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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I in the reply filed on 6/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/25/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Figure 2A, “113” should be replaced with --103--.
In Figure 2A, “122” should be deleted.
In Figure 3A, “342” (on the upper right side) should be deleted.
In Figure 5A, “119” should be replaced with --117--.
In Figure 7, “502 AND 504” should be replaced with --SP AND SD--.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In par. [0037], line 3, “404” should be replaced with --402--.
In par. [0041], line 4, “throughs” should be replaced with --troughs--.
In par. [0041], line 5, “through” should be replaced with --trough--.
In par. [0053], line 3, “through” should be replaced with --trough--.
In par. [0053], line 4, “throughs” should be replaced with --troughs--.
In par. [0072], line 5, “throughs” (both occurrences) should be replaced with --troughs--.
In par. [0072], line 6, “throughs” should be replaced with --troughs--.
In par. [0078], lines 1, 5, and 11, “through” should be replaced with --trough--.
In par. [0080], line 1, “119” should be replaced with --117--.
In par. [0093], line 1, “390, 392, and 394” should be replaced with --708, 710, and 712--.
In par. [0093], lines 3 and 4, “300E” should be replaced with --700--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 9-13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Narayanasamy et al. (US 10,317,453).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Narayanasamy et al. discloses a system and method, comprising: a peak detector that is configured to generate a comparison signal (element 518, Fig. 5) by comparing a coil current (element 526, Fig. 5) of a relay against a dynamic threshold (element 522, Fig. 5), the comparison signal having a first value when the coil current is above the dynamic threshold, the comparison signal having a second value when the coil current is below the dynamic threshold, wherein generating the comparison signal includes causing the dynamic threshold to track the coil current until a positive peak in the coil current is reached that has a value PP (see col. 3, line 61 through col. 4, line 33 and Figs. 5 and 10), and setting the dynamic threshold to a rebound value R in response to detecting that a negative peak in the coil current is reached, the rebound value R being based on the value PP (see col. 3, line 61 through col. 4, line 33 and Figs. 5 and 10); and a processing circuitry (i.e., monitoring circuit) that is configured to detect whether the relay is in a faulty state based on the comparison signal, and generate an indication of a fault when the relay is detected to be in a faulty state (see col. 6, lines 1-23). Further, the device of Narayanasamy et al. can be assumed to inherently perform the claimed method. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process (see MPEP § 2112.02).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Narayanasamy et al. discloses a system and method, wherein the peak detector is further configured to set the dynamic threshold based on a difference between the value PP and a value M in response to detecting the positive peak (see col. 3, line 61 through col. 4, line 33 and Figs. 5 and 10).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Narayanasamy et al. discloses a system and method, wherein the rebound value R is equal to the value PP (see col. 3, line 61 through col. 4, line 33 and Figs. 5 and 10).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Narayanasamy et al. discloses a system and method, wherein the detecting of whether the relay is in a faulty state is performed further based on at least one metric value that is adjusted based on temperature (see col. 3, lines 49-60).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Narayanasamy et al. discloses a system and method, wherein the peak detector is configured to set the dynamic threshold based, at least in part, on temperature (see col. 3, lines 49-60).
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 1-3, 6, 11-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Leyar et al. (US 6,326,898) in view of Khan (US 10,854,407).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, O'Leyar et al. discloses a system and method, comprising: a peak detector that is configured to generate a comparison signal by comparing a coil current (i.e., measured current waveform 45) (see Fig. 7) of a solenoid actuator against a dynamic threshold (i.e., predetermined current waveform 61) (see Fig. 7), the comparison signal having a first value when the coil current is above the dynamic threshold, the comparison signal having a second value when the coil current is below the dynamic threshold (see col. 6, line 36 through col. 7, line 59 and Figs. 7 and 8), wherein generating the comparison signal includes causing the dynamic threshold to track the coil current until a positive peak in the coil current is reached that has a value PP, and setting the dynamic threshold to a rebound value R in response to detecting that a negative peak in the coil current is reached, the rebound value R being based on the value PP (see col. 6, line 36 through col. 7, line 59 and Figs. 7 and 8); and a processing circuitry (element 54, Fig. 3) that is configured to detect whether the solenoid is in a faulty state based on the comparison signal, and generate an indication of a fault when the solenoid is detected to be in a faulty state (see col. 6, line 36 through col. 7, line 59 and Figs. 7 and 8). Further, the device of O'Leyar et al. can be assumed to inherently perform the claimed method. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process (see MPEP § 2112.02).
Although O'Leyar et al. does not appear to disclose the solenoid actuator being part of a relay, Khan shows that this feature is well known in the art. Khan discloses monitoring a state of a relay device (element 4, Fig. 1A) including a solenoid (element 6, Fig. 1A) for actuation of the relay device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, such as detecting whether the relay device is in a fault state.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, O'Leyar et al. discloses a system and method, wherein the peak detector is further configured to set the dynamic threshold based on a difference between the value PP and a value M in response to detecting the positive peak (see col. 6, line 36 through col. 7, line 59 and Figs. 7 and 8).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, O'Leyar et al. discloses a system and method, wherein the rebound value R is equal to the value PP (see col. 6, line 36 through col. 7, line 59 and Figs. 7 and 8).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, O'Leyar et al. discloses a system and method, wherein the detecting of whether the solenoid is in a faulty state is further performed based on a slope of a portion of a waveform of the coil current (see col. 6, line 36 through col. 7, line 59 and Figs. 7 and 8).
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanasamy et al. (US 10,317,453) in view of Ho et al. (US 9,476,943).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, although Narayanasamy et al. does not appear to disclose detecting whether the relay is in a faulty state includes identifying a count of artifacts of back electromotive force (BEMF) action in the comparison signal, Ho et al. shows that this feature is well known in the art. Ho et al. discloses a system and method, wherein detecting whether the relay is in a faulty state includes identifying a count of artifacts (i.e., a dip) of back electromotive force (BEMF) action in the comparison signal and determining that the relay is in a faulty state in response to the count being less than or greater than one (i.e., does not exhibit a dip) (see col. 4, lines 29-35 and Fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, such as improved range of fault detection.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Narayanasamy et al. discloses a system and method, wherein detecting whether the relay is in a faulty state further includes identifying a difference between the positive peak and the negative peak, and determining that the relay is in a faulty state when the difference is greater than a threshold (see col. 7, lines 9-23 and Fig. 12).
Although Narayanasamy et al. does not appear to disclose determining that the relay is in a faulty state when the difference is less than a threshold, Ho et al. shows that this feature is well known in the art. Ho et al. discloses a system and method, wherein detecting whether the relay is in a faulty state further includes identifying a difference between the positive peak and the negative peak (see col. 4, lines 21-28 and Figs. 4 and 5), and determining that the relay is in a faulty state when the difference is less than a first threshold (i.e., Tmin) (see Fig. 5) and/or greater than a second threshold (i.e., Tbad) (see Fig. 4), the second threshold being greater than the first threshold (see col. 4, lines 21-28 and Figs. 4 and 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, such as improved range of fault detection.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 17, and 18, Narayanasamy et al. discloses a system and method, wherein detecting whether the relay is in a faulty state includes identifying a measure of a duration of a dip in the coil current, wherein the measure is identified based on the comparison signal, and determining that the relay is in a faulty state when the measure is greater than a threshold (see col. 7, lines 9-23 and Fig. 12).
Although Narayanasamy et al. does not appear to disclose determining that the relay is in a faulty state when the measure is less than a threshold, Ho et al. shows that this feature is well known in the art. Ho et al. discloses a system and method, wherein detecting whether the relay is in a faulty state includes identifying a measure of a duration of a dip in the coil current, wherein the measure is identified based on the comparison signal (see col. 4, lines 21-28 and Figs. 4 and 5), and determining that the relay is in a faulty state when the measure is less than a first threshold (i.e., Tmin) (see Fig. 5) and/or greater than a second threshold (i.e., Tbad) (see Fig. 4), the second threshold being greater than the first threshold (see col. 4, lines 21-28 and Figs. 4 and 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, such as improved range of fault detection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MILTON GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7914. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/M.G/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
8/22/2026
Prosecution Insights