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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12-17, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al., CN113972844 (hereinafter referred to as Peng), and in view of Ma et al., CN110634262 (hereinafter referred to as Ma).
In regards to claim 12, Peng teaches a monitoring facility (upper third of power module; [Fig. 2]) for a converter (DC-DC converter; [Abstract]) of a rail vehicle (railway, traction equipment; [Pg. 2, Para. 3]), wherein the converter includes a number of power capacitors (DC support capacitor 1; [Pg. 3, Para. 1]) and a number of power semiconductor switches (H-bridge power device, four quadrant; [Abstract]) arranged in a common, at least substantially closed housing (shell 11; [Pg. 7, Para. 10] & [Fig. 6]), the monitoring facility comprising: an evaluation facility (control board 5; [Fig. 2]) and at least one gas sensor (gas concentration sensor 7b; [Fig. 2]) connected to said evaluation facility for signaling purposes (the control component comprises… sensor component 7; [Pg. 6, Para. 9] & [Pg. 9, Para. 2]); and said gas sensor being configured to detect at least one combustible gaseous compound in the housing of the converter (implicit of a gas concentration sensor located within the shell 11; [Fig. 2]).
Peng does not teach said evaluation facility being configured, in dependence on a concentration of the at least one combustible gaseous compound in the housing of the converter, to bring about an interruption to a supply of energy to the number of power capacitors of the converter.
Ma teaches said evaluation facility (fire alarm controller; [Abstract]) (control board 5, Peng) being configured, in dependence on a concentration of the at least one combustible gaseous compound in the housing of the converter (gas concentration value reaches the second threshold; [Claim 1]), to bring about an interruption to a supply of energy to the number of power capacitors of the converter (PCS is triggered to shut down; [Claim 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Peng in order to incorporate said evaluation facility being configured, in dependence on a concentration of the at least one combustible gaseous compound in the housing of the converter, to bring about an interruption to a supply of energy to the number of power capacitors of the converter as taught by Ma. The motivation for doing so would be to apply a known safety shutdown technique of gases exceeding a concentration limit.
In regards to claim 13, Peng does not teach wherein said evaluation facility is further configured to compare the concentration of the at least one gaseous compound detected by said sensor with at least one predetermined threshold value and to bring about the interruption to the supply of energy if the threshold value is exceeded.
Ma teaches wherein said evaluation facility is further configured to compare the concentration of the at least one gaseous compound detected by said sensor with at least one predetermined threshold value (second threshold; [Claim 1]) and to bring about the interruption to the supply of energy (PCS is triggered to shut down; [Claim 1]) if the threshold value is exceeded (reaches the second threshold; [Claim 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Peng in order to incorporate wherein said evaluation facility is further configured to compare the concentration of the at least one gaseous compound detected by said sensor with at least one predetermined threshold value and to bring about the interruption to the supply of energy if the threshold value is exceeded as taught by Ma. The motivation for doing so would be to apply a known safety shutdown technique of gases exceeding a concentration limit.
In regards to claim 14, Peng does not teach wherein said evaluation facility is further configured: to compare the concentration of the at least one gaseous compound detected by said sensor with a first predetermined threshold value and with a second predetermined threshold value, the second threshold value corresponding to a higher concentration of the at least one gaseous compound than the first threshold value; and when the first threshold value is exceeded, to bring about an output of an alarm; and when the second threshold value is exceeded, to bring about the interruption to the supply of energy.
Ma teaches wherein said evaluation facility is further configured: to compare the concentration of the at least one gaseous compound (flammable gas; [Claim 1]) detected by said sensor with a first predetermined threshold value (first threshold; [Claim 1]) and with a second predetermined threshold value (second threshold; [Claim 1]), the second threshold value corresponding to a higher concentration of the at least one gaseous compound than the first threshold value (Examiner’s Note: The second threshold is understood as a higher threshold than the first threshold because of the use of “reaches” and a “later warning”.); and when the first threshold value is exceeded, to bring about an output of an alarm (early warning is activated; [Claim 1]); and when the second threshold value is exceeded, to bring about the interruption to the supply of energy (PCS is triggered to shut down; [Claim 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Peng in order to incorporate wherein said evaluation facility is further configured: to compare the concentration of the at least one gaseous compound detected by said sensor with a first predetermined threshold value and with a second predetermined threshold value, the second threshold value corresponding to a higher concentration of the at least one gaseous compound than the first threshold value; and when the first threshold value is exceeded, to bring about an output of an alarm; and when the second threshold value is exceeded, to bring about the interruption to the supply of energy as taught by Ma. The motivation for doing so would be to apply a known gas monitoring system of a battery to the capacitor taught by Peng for explosive atmosphere safety.
In regards to claim 15, Peng teaches wherein said evaluation facility is configured to be connected to a control facility (external control case; [Pg. 6, Para. 10]) of the rail vehicle for signaling purposes.
Peng does not teach wherein the control facility is configured to bring about at least one of the output of the alarm via a human-machine interface to a person operating the rail vehicle or the interruption of the supply of energy to the number of power capacitors of the converter.
Ma teaches wherein the control facility is configured to bring about at least one of the output of the alarm via a human-machine interface to a person operating the rail vehicle or the interruption of the supply of energy to the number of power capacitors of the converter (PCS is triggered to shut down; [Claim 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Peng in order to incorporate wherein the control facility is configured to bring about at least one of the output of the alarm via a human-machine interface to a person operating the rail vehicle or the interruption of the supply of energy to the number of power capacitors of the converter as taught by Ma. The motivation for doing so would be to apply a known gas monitoring system of a battery to the capacitor taught by Peng for explosive atmosphere safety.
In regards to claim 16, Peng teaches wherein said evaluation facility is arranged in (implicit, in the shell 11; [Fig. 2]) or on the housing of the converter.
In regards to claim 17, Peng teaches wherein said evaluation facility and said at least one gas sensor are arranged in a common housing (implicit, in the shell 11; [Fig. 2]).
In regards to claim 21, Peng teaches a converter (DC-DC converter; [Abstract]) for a rail vehicle (railway; [Pg. 2, Para. 3]), the converter comprising: at least one power capacitor (DC support capacitor 1; [Pg. 3, Para. 1] & [Fig. 2]) and power semiconductor switch (H-bridge power device, four quadrant; [Abstract]) arranged in a common, at least substantially closed housing (shell 11; [Fig. 2]); and a monitoring facility according to claim 12.
In regards to claim 22, Peng teaches a method for monitoring a converter (DC-DC converter; [Abstract]) of a rail vehicle (railway, traction equipment; [Pg. 2, Para. 3]), the converter including a number of power capacitors (DC support capacitor 1; [Pg. 3, Para. 1]) and power semiconductor switches (H-bridge power device, four quadrant; [Abstract]) arranged in a common, at least substantially closed housing (shell 11; [Pg. 7, Para. 10] & [Fig. 6]), the method comprising: providing a monitoring facility (upper third of power module; [Fig. 2]) in or on the housing of the converter (in the shell 11; [Fig. 6]), the monitoring facility including an evaluation facility (control board 5; [Fig. 2]) and at least one gas sensor (gas concentration sensor 7b; [Fig. 2]) connected to the evaluation facility for signaling purposes (the control component comprises… sensor component 7; [Pg. 6, Para. 9] & [Pg. 9, Para. 2]); detecting, by the at least one gas sensor, a concentration of at least one combustible gaseous compound in the housing of the converter (implicit of a gas concentration sensor located within the shell 11; [Fig. 2]).
Peng does not teach bringing about an interruption of a supply of energy to the number of power capacitors of the converter by the evaluation facility in dependence on the concentration of the at least one combustible gaseous compound detected by the at least one gas sensor.
Ma teaches bringing about an interruption of a supply of energy to the number of power capacitors of the converter (PCS is triggered to shut down; [Claim 1]) by the evaluation facility (fire alarm controller; [Abstract]) (control board 5, Peng) in dependence on the concentration of the at least one combustible gaseous compound detected by the at least one gas sensor (gas concentration value reaches the second threshold; [Claim 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Peng in order to incorporate bringing about an interruption of a supply of energy to the number of power capacitors of the converter by the evaluation facility in dependence on the concentration of the at least one combustible gaseous compound detected by the at least one gas sensor as taught by Ma. The motivation for doing so would be to apply a known safety shutdown technique of gases exceeding a concentration limit.
In regards to claim 23, Peng teaches a method for upgrading a monitoring of a converter (DC-DC converter; [Abstract]) of a rail vehicle (railway; [Pg. 2, Para. 3]), the converter having a number of power capacitors (DC support capacitor 1; [Pg. 3, Para. 1] & [Fig. 2]) and power semiconductor switches (H-bridge power device, four quadrant; [Abstract]) arranged in a common, at least substantially closed housing (implicit, in shell 11; [Fig. 2]), the method which comprises: retrofitting the converter with a monitoring facility according to claim 12 for monitoring the power capacitors of the converter.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al., CN113972844 (hereinafter referred to as Peng), in view of Ma et al., CN110634262 (hereinafter referred to as Ma) and in further view of Schuetzle, US20120229287 (hereinafter referred to as Schuetzle).
In regards to claim 18, Peng and Ma do not teach wherein said at least one gas sensor is a MEMS sensor or an infrared gas sensor
Schuetzle teaches wherein said at least one gas sensor is a MEMS sensor or an infrared gas sensor (infrared gas sensors; [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Peng & Ma in order to incorporate wherein said at least one gas sensor is a MEMS sensor or an infrared gas sensor as taught by Schuetzle.
Claim(s) 19 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al., CN113972844 (hereinafter referred to as Peng), in view of Ma et al., CN110634262 (hereinafter referred to as Ma), and in further view of Yoo et al., US20200249214 (hereinafter referred to as Yoo).
In regards to claim 19, Peng and Ma do not teach wherein said evaluation facility is further configured to generate a history of the detected concentrations over time.
Yoo teaches wherein said evaluation facility is further configured to generate a history of the detected concentrations over time (measurement values… with a correction history; [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Peng & Ma in order to incorporate wherein said evaluation facility is further configured to generate a history of the detected concentrations over time as taught by Yoo. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the safety measures of the gas monitoring system taught by Peng and Ma.
In regards to claim 20, Peng and Ma do not teach
Yoo teaches the monitoring facility according to claim 12, which further comprises at least one temperature sensor (temperature and humidity sensor 216; [0061] & [Fig. 3]) connected to (implicit; [Fig. 3]) said evaluation facility (control module 260; [Fig. 3]) (control board 5, Peng) for signaling purposes, said at least one temperature sensor enabling at least one of a temperature in the housing of the converter (monitoring a gas in a closed space; [Abstract]) (Examiner’s Note: The gas sensor location is taught by Peng and would monitor the inside of the shell 11.), or a temperature of a respective power capacitor or of an immediate environment thereof to be detected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA L FAUBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1311. 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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 5712701682. 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.
SAMANTHA LYNETTE FAUBERT
Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights