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 .
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,077,063. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Note: the underlined portions of ‘063 are what the examiner considers to not be patentably distinct from the claimed invention.
Patent Application: 18/793226
U.S. Patent: 12,077,063
An apparatus for detecting a malfunction configured to detect a malfunction of an indicator configured to display a charging state of a vehicle battery according to a control signal, the apparatus comprising: an interrupt generation unit configured to generate an interrupt signal when the control signal satisfies a preset predetermined event; a voltage detection unit configured to convert an analog value of the control signal to a digital value to detect a voltage value of the control signal; and a determination unit configured to determine at least one among whether the indicator malfunctions and a malfunction type on the basis of at least one among whether the indicator operates, whether the interrupt signal is generated, and the voltage value of the control signal.
1. An apparatus for detecting a malfunction configured to detect a malfunction of an indicator configured to display a charging state of a vehicle battery according to a control signal, the apparatus comprising: an interrupt generation unit configured to generate an interrupt signal when the control signal satisfies a preset predetermined event; a voltage detection unit configured to convert an analog value of the control signal to a digital value to detect a voltage value of the control signal; and a determination unit configured to determine at least one among whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator and a malfunction type based on at least one among whether the indicator operates, whether the interrupt signal is generated, and the voltage value of the control signal, wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator when the interrupt signal is not generated while the indicator operates.
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type according to whether the interrupt signal is generated and the voltage value of the control signal when it is determined that the indicator operates.
5. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the determination unit determines that the malfunction occurs in the indicator when the interrupt signal is not generated.
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator and the malfunction type according to the voltage value of the control signal when it is determined that the indicator operates and the interrupt signal is generated.
3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the determination unit determines that the indicator normally operates when the interrupt signal is generated, and the voltage value of the control signal is included in a range larger than a first threshold value and smaller than a second threshold value larger than the first threshold value, and determines that the malfunction occurs in the indicator when the interrupt signal is generated, and the voltage value of the control signal is not included in the range larger than the first threshold value and smaller than the second threshold value.
3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether the indicator normally operates when the interrupt signal is generated, and the voltage value of the control signal is in a range larger than a first threshold value and smaller than a second threshold value that is larger than the first threshold value, and that a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator when the interrupt signal is generated, and the voltage value of the control signal is not in the range larger than the first threshold value and smaller than the second threshold value.
4. The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the determination unit determines the malfunction type of the indicator as a short to ground when the interrupt signal is generated and the voltage value of the control signal is smaller than or equal to the first threshold value, and determines the malfunction type of the indicator as a cable open when the voltage value of the control signal is larger than or equal to the second threshold value.
4. The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether the malfunction type of the indicator indicates a short to ground when the interrupt signal is generated and the voltage value of the control signal is smaller than or equal to the first threshold value, and determines the malfunction type of the indicator as a cable open when the voltage value of the control signal is larger than or equal to the second threshold value.
6. The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the determination unit determines the malfunction type of the indicator as a short to ground when the voltage value of the control signal is smaller than or equal to a third threshold value, and determines the malfunction type of the indicator as a short to battery when the voltage value of the control signal is larger than the third threshold value.
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether the malfunction type of the indicator indicates a short to ground when the voltage value of the control signal is smaller than or equal to a third threshold value, and that the malfunction type of the indicator indicates a short to battery when the voltage value of the control signal is larger than the third threshold value.
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type according to the voltage value of the control signal when it is determined that the indicator does not operate.
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator and the malfunction type according to the voltage value of the control signal when it is determined that the indicator does not operate.
8. The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the determination unit determines that the indicator is in a normal state when the voltage value of the control signal is smaller than or equal to a fourth threshold value.
7. The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the determination unit is configured to determine that the indicator is in a normal state when the voltage value of the control signal is smaller than or equal to a fourth threshold value.
9. A method of detecting a malfunction using an apparatus for detecting a malfunction configured to detect a malfunction of an indicator configured to display a charging state of a vehicle battery according to a control signal, the method comprising: generating an interrupt signal when the control signal satisfies a preset predetermined event; converting an analog value of the control signal to a digital value to detect a voltage value of the control signal; and determining at least one among whether the indicator malfunctions and a malfunction type on the basis of at least one among whether the indicator operates, whether the interrupt signal is generated, and the voltage value of the control signal.
8. A method of detecting a malfunction using an apparatus for detecting a malfunction configured to detect a malfunction of an indicator configured to display a charging state of a vehicle battery according to a control signal, the method comprising: generating an interrupt signal when the control signal satisfies a preset predetermined condition; converting an analog value of the control signal to a digital value to detect a voltage value of the control signal; and determining at least one among whether the indicator malfunctions and a malfunction type based on at least one among whether the
indicator operates, whether the interrupt signal is generated, and the voltage value of the control signal, wherein the determining at least one among whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator and the malfunction type includes: determining whether the indicator operates; and determining whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator when the interrupt signal is not generated while the indicator operates.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the determining at least one among whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type includes determining whether the indicator operates, and determining whether the interrupt signal is generated according to the determination result of whether the indicator operates to determine at least one among whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type.
16. The method of claim 13, wherein the determining at least one among whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type includes determining that the malfunction occurs in the indicator when the interrupt signal is not generated.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein the determining at least one among whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator and the malfunction type includes determining whether the indicator operates, and determining whether the interrupt signal is generated according to the determination result of whether the indicator operates to determine at least one among whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator and the malfunction type.
11. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines whether the indicator operates, and determines whether the interrupt signal is generated according to the determination result of whether the indicator operates to determine at least one among whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type.
10. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether the indicator operates, and whether the interrupt signal is generated according to the determination result of whether the indicator operates to determine at least one among whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator and the malfunction type.
12. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the determination unit determines the malfunction type of the indicator as a short to battery when the voltage value of the control signal is larger than the fourth threshold value.
11. The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether the malfunction type of the indicator indicates a short to battery when the voltage value of the control signal is larger than the fourth threshold value.
13. The method of claim 10, wherein the determining at least one among whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type includes determining whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type according to whether the interrupt signal is generated and the voltage value of the control signal when it is determined that the indicator operates.
12. The method of claim 9, wherein the determining at least one among whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator and the malfunction type includes determining whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator and the malfunction type according to whether the interrupt signal is generated and the voltage value of the control signal when it is determined that the indicator operates.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the determining at least one among whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type includes determining that the indicator normally operates when the interrupt signal is generated, and the voltage value of the control signal is included in a range larger than a first threshold value and smaller than a second threshold value larger than the first threshold value, and determining that the malfunction occurs in the indicator when the interrupt signal is generated, and the voltage value of the control signal is not included in the range larger than the first threshold value and smaller than the second threshold value.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the determining at least one among whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator and the malfunction type includes determining whether the indicator normally operates when the interrupt signal is generated, and whether the voltage value of the control signal is in a range larger than a first threshold value and smaller than a second threshold value that is larger than the first threshold value, and determining whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator when the interrupt signal is generated, and whether the voltage value of the control signal is not in the range larger than the first threshold value and smaller than the second threshold value.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the determining at least one among whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type includes determining the malfunction type of the indicator as a short to ground when the interrupt signal is generated and the voltage value of the control signal is smaller than or equal to the first threshold value, and determining the malfunction type of the indicator as a cable open when the voltage value of the control signal is larger than or equal to the second threshold value.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the determining at least one among whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator and the malfunction type includes determining whether the malfunction type of the indicator as indicates a short to ground when the interrupt signal is generated and whether the voltage value of the control signal is smaller than or equal to the first threshold value, and determining whether the malfunction type of the indicator indicates a cable open when the voltage value of the control signal is larger than or equal to the second threshold value.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the determining at least one among whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type includes determining the malfunction type of the indicator as a short to ground when the voltage value of the control signal is smaller than or equal to a third threshold value, and determining the malfunction type of the indicator as a short to battery when the voltage value of the control signal is larger than the third threshold value.
15. The method of claim 8, wherein the determining at least one among whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator and the malfunction type includes determining whether the malfunction type of the indicator indicates a short to ground when the voltage value of the control signal is smaller than or equal to a third threshold value, and whether the malfunction type of the indicator indicates a short to battery when the voltage value of the control signal is larger than the third threshold value.
18. The method of claim 9, wherein the determining at least one among whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type includes determining whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type according to the voltage value of the control signal when it is determined that the indicator does not operate.
16. The method of claim 8, wherein the determining at least one among whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator and the malfunction type includes determining whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type according to the voltage value of the control signal when it is determined that the indicator does not operate.
19. The method of claim 18, wherein the determining at least one among whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type includes determining that the indicator is in a normal state when the voltage value of the control signal is smaller than or equal to a fourth threshold value.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the determining at least one among whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator and the malfunction type includes determining whether the indicator is in a normal state when the voltage value of the control signal is smaller than or equal to a fourth threshold value.
20. The method of claim 19, wherein the determining at least one among whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type includes determining the malfunction type of the indicator as a short to battery when the voltage value of the control signal is larger than the fourth threshold value.
18. The method of claim 17, wherein the determining at least one among whether a malfunction occurrence is indicated by the indicator and the malfunction type includes determining whether the malfunction type of the indicator indicates a short to battery when the voltage value of the control signal is larger than the fourth threshold value.
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) 1-2, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connolly et al. (2019/0296565) in view of Chan et al. (2012/0013479) further in view of HE et al. (2017/0203654).
With respect to claim 1, Connolly et al. teaches an apparatus (206) for detecting a malfunction configured to detect a malfunction of an indicator (i.e. an indicator light; [0012]) configured to display a charging state (i.e. a overtemperature state voltage or fault state voltages; [0003]) of a vehicle battery (142) according to a control signal (i.e. a control pilot signal), the apparatus (206) comprising: an interrupt generation unit (206) configured to generate an interrupt signal (i.e. as the interruption device 206 creates an interrupt signal responsive to one or more conditions; [0031]) when the control signal satisfies a preset predetermined event (i.e. for example, voltage values; [0034]), ; a voltage detection unit (i.e. a voltage detection unit within the cordset control configured to detect voltage issues; [0038]) to detect a voltage value of the control signal [0038] and a determination unit (210) configured to determine a malfunction on the basis of at least whether the interrupt signal is generated (i.e. as s416 generates a notification based on the detected voltage interruption) and the voltage value of the control signal (s 414, which determines based on the signal a voltage indicative of a overtemperature).
Connolly et al. remains silent regarding convert[ing] an analog value of the control signal to a digital value; and a determination unit configured to determine at least one among whether the indicator malfunctions and a malfunction type on the basis of at least one among whether the indicator operates.
Chan et al. teaches a similar apparatus having a determination unit (105) configured to determine at least one among whether an indicator malfunctions (as Fig. 1 depicts a error detection module 105 if a LED module is operating correctly; [0015]) and a malfunction type (i.e. a short circuit or driving circuit abnormality; [0015]) on the basis of at least one among whether the indicator operates [0015].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the apparatus and determination unit of Connolly et al. to include the structure and control logic of Chan et al. such that a malfunction in a light indicator can be monitored, because Chan et al. teaches the modification prevents unnecessary waste of energy when no such detection/protection measure for the LED module is in place [0005].
Connolly et al. as modified remains silent regarding convert[ing] an analog value of the control signal to a digital value.
HE et al. teaches using an ADC in a circuit similar to Connolly et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the circuit of Connolly et al. to include the ADC of HE et al. because such digital data is easier to store, compress, encrypt, and transmit without picking up the noise or distortion that degrades raw analog signals, thereby improving Connolly et al.
The method steps of claim 9 are performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Connolly et al. as modified teaches wherein the determination unit (210) determines whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type according to whether the interrupt signal (via 206) is generated and the voltage value of the control signal when it is determined that the indicator operates (as the determination unit is able to determine indicator malfunctions and type based on the signal having the voltage value, as modified, when the LED light operates and is monitored by the structure taught by Chan et al.).
The method steps of claim 10 are performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 2.
With respect to claim 5, Connolly et al. as modified teaches wherein the determination unit (210, as modified) determines that the malfunction occurs in the indicator (LED) when the interrupt signal (via 206) is not generated (as the combination as a whole teaches the apparatus detects malfunctions in the LED indicator even when an interrupt signal is not generated, as two different set of components are monitoring the interrupt signal and the LED module).
The method steps of claim 16 are performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 5.
With respect to claim 7, Connolly et al. as modified teaches wherein the determination unit (210, as modified) determines whether the indicator malfunctions (i.e. the LED light) and the malfunction type according to the voltage value of the control signal (via 206) when it is determined that the indicator does not operate (as the determination unit determines the indicator malfunctions and the type of malfunction when the indicator does not operate, via the combination as a whole, as Chan et al. includes structure that allows the determination unit to determine when the LED light is malfunctioning).
The method steps of claim 18 are performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 7.
With respect to claim 11, Connolly et al. as modified teaches wherein the determination unit (210, as modified) determines whether the indicator operates (LED, via the structure of Chan et al.), and determines whether the interrupt signal (via 206) is generated according to the determination result of whether the indicator (i.e. LED light) operates to determine at least one among whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type (as the combination as a whole teaches generating the control signal based on the result of the structure taught in Chan et al. when determining the LED is malfunctioning).
With respect to claim 13, Connolly et al. as modified teaches wherein the determining at least one among whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type (210, as modified) includes determining whether the indicator malfunctions and the malfunction type according to whether the interrupt signal (via 206) is generated and the voltage value of the control signal when it is determined that the indicator operates (as the combination, as a whole, teaches using the control logic and structure of Chan et al., to determine if the indicator malfunctions and types from the control signal and the voltage values in the signal when the indicator operators).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6, 8, 12, 14-15, 17, 19 and 20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rubio et al. (2012/0133282) which teaches an indicator system for a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights