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(s) (IDS) submitted on or before 2024-10-09 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Page 19 lines 6-12 disclose Figure 6 is known in the art. Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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 11-20 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.
Claim 11 contains the term “high” in line 23. “High” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that and prior art that discloses two transfer functions for a circuit where at least one part of the transfer functions has a resolution that is higher than another part will be sufficient to read on the claims.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the evaluation device is a protective device for traction power applications” in lines 2-3. From the preamble of claim 11, the claims are directed toward a monitoring apparatus for wide-dynamic-range currents and it is therefore unclear if the traction power application is intended to be a required part of the claim or if it is merely an example of use for the apparatus. Since the claim is written such that the apparatus does not comprise a traction power application no patentable weight is given to the traction power application. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this limitation as merely an example of use and thus not a required element of the claim such that if the teachings of a prior art could be incorporated into a traction power application then it will be sufficient to read on the claim.
Regarding Claims 12-20, These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almosnino (US-20180080960-A1 – As disclosed in applicant IDS) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA – refer to instant application for references cited in rejection below).
Regarding Claim 11, Almosnino teaches a supply line carrying a current to be monitored (Fig 1: current, Is);
a shunt resistor in the supply line (Fig 1: resistor, R1);
a measurement amplifier circuit (Fig 1: measuring circuit, 1),
wherein an input side of the measurement amplifier circuit receives a voltage drop across the shunt resistor (Can be seen in Fig 1), and wherein an overall dynamic range of the measurement amplifier circuit covers normal-operation currents and fault currents (Para [0055] teaches the circuit capable of detecting when threshold voltages/currents are exceeded and therefore normal/fault currents); and
an evaluation device (Fig 1: determination circuit, 6) that receives an output signal of the measurement amplifier circuit, to record the normal-operation currents and the fault currents (Fig 1 shows the output of the measurement circuit, 1, connecting to the determination circuit, 6),
wherein the measurement amplifier circuit is a single-channel measurement amplifier circuit (Can be seen in Fig 1), comprising a measurement amplifier (Fig 1: amplifier, 10) that reproduces an overall dynamic range of the voltage drop across the shunt resistor (Can be seen in Fig 1).
Almosnino does not teach a compression stage, wherein the compression stage receives an output signal of the measurement amplifier, wherein the compression stage has at least two different transfer functions,
wherein a first transfer function of the at least two different transfer functions converts a measurement range of the normal-operation currents at high resolution, and
wherein a second transfer function of the at least two different transfer functions compresses the dynamic range of the voltage drop across the shunt resistor and converts a measurement range of the fault currents into the output signal of the measurement amplifier circuit at lower resolution than the first transfer function.
However, AAPA teaches a compression stage, wherein the compression stage receives an output signal of the measurement amplifier, wherein the compression stage has at least two different transfer functions, wherein a first transfer function of the at least two different transfer functions converts a measurement range of the normal-operation currents at high resolution, and wherein a second transfer function of the at least two different transfer functions compresses the dynamic range of the voltage drop across the shunt resistor and converts a measurement range of the fault currents into the output signal of the measurement amplifier circuit at lower resolution than the first transfer function (Page 19, Para 2 teaches that circuits implementing the compression stage is known in the art, particularly as taught in "Compressor Applications for Resistive Optocouplers" from Silonex). 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 the apparatus of Almosnino to incorporate the compression stage from AAPA. A motivation for this modification is to compress the dynamic range of an input signal keeping the level more constant.
Regarding Claim 12, Almosnino further teaches wherein the evaluation device is a protective device (Para [0070] teaches that the determination circuit, 6, determines if a voltage is not at the threshold voltage then it injects a current in order to stabilize the voltage).
Regarding Claim 13, The combination of Almosnino in view of AAPA, as presented with respect to claim 11, teaches wherein the first transfer function and the second transfer function are each linear functions having different gradients (AAPA - The transfer functions are part of the compression stage and therefore encompassed by AAPA). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 14, The combination of Almosnino in view of AAPA, as presented with respect to claim 13, teaches wherein the first transfer function has a first gradient that corresponds to a multiple of at least 5 times a second gradient of the second transfer function (AAPA - The transfer functions are part of the compression stage and therefore encompassed by AAPA). These features are necessarily taught by the combination
Regarding Claim 15, The combination of Almosnino in view of AAPA, as presented with respect to claim 11, teaches wherein the first transfer function is designed so as to be shifted at an origin (AAPA - The transfer functions are part of the compression stage and therefore encompassed by AAPA). These features are necessarily taught by the combination
Regarding Claim 16, The combination of Almosnino in view of AAPA, as presented with respect to claim 11, teaches wherein the first transfer function and the second transfer function are made up of two or more different sub-transfer functions (AAPA - The transfer functions are part of the compression stage and therefore encompassed by AAPA). These features are necessarily taught by the combination
Regarding Claim 17, The combination of Almosnino in view of AAPA, as presented with respect to claim 11, teaches wherein the first transfer function and the second transfer function are designed to reproduce positive and negative currents (AAPA - The transfer functions are part of the compression stage and therefore encompassed by AAPA). These features are necessarily taught by the combination
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almosnino in view of AAPA in view of Homma et al. (US-20110267038-A1).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Almosnino in view of AAPA does not explicitly teach wherein the measurement amplifier circuit is designed to have DC isolation between an input and an output. However, Homma teaches wherein the measurement amplifier circuit is designed to have DC isolation between an input and an output (Fig 2 shows a measuring circuit which is designed with an isolation circuit (221, 223, 225) between the input (input provided by the shunt resistors 201, 203, 205) and the output (delivered to the signal processing circuit, 231) Para [0023] teaches isolation circuit may include a transformer). 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 the amplifier circuit of the combination to include DC isolation. A motivation for this modification is that DC isolation enhances safety as is well known in the art.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almosnino in view of AAPA in view of Endo (WO-2021235302-A1 – Refer to attached machine translation for references cited).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Almosnino in view of AAPA does not explicitly teach wherein power is supplied to the measurement amplifier circuit by way of a DC-isolating auxiliary power supply. However, Endo teaches wherein power is supplied to the measurement amplifier circuit by way of a DC-isolating auxiliary power supply (Fig 1 shows Isolation power supply, 5, | Para [0014] teaches an isolated power supply for supplying Vcc2, which is applied to the measurement circuit shown in Fig 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 the amplifier circuit of the combination to include the DC-isolating auxiliary power supply of Endo. A motivation for this modification is isolated circuits enhance safety.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almosnino in view of AAPA in view of Nonen et al. (US-20230090896-A1).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Almosnino in view of AAPA does not explicitly teach wherein cable break monitoring for a cable connection between the shunt resistor and the measurement amplifier circuit is accomplished by virtue of the measurement amplifier being able to impress a low test current into the cable connection and via the shunt resistor. However, Nonen teaches wherein cable break monitoring for a cable connection between the shunt resistor and the measurement amplifier circuit is accomplished by virtue of the measurement amplifier being able to impress a low test current into the cable connection and via the shunt resistor (Paras [0048]-[0050] teach using current source to measure a resistance value as part of wire break monitoring). 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 the apparatus of the combination to include the cable break monitoring of Nonen. A motivation for this modification is to manage wire break progress and suppress device failures resulting from cable failures, as taught in Nonen in Para [0015].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:30-17:30 ET.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights