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 .
Response to Arguments
The previous double patent rejection is withdrawn due to the amendments made.
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Cortigiani et al (2014/0077782) has been utilized in the rejection below to address the amendments made.
Additionally, a new issue under 35 USC 112 has been raised due to the amendments made.
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 3-5 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.
In re Claim 3, in line 4 it is not clear which overcurrent limit value (i.e., either the first or the second) is being referred to. Additionally, in line 8, it is not clear which detection event is being referred to (i.e., the first or second overcurrent detection). The aforementioned issues make the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 3.
Additionally, as discussed above, in line 4 of claim 4 it is not clear which overcurrent limit value is being referred to.
For the purpose of examination, the claims will be interpreted as follows:
CLAIM 3:
In line 4, before “overcurrent” insert --second--.
In line 8, after “detection” insert --of the first overcurrent--.
CLAIM 4:
In line 4, before “overcurrent” insert --first and second--.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cortigiani et al (2014/0077782).
In re Claims 1 and 10, Cortigiani teaches a current limit circuit as seen in Figure 1, comprising: an overcurrent detection section/circuit (14 and 15) configured to detect an output current that flows through a switch element (T1) reaching a first overcurrent limit value (SHI) [paragraphs 27 and 30], and based on the detection of the output current reaching the first overcurrent limit value, output a turn-off signal for turning off the switch element (as seen in Figure 3, paragraph 30); and an switching circuit/overcurrent protection section (12) configured to change an overcurrent limit value for the output current from the first overcurrent limit value to a second overcurrent limit value smaller than the first overcurrent limit value (paragraphs 30-31),wherein a first overcurrent occurring at startup is detected based on the first overcurrent limit value (paragraph 30), and a second overcurrent occurring after the first overcurrent is detected based on the second overcurrent limit value (paragraph 31).
In re Claim 6, Cortigiani teaches a switch device comprising the current limit circuit as discussed in claim 1 and the switch element T1 as seen in Figure 1.
In re Claim 7, Cortigiani teaches a load Z1 as seen in Figure 1.
In re Claim 8, Cortigiani teaches the load can be a lamp (paragraph 31).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortigiani et al (2014/0077782) in view of Takuma (2019/0190512).
In re Claim 9, the teaching of Cortigiani has been discussed above, but does not specifically teach that the electronic device of claim 7 is part of a vehicle.
Takuma teaches an overcurrent protection circuit that limits output current to a load (Abstract) as similarly taught by Cortigiani, and further teaches that said overcurrent protection circuit is implemented in a vehicle (Fig 20, paragraphs 202-212) in order to provide protection to a load (paragraph 226).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement electronic device of Cortigiani in a vehicle to protect a load since Takuma teaches that it is desirable to provide overcurrent protection via current limiting to a load within a vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
Claims 3-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In re Claim 2, Cortigiani fails to teach the overcurrent detection circuit being configured to reduce, based on the detection of the output current reaching the first overcurrent limit value, a rate of rise of the output current when the switch element transitions to an ON state, from a first rate of rise to a second rate of rise lower than the first rate of rise.
In re Claims 3-5, Cortigiani teaches that PWM operation occurs based on the input signal IN1 (paragraphs 36-41), but does not teach that a hiccup control circuit is configured to perform hiccup driving on the switch element on a basis of a result of the detection of the first overcurrent occurring at startup.
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 CHRISTOPHER JAY CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00am - 6:00pm 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, Thienvu 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838