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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/01/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: suggest to remove “(Figure 2)”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-22 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is directed to abstract idea of:
“ascertaining…a component temperature of a component in the vehicle electrical system channel, an ambient temperature of the component, and a current flowing through the component”, “in response to detecting an overloading of the component, calculating a period of time to the overloading of the component” and “a heat input into the component and a heat loss of the component are used to ascertain the period of time to the overloading of the component”.
These concepts constitute mathematical relationships, mental processes (observations, evaluation, and selection) and certain methods of organizing human activity (rule-based selection and communicating decisions), which are recognized judicial exceptions to § 101 subject matter eligibility. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); MPEP § 2106.04.
For example, ascertaining temperature and current could be broadly interpreted as reading data by, detecting overloading could be broadly interpreted as observation by human, calculating a period of time could be broadly interpreted as human activity by pen and pencil based on observation of overloading occurrences and simple math to determine the duration of the overloading, ascertain the period of time using heat input and heat loss are clearly mathematical relationship and the period of time could be calculated by human mind and/or with the help of pen and pencil.
The claim does not recite additional elements that are required to perform the claimed steps.
Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 16-19 and 25, recited limitations in the claims further define limitations recited in claim 15 with mathematical relationships and/or mathematical equations without recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 16-19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 20, the recited limitation is simply comparing data between “heat input” and “heat loss”, which could be done by human mind; thus, insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 21, the recited limitation is merely intended use of the claimed method without providing additional elements that are required to perform the method as recited in claim 15. Thus, no additional elements are provided to sufficiently amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 22, the “adapated emergency measure” could be broadly interpreted as human signaling overloading situation occurs (i.e. human activity); thus, no additional elements are provided to sufficiently amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites similar limitations of claim 15, which are considered as abstract idea (see rejection of claim 15 above).
The claim recites additional element, such as, “arrangement” (which is considered as apparatus).
However, the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
it is recited at a high level of generality and could be interpreted as a generic computing device for implementing the abstract idea; or
(interpret in light of claim 27), the arrangement is broadly interpreted as “sensor”, and sensor is a well-known device for collecting data, therefore, it is no more than using well-known generic hardware as a tool to collect data. The courts have held that utilizing well-known and conventional tool to perform abstract tasks do not supply “significantly more”.
Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F. 3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (improvement to computer architecture); Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (transformation); MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 27, as explained in rejection of claim 26 above, merely utilizing sensors as data collecting tools to perform abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 15-27 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.
Regarding claims 15 and 26, the limitation “in response to detecting an overloading of the component, calculating a period of time to the overloading of the component” renders the claims indefinite. If the step of calculating is performed after overloading is detected, the overloading already occurs; thus, it is unclear what does “period of time to the overloading” is referring. For examination purpose, the limitation is broadly interpreted as “calculating a period of time to the overloading of the component”.
Regarding claim 16, the use of “and/or” renders the claim indefinite because the recited equation clearly require the thermal resistance.
Regarding claim 17, the recited limitation renders the claim indefinite because it states heat input is determined based on initial temperature, but the recited heat input equation does not require the initial temperature.
Regarding claim 21, the recited limitations render the claim indefinite because:
how the “electronic power distributor”, “vehicle electrical system monitoring system” and “safety-relevant consumer” relate to “a component in the vehicle electrical system” is unclear;
relationship between “output channel” in the claim and “channel” recited in claim 15 is unclear;
with the multiple “and/or” phrase being used in the claim, it is unclear how to interpret the limitation “in which an electronic switch…” as relative to other limitations recited in the claim.
For examination purpose, the recited limitation is broadly interpreted as the claimed method as recited in claim 15: 1) is carried out for output channel of “electronic power distributor” and/or “vehicle electrical system monitoring system”, and/or, 2) comprises an electronic switch as the component to control the safety-relevant consumer.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “adapted emergency measure” renders the claim indefinite because the meaning of the limitation is vague and unclear. The claim fails to clearly define scope of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation “an increase in current” and “the emergency measure” render the claim indefinite because:
The meaning of “the emergency measure” is not clearly define;
The claim fails to provide sufficient antecedence basis for “the emergency measure”;
it is unclear how “current” in the claim relate to “adapted emergency measure” and/or the claimed invention, and 3) it is unclear whether it is referring to “current” recited in claim 15.
In addition, claims 18-20, 24-25 and 27 are indefinite because they either directly or indirectly depend on claims 15 and 26.
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) 15-22, 24 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (US 2008/0024080 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2016/0008938 A1).
Regarding claims 15 and 26, Ogawa discloses an arrangement (e.g. Figs. 1-5 & Abstract & [0003]) and a method (e.g. Figs. 1-5 & Abstract & [0084]) for monitoring an operation of a vehicle electrical system (e.g. Figs. 1-5), the method comprising the following steps:
ascertaining, in a vehicle electrical system channel of the vehicle electrical system (e.g. [0013, 0014]), a component temperature of a component (e.g. [0013, 0014]: estimate temperature of motor and/or FET) in the vehicle electrical system channel, an ambient temperature of the component, and a current flowing through the component (e.g. Fig. 5: 93a & [0032]).
Ogawa fails to disclose, but Li teaches:
in response to detecting an overloading of the component (see rejection under U.S.C. 112 above), calculating a period of time to the overloading of the component (e.g. Fig. 2A: 15 & [0035-0041, 0054]);
wherein a heat input into the component (e.g. [0035]) and a heat loss of the component (e.g. [0036]) are used to ascertain the period of time to the overloading of the component (e.g. [0035-0041]: Ts x n).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ogawa with the teachings of Li to utilize heat gain and heat loss determined in Ogawa for overheat determination to further determine time to the overheat condition occurs so as to prevent overheat condition by proactively alert user.
Regarding claim 16, Ogawa discloses the heat loss (Pout) is ascertained as a function of the component temperature (T(t)), an ambient temperature (Tamb), and/or a thermal resistance (Rt) of the component, using the following formula: Pout = (T(t) – Tamb)/ Rt (e.g. [0032]: heat loss = Kdn x (Td-Tm) ).
Regarding claim 17, Ogawa discloses the heat input (Pi.) is ascertained as a function of the current, (i), an electrical resistance (R) of the component, and an initial temperature (Tstart) of the component, using the following formula: Pin = i2 * R (e.g. [0032]: heat gain = Kup x I^2).
PNG
media_image1.png
24
176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Ogawa discloses the electrical resistance (R) of the component is temperature-dependent (e.g. [0034]).
Regarding claim 19, Ogawa discloses temperature progression over time is equal to difference between heat input and heat loss (e.g. [0032]), and the heat input and heat loss already take heat capacity into account (i.e. heat gain/loss coefficient).
Li further teaches the period of time is determined by performing logarithmic calculation based on heat input and heat loss (e.g. [0034-0041]).
In addition, conversion between logarithm and differentiation is known in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art in view of teachings of Ogawa and Li before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Li to achieve the claimed differentiate equation with reasonable expectations of success since logarithms and differentiation are closely related known alternative in mathematic calculations.
Regarding claim 20, Ogawa discloses an overload operation is identified when the heat input exceeds the heat loss (e.g. [0086]).
Regarding claim 21, Ogawa discloses the method is carried out for an output channel of an electronic power distributor and/or a vehicle electrical system monitoring system and/or in which an electronic switch is used as the component to control a safety-relevant consumer (e.g. [0013, 0014]: estimate temperature of motor and/or FET).
Regarding claim 22, Ogawa and Li in combination discloses an adapted emergency measure (e.g. Ogawa [0010]: stopping current supply to motor when temperature reaches preset temperature; thus, when viewing in combination with Li, it would be obvious to modify the teachings of Ogawa to stop supply current when the period of time corresponding to the preset temperature is reached) for the vehicle electrical system channel is taken as a function of the calculated period of time to the overloading in overload operation.
Regarding claim 24, Ogawa discloses the vehicle electrical system channel is switched off as a function of the calculated period of time to overloading (e.g. [0010]: stopping supply of current to motor).
Regarding claim 27, Ogawa discloses the arrangement comprises: a temperature sensor configured to acquire the component temperature of the component of a vehicle electrical system (e.g. Fig. 5 & [0007-0009, 0080, 0081, 0088]: current sensor and electronic components in combination for estimating temperature is broadly interpreted as temperature sensor); a temperature sensor configured to acquire the ambient temperature of the component (e.g. [0096]); and a current measuring device (e.g. Fig. 5: 93a) configured to measure the current flowing through the component .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAWING CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3909. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at (571) 272-2060. 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.
/KAWING CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights