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 .
Claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/11/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0042], “reference sign E” should be –reference sign EE--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 2-3, “a different voltage limiting element” should be -- a voltage limiting element--.
Claim 2 line 3, “an AC voltage signal” should be -- an alternating current (AC) voltage signal--.
Claim 3 lines2-3, “the respective capacitive component” should be -- respective capacitive component--.
Claim 4 lines 1-2, “on a varistor or voltage limiting element” should be -- on the varistor or the voltage limiting element--.
Claim 5 lines 6-7, “the protective connector” should be –the at least one protective connector--.
Claim 5 line 8, “the varistor or voltage limiting element” should be –the at least one varistor or voltage limiting element--. Similar correction is required in several instances of claim 5 and claim 6.
Claim 9 line 5, “a vehicle” should be –the vehicle--. Similar correction is required in several instances of claim 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-10 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.
Claim 5 lines 8-9, recite “a detection device connected to the varistor or voltage limiting element in a signal-transmitting manner”. It is unclear what signal-transmitting manner is? Specification does not provide further information. In figure, it appears that EE’ which is connected to Q and ME is the claimed detection device. EE’ appears to be connected to varistor V via Q, MX, SA’ and NL on one side, EE’ appears to be connected to varistor V via Rs on the other side. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as --a detection device connected to the varistor or voltage limiting element--.
Claims 6-10 are rejected for the same reasons as stated above, as they depend on claim 5.
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bosshard (EP 0576395 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bosshard teaches a method for checking a functionality of a high-voltage protective device (abstract, protection arrangement) for an on-board vehicle electrical system (page 5, protection of mobile devices, for example vehicles), the high-voltage protective device has a varistor or a voltage limiting element (abstract, protection arrangement contains (in a known manner) voltage-dependent dissipation elements (5 to 8)), the method comprising:
detecting a capacitive component of an alternating current impedance of the varistor or the voltage limiting element (page 5, transducer 11 … to detect the total leakage alternating current I .sub.A flowing through the discharge elements 5 to 8) (page 2, Leakage alternating current … which is composed of an ohmic component (leakage current) and a capacitive component);
comparing the capacitive component to a rated capacitance value, the rated capacitance value is characteristic of the capacitance of a functioning varistor or a functioning voltage limiting element (page 5, monitored leakage alternating current has a value above the set limit value); and
determining a defective state of the varistor or the voltage limiting element (page 5, there is a defect in the protective arrangement) (page 5, If an excessively high leakage alternating current flows through defective discharge elements) when the comparison determines that the capacitive component deviates from the rated capacitance value by more than a predetermined magnitude (page 5, evaluation device 16 generates a signal when the monitored leakage alternating current has a value above the set limit value after the set delay time has expired).
Regarding claim 2, Bosshard teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the detection is carried out:
by applying an AC voltage signal to the varistor or to the voltage limiting element (page 5, on the one hand are each connected to one of the phase conductors L1, L2, L3 and the neutral conductor N and on the other hand are connected to a common plate 9) and by detecting the associated alternating current signal that is applied at the varistor or at the voltage limiting element (page 5, transducer 11 is arranged between the two plates 9 and 10 in order to detect the total leakage alternating current I .sub.A flowing through the discharge elements 5 to 8).
Regarding claim 4, Bosshard teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method is carried out on the varistor or the voltage limiting element, via which a potential of a low-voltage line (e.g. voltage lines of 3 is being measured by transducer 11, fig.1), which is led out of a high-voltage zone (e.g. zone prior to/ left of 2, fig.1), is connected to an on-board vehicle electrical system ground (i.e. earth potential conductor PE, fig.1) (page 5, protection of mobile devices, for example vehicles) including an inductance (i.e. measurement transformer 11, fig.1) and/or a resistor (e.g. resistance of plate 9 and plate 10, fig.1).
Regarding claim 5, Bosshard substantially teaches the claim limitations as stated above for claims 1 and 4. Bosshard further teaches, a ground connector (i.e. earth potential conductor PE, fig.1).
Regarding claim 6, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7 and 9-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Bosshard (EP 0576395 A1) teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: wherein the capacitive components of a plurality of varistors or voltage limiting elements (e.g. varistors 5-8, fig.1) are detected by the same measuring device detects the resulting signal at the varistors or at the voltage limiting elements for all varistors or voltage limiting elements or for a subgroup thereof (e.g. same transducer 11 is used for measuring alternating current I.sub.A, fig.1).
Bosshard does not teach, wherein for a plurality of varistors or voltage limiting elements, respective capacitive component of the alternating current impedance is detected.
Prior art Walter (US 20160156179 A1), Brand (US 20110267730 A1) and Hayashi (JP 6070470 B2) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein for a plurality of varistors or voltage limiting elements, respective capacitive component of the alternating current impedance is detected”.
Regarding claim 7, Bosshard (EP 0576395 A1) teaches the high-voltage protection circuit of claim 5, further comprising: a plurality of varistors or voltage limiting elements (e.g. varistors 5-8, fig.1).
Bosshard does not teach, wherein one detection device is provided for each varistor or each voltage limiting element or a subgroup thereof, which is connected to the respective varistor or voltage limiting element, or a selection switch is provided, by way of which the detection device is connected to all varistors or voltage limiting elements or a subgroup thereof and the selection switch is set up to connect the detection device to a selected varistor or voltage limiting element or to a selected subgroup of the varistors or voltage limiting elements.
Prior art Walter (US 20160156179 A1), Brand (US 20110267730 A1) and Hayashi (JP 6070470 B2) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein one detection device is provided for each varistor or each voltage limiting element or a subgroup thereof, which is connected to the respective varistor or voltage limiting element, or a selection switch is provided, by way of which the detection device is connected to all varistors or voltage limiting elements or a subgroup thereof and the selection switch is set up to connect the detection device to a selected varistor or voltage limiting element or to a selected subgroup of the varistors or voltage limiting elements.”
Regarding claim 9, Bosshard (EP 0576395 A1) teaches a high-voltage on-board vehicle electrical system (page 5, protection of mobile devices, for example vehicles) having a spatially delimited high-voltage zone (e.g. zone prior to/ left of 2, fig.1), out of which at least one low-voltage line is led (e.g. voltage lines of 3 is being measured by transducer 11, fig.1), the high-voltage on-board vehicle electrical system comprises:
a high-voltage protection circuit for a vehicle of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the protective connector of the high-voltage protection circuit for a vehicle is connected to the at least one low-voltage line (e.g. varistors 5-8 are connected to lines in box 3, fig.1), and the ground connector of the high-voltage protection circuit for a vehicle is connected to a ground potential of the low-voltage zone (e.g. ground plate 10 and PE are connected, fig.1).
Bosshard does not teach, the high-voltage zone is isolated by insulation from a low-voltage zone in which the high-voltage protection circuit for a vehicle is located, wherein the ground potential is galvanically isolated from the high-voltage zone.
Prior art Walter (US 20160156179 A1), Brand (US 20110267730 A1) and Hayashi (JP 6070470 B2) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “the high-voltage zone is isolated by insulation from a low-voltage zone in which the high-voltage protection circuit for a vehicle is located, wherein the ground potential is galvanically isolated from the high-voltage zone.”
Claim 10 is indicated as allowable, as it depends on allowable claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SREEYA SREEVATSA whose telephone number is (571)272-8304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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, Thienvu V Tran can be reached at (571) 270-1276. 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.
/SREEYA SREEVATSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 02/04/2026