apparatuses and exclude, for example, any apparatus not configured to perform the claimed conditional feature. re MPEP 2111.04(II). Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Contrary to applicant's arguments, the claims do not recite to exclude any apparatus. The claims do not recite what happens when the determination is not met and the claims do not require the conditional to actually occur. The claims require structure for performing the function should the condition occur and the claimed structure and the corresponding conditions were both addressed in the rejections under 35 U.S.C 103, refer to the rejections of claims 1-18 above.
The particular language of claims 4 and 5, is unclear because of a circular logic where the conditional precedent is also the substance of the determination.
The particular conditional language of claim 10 is unclear because the language does not exclude other conditions as argued where the controller may also deactivate the voltage source and then reactivate the voltage source if the number of recorded trigger events is greater than an event number threshold.
The particular conditional language of claim 12 is unclear because the language does not require the condition nor exclude other conditions as argued where the controller may also deactivate the voltage source and prevent reactivation of the voltage source until an unlock signal is received from an interface to the transport refrigeration system when the number of recorded trigger events is not equal to an event number threshold.
The particular conditional language of claim 14 is unclear because again the circular logic where the conditional precedent of no trigger events is the substance of the determination of zero trigger events.
Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Examiner suggests amending recitations of “if” to - - when - - for clarity or - - only when - - for more exclusionary language.
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/20/2026 with respect to claim 1 rejected as being unpatentable over Soler (US20200406705) in view of Anderson (US6534959) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 2-18 except for their dependence upon claim 1. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 6:00 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights