The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of 3/16/2026 has been entered and considered. Upon entering amendment, claims 16, 27, 29, 31 have been amended, and claims 17, 30 have been canceled. Accordingly, claims 16, 18-29, 31-35 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to amended claim 16, Applicant argues that “Collins fails to disclose or suggest at least one hardware limit and at least one software limit for switching a connection or disconnection, wherein the hardware limit and the software limit are of different types…” (Remarks, pg.11). The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Collins expressly teaches at least one hardware limit (see fig.3, pars [44-45], at least one hardware limit 166 input to the comparator 162). Second, the software limit corresponds to the controller module’s stored predetermined threshold that a sensed/measured value is compared to (see pars [18, 32, 39-41]). In par [0032], Collins teaches the controller module is adapted to “measure a voltage across, the first sense resistor 44, the second sense resistor 46, or a combination thereof.” In pars [0039, 0040], Collins teaches that controller module senses “a power characteristic” and identifies said power characteristic as including “…sensing a voltage across the first sense resistor 44, sensing a voltage across the second sense resistor 46, or a combination thereof.” (see par [0039]). Collins continues explaining that the controller module, in response to sensing or measuring said characteristic, compares it to a corresponding threshold value (the corresponding threshold for a sensed voltage is a voltage threshold), which is the stored software limit, and determines a desired switch operating condition, which includes opening/disconnecting the switch when the measured (voltage) characteristic exceeds its threshold value (see pars [0039-0040]). Accordingly, the examiner believes that Collins teaches the hardware limit (166), which is of a current type and a software limit stored and used by the controller module, which is of at least a voltage type and, as such, the hardware limit and the software limit are of different types.
Further Applicant argues “The rejection, however, appears to rely on voltage-related teachings from the Fig.2 embodiment together with current-comparator teachings from Fig.3 in order to reconstruct the claim limitation” and “such reconstruction cannot establish anticipation” because Collins’ par [0043] “expressly states that Fig.3 illustrates ‘another power distribution system’ that ‘differs’ from the Fig.2 system in the ‘control schema and corresponding circuit.’” (Remarks, pg.12). The examiner respectfully disagrees, because Collins in par [0043] additionally states that “The power distribution system 130 is similar to the power distribution system 30; therefore, like parts will be identified with like numerals increased by 100, with it being understood that the description of the like parts of the power distribution system 30 applies to the power distribution system 130, unless otherwise noted.” That is, Collins expressly states that the same components used in Fig.2 are being used in Fig.3 and is identified with a numeral increased by 100 from fig.2 and that their “description… applies” to the power distribution system of Fig.3, unless otherwise noted. Nowhere in Collins is there any explicit statement that the voltage related teachings are not present in Fig.3. On the contrary, Collins further states in par [0047] that “Additionally, while not shown, aspects of the power distribution node 16 of FIG. 2, such as the set of sense resistors 44, 46 can be included in the power distribution node 116 of FIG. 3, ensuring the power distribution node is operating as expected, as described herein.” One skilled in the art would readily understand this is a direct teaching that Collins intends the aspects of Fig.2 that refer to sensing of the voltage across the sense resistors by the controller module and the corresponding controller module functionality as it relates to sensing the voltage across the resistors, comparing the sensed characteristic to a corresponding threshold, and determining how the switch is controlled (see pars [0039-0040]) to be part of the system of Fig.3 and “additionally” implemented (i.e., in conjunction) with the current-comparator teachings of Fig.3. For example, the “controller module” (48) in Fig.2 is the same as the controller module (148) in Fig.3 and its description tied to monitoring the voltage across the first and second sense resistors 44, 46, respectively, (see pars [0032, 0039-0040]) would be “additionally” applied to the distribution node (130) in Fig.3. In par [0039], the controller module senses a power characteristic and identifies the “power characteristic can include… sensing a voltage across the first sense resistor, sensing a voltage across the second sense resistor, or a combination thereof”. Then, the controller module compares the sensed characteristic (i.e., the voltage) to corresponding threshold value(s) to “effect” the operating condition to “open” it when the sensed (voltage) characteristic “exceeds the corresponding threshold… value” (see pars [0039-0040]). Collins, in par [0047], uses the word “additionally” to show that he intends for the sense resistors and their description as they pertain to voltage measurement and controlling the switch (as described in pars [0039-0040]) to be in conjunction with the current comparator teachings in Fig.3. Collins further states that this is for “ensuring the power distribution node is operating as expected”, which is repeated in par [0039] as for the reason the controller senses the voltage across the resistors and, responsive to a comparison between the sensed voltage to a corresponding threshold/software limit, controlling the switch.
The applicant further argues “Accordingly, the Fig. 3 embodiment does not disclose a hardware limit and a software limit that are different from one another with respect to the type of limit. To the contrary, the relevant limits in Fig. 3 both refer to current” (Remarks, pg.12). The examiner respectfully disagrees, because the Examiner did not rely on Collins’ current limits 166, 168 for the teachings of a hardware limit and a software limit. Instead, the current limit 166 was interpreted as the claimed “hardware limit” and the controller module has a stored software threshold/limit in the form of the threshold that the sensed voltage across the sense resistors is compared to. Accordingly, the examiner believes the embodiment of Fig.3 that “additionally” includes the set of sense resistors (see par [0047]) and their corresponding description in pars [0039-0040] that discuss comparing the voltage sensed to a corresponding threshold teach the hardware limit and a software limit are different from one another.
Applicant continues to argue that “Although Collins may also address sensing of a voltage, such sensing relates to a different embodiment, namely Fig. 2, which involves sensing a voltage across first resistor 44 and second resistor 46… However, that voltage sensing is not disclosed in Collins as distinguishing between software and hardware limits in the manner now claimed.” (Remarks, pgs.12-13). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The presence of the controller module itself teaches the software limit. As previously discussed in detail, the examiner believes the voltage sensing is in the same embodiment of Fig.3 instead of a “different embodiment”. Collins in par [0047] uses the word “additionally” and states “the set of sense resistors 44, 46 can be included in the power distribution node in Fig.3.” Therefore, the teachings of sensing the voltage by the controller module across the sense resistors and the corresponding control of the switch based on the sensed (voltage) characteristic exceeding the corresponding stored threshold are incorporated in the same Fig.3 embodiment. Furthermore, Collins distinguishes between software limit (i.e., that stored by the controller module when comparing the sensed voltage type characteristic to a corresponding threshold) and a hardware limit (i.e., hardware current limit 166 corresponding to comparator 162).
Lastly, applicant argues that while paragraph [0047] states that sense resistors 44, and 46 can be included in the Fig.3 embodiment, it “does not disclose that such optionally included sense resistors define a software limit of voltage type that is used together with a hardware limit of current type for controlling the switch…” (Remarks, pg.13) The examiner respectfully disagrees. The sense resistors are not disclosed as standalone structure in isolation but instead their purpose is to enable sensing/measuring voltage across the resistors as described in par [0039] and for the controller module to then compare those sensed (voltage) value(s) to corresponding threshold value(s) (i.e., the software limit stored in the controller) and determines whether switch 36 should be opened as described in pars [0039-0040]. When Collins’ par [0047] teaches incorporating sense resistors into the Fig.3 embodiment, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand not merely the physical presence of resistors 44, 46, but also the associated monitoring/sensing operation in which the controller compares sensed (voltage) value(s) against a threshold/software limit and controls the switch accordingly. Moreover, Collins teaches in par [0047] that the use of the sense resistors is “for ensuring the power distribution node is operating as expected…”, which is the same language that ties the sense resistors to the sensing/monitoring purpose described in par [0039]. That is, par [0039] states “sensing or measuring the power characteristic can include… sensing a voltage across the firs sense resistor 44, sensing a voltage across the second resistor 46…the controller module can further be configured to, in response to sensing or measuring…to ensure the power distribution node is operating as expected.” Therefore, contrary to applicant’s assertion, one skilled in the art would therefore understand the incorporation of sense resistors 44, 46 into Fig.3 to include their disclosed monitoring function resulting in an embodiment in which the controller can compare the sensed voltage value(s) against a corresponding stored threshold (the corresponding threshold for a sensed voltage is a voltage threshold), and control the switch, in conjunction with the comparator-based overcurrent protection of pars [0044-0045]. This is a “dual-limit relationship”.
The examiner would like to note that the broad language of the claim 16 does not recite any positive structure necessary to implement controlling of the switch. The claim requires a “switch” that has the capability (i.e., “configured to”) to “connect and/or disconnect” in “accordance” with two different types of limits (i.e., thresholds) without defining what is intended by “type”. The claim fails to recite a control unit required to have a software limit and a comparator required to have a hardware limit. There is no sensing claimed, no comparisons between what is sensed to the limits and actual control of the operation of the switch. Most importantly, the claims do not recite how both limits are used together. Which limit (hardware or software) is implemented first and which limit (hardware or software) is implemented second? Or are they used simultaneously? How is the switch controlled when both are implemented together? Applicant is encouraged to further amend the claims to distinguish them over the prior art of record.
See below for further analysis of the claims.
Configured to
The claims contain “configured to” language which is interpreted as intended use for the purpose of this office action. A recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. Additionally, it is noted that an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function noting that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (see MPEP 2114-2115). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended uses described by the “configured to” language, it is deemed anticipatory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 16, 18-19, 22-24, 26-29, 31, 33, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collins et al. (2022/0063827 A1).
Regarding Claim 16,
Collins teaches a power distribution system for a vehicle (the recitation of “for” is intended use), comprising:
at least one power source (32);
at least one consumer (20) connectable to the at least one power source (32) via a power supply line (see for e.g., fig.3, 20 is connectable to 32 via a power supply line); and
a switching unit (116) arranged in the power supply line between the at least one power
source (32) and the at least one consumer (20) and configured to connect and/or (the recitation of “and/or” means “and” or “or”- the examiner selects “or” for “and/or” recitations) disconnect the at least one consumer (20) to or from the power source (32, the switch 136 of 116 arranged in the power supply line is “configured to”/has the capability to connect or disconnect the consumer 20 from the source 32 via a closed or open positions), wherein
the switching unit comprises a switch (136) configured to connect and/or disconnect the at least one consumer (20) to or from the power source (32) in accordance with at least one predetermined software limit (pars [18, 32, 39-41, 43, 47] and response to arguments above; Collins teaches in pars 43, 47 that like parts of Fig.2 applies to Fig.3 and additionally the sense resistor(s)44, 46 of Fig.2 are included in fig.3 without any modification. Collins in pars 18, 39-40 teaches that the control module measures a power characteristic identified as including measuring a voltage across the sense resistors, and comparing the sensed/measured characteristic to a predetermined stored threshold that corresponds to the predetermined software limit. When at least the compared sensed voltage across the resistor(s) exceeds the predetermined stored software limit in the controller, the switch is configured to open. Examiner Note: Collins teaches “one or more of the set of sensed power characteristics” in par [40] that correlates to at least the voltage sensed across the sense resistors in par [39]. This is compared to a corresponding threshold value, i.e., a voltage type threshold) and at least one hardware limit (pars [44-45], at least hardware limit 166 input to the comparator 162 noting that the hardware limit is not monitored and not related to software of the controller and it is related to the hardware of the comparator and the switch opens when the sensed current is greater than the hardware limit 166) of a set value and type (pars [18, 32, 39-41, 43-45, 47]; for e.g., a set predetermined threshold value in which the corresponding threshold for sensed voltage is of the voltage type and a set trip reference value 166 of the current type), and the at least one hardware limit is different from the at least one software limit with respect to the type of limit (pars [18, 32, 39-40, 43-45, 47] and the response to arguments; Collins teaches the hardware limit 166 is with respect to an overcurrent condition/current type of limit which is different from the software limit (i.e., of the controller) which comprises at least the limit/threshold stored in the controller with respect to comparing the measured voltage across the sense resistor(s) to the corresponding threshold, which is a voltage threshold).
Examiner Note: The broad language of claim 16 is only claiming the power source, the switch and consumer. The claim omits the switch control (hardware and software). The claim recites that the switching unit is configured to open and/or close “in accordance with” the software/hardware limits. But the structure that makes the switching unit “in accordance with” these limits not recited. The applicant is encouraged to further structurally distinguish the claim.
Regarding Claim 18,
Collins teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 16 and further teaches a control unit (for e.g., 148) comprised by the switching unit (116), or operatively coupled thereto, and configured to set the at least one software limit (pars [17-18, 39-41, 43, 47]; Collins teaches the control unit has a processor and a memory and successfully uses its software to compare sensed/measured voltage across the sense resistor(s) to a stored or predetermined software limit to control operation of the switch. Therefore, the control unit has set the appropriate limit in itself noting that the claim does not define how, when or why the limit is set, just the end result).
Regarding Claim 19,
Collins teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 16 and further teaches at least one comparator (at least 162) configured to control the switch (136) in accordance with an instantaneous signal of the type of limit (pars [44-45]; instantaneous current signal from current sensor 160) and the respective hardware limit (166) as inputs to the comparator (162, pars [44-45]).
Regarding Claim 22,
Collins teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 16 and further teaches a monitoring unit (160) configured to provide a signal representative of a resistance of one or both of the switch and the power supply line (pars [44-45]; monitoring unit 160 is on the power supply line and provides a sensed current signal “representative of a resistance” of the power supply line noting Ohms law V=I*R in which voltage, current, and resistance are directly proportional to each other), or at least a portion thereof, operatively coupled to the switch (136).
Regarding Claim 23,
Collins teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 16 and further teaches wherein the switching unit comprises one or both of at least one voltage measurement unit (pars [32, 47]; voltage sensor that measures the voltage across the resistor and provides it to the controller and/or the controller that measures the voltage across the resistor) and at least one current measurement unit.
Regarding Claim 24,
Collins teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 23 and further teaches the switching unit (116) further comprises a control unit (for e.g., 148), the control unit comprised by the switching unit (see for e.g., fig.3), or operatively coupled thereto, and configured to set the at least one software limit (pars [17-18, 39-41]; Collins teaches the control unit has a processor and a memory and successfully uses its software to compare sensed/measured voltage across the sense resistor(s) to a stored or predetermined software limit to control operation of the switch. Therefore, the control unit has set the appropriate limit in itself noting that the claim does not define how, when or why the limit is set, just the end result), and/or another control unit configured to set the software limit (not required to be read into the claim because of the “and/or” recitation that is “and” or “or”).
Regarding Claim 26,
Collins teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 23 and further teaches wherein the switching unit further comprises a monitoring unit (160) configured to provide a signal representative of a resistance of one or both of the switch and the power supply line (pars [44-45]; monitoring unit 160 is on the power supply line and provides a sensed current signal “representative of a resistance” of the power supply line noting Ohms law V=I*R in which voltage, current, and resistance are directly proportional to each other), or at least a portion thereof, operatively coupled to the switch (136).
Regarding Claim 27,
Collins teaches a method for controlling a power distribution system, the power distribution system comprising:
at least one power source (32);
at least one consumer (20) connectable to the at least one power source (32) via a power supply line (see for e.g., fig.3, 20 is connectable to 32 via a power supply line); and
a switching unit (116) arranged in the power supply line between the at least one power source (32) and the at least one consumer (20) and configured to connect and/or (the recitation of “and/or” means “and” or “or”- the examiner selects “or” for “and/or” recitations) disconnect the at least one consumer (20) to or from the power source (32, the switch 136 of 116 arranged in the power supply line is “configured to”/has the capability to connect or disconnect the consumer 20 from the source 32 via a closed or open positions), wherein
the switching unit comprises a switch (136) configured to connect and/or disconnect the at least one consumer (20) to or from the power source (32) in accordance with at least one predetermined software limit (pars [18, 32, 39-41, 43, 47] and response to arguments above; Collins teaches in pars 43, 47 that like parts of Fig.2 applies to Fig.3 and that the sense resistor(s)44, 46 of Fig.2 are included in fig.3 without any modification. Collins in pars 18, 39-40 teaches that the control module measures a power characteristic identified as including measuring a voltage across the sense resistors, and comparing the sensed/measured characteristic to a predetermined stored threshold that corresponds to the predetermined software limit. When at least the compared sensed voltage across the resistor(s) exceeds the predetermined stored software limit in the controller, the switch is configured to open. Examiner Note: Collins teaches “one or more of the set of sensed power characteristics” in par [40] that corresponds to at least the voltage sensed across the sense resistors in par [39] to a corresponding threshold value, i.e., a voltage type threshold) and at least one hardware limit (pars [44-45], at least hardware limit 166 input to the comparator 162 noting that the hardware limit is not monitored and not related to software of the controller and it is related to the hardware of the comparator and the switch opens when the sensed current is greater than the hardware limit 166) of a set value and type (pars [18, 32, 39-41, 43-45, 47]; for e.g., a set predetermined threshold value in which the corresponding threshold for sensed voltage is of the voltage type and a set trip reference value 166 of the current type), and
wherein
the at least one hardware limit is different from the at least one software limit with respect to the type of limit (pars [18, 32, 39-40, 43-45, 47] and the response to arguments; Collins teaches the hardware limit 166 is with respect to an overcurrent condition/current type of limit which is different from the software limit (i.e., of the controller) which comprises at least the limit/threshold stored in the controller with respect to comparing the measured voltage across the sense resistor(s) to the corresponding threshold, which is a voltage threshold)),
the method comprising the steps of:
setting the at least one software limit (pars [17-18, 32, 39-41, 43, 47]; Collins teaches the control unit has a processor and a memory and successfully uses its software to compare sensed/measured voltage across the sense resistors to a stored or predetermined limit to open the switch when the sensed characteristic exceeds the threshold. Therefore, the software limit is set) and the at least one hardware limit (pars [44-45]; setting the hardware limit 166) for the switching unit; and
controlling the switching unit to open when one of the at least one software limit (pars [32, 39-4, 43, 47]; opening switch when the measured voltage across the sense resistor(s) reaches and exceeds the software limit/threshold stored in the controller) and/or hardware limit is reached (pars [44-45]; opening switch 136 when the hardware limit is reached).
Regarding Claim 28,
A vehicle (pars [12, 16] and related discussion) comprising a power distribution system according to claim 16 (The vehicle comprises the power distribution system in claim 16).
Regarding Claim 29,
Collins teaches a computer product (par [17]) comprising a non-transitory computer-readable
medium having program code which, when executed on a data processing unit (par [17]; Examiner Note: the “computer product”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “data processing unit” are all introduced in the preamble and none are recited in the body of the claim. As such, they are not given full patentable weight), causes the acts of:
for a power distribution system comprising at least one power source (see rejection of claims 16 and 27); at least one consumer connectable to the at least one power source via a power supply line (see rejection of claims 16 and 27); and
a switching unit arranged in the power supply line between the at least one power source and the at least one consumer and configured to connect and/or disconnect the at least one consumer to or from the power source in accordance with at least one predetermined software limit and at least one hardware limit of a set value and type (see rejection of claims 16 and 27), wherein the at least one hardware limit is different form the at least one software limit with respect to the type of limit (see rejection of claims 16 and 27):
(i) setting at least one software limit and at least one hardware limit for the switching unit (see rejection of claims 16 and 27); and
(ii) controlling the switching unit to open when one of the at least one software limit and/or hardware limit is reached (see rejection of claims 16 and 27).
Regarding Claim 31,
Collins teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 16 and further teaches wherein the type of at least one of the hardware limit and the software limit comprises at least one of a voltage (pars [18, 32, 39-41, 43, 47] and see response to arguments), a voltage difference, a current (pars [44-45]), a resistance, an actuation time and a temperature.
Examiner Note: the claim recites “at least one of”, which is given its broadest reasonable interpretation of “one or more”.
Regarding Claim 33,
Collins teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 19 and further teaches a control unit (for e.g., 148) comprised by the switching unit (116) or operatively coupled thereto and configured to set the at least one software limit (pars [17-18, 39-41, 43, 47] and see response to arguments; Collins teaches the control unit has a processor and a memory and successfully uses its software to compare sensed/measured voltage across the sense resistor(s) to a stored or predetermined software limit to control operation of the switch. Therefore, the control unit has set the appropriate limit in itself noting that the claim does not define how, when or why the limit is set, just the end result), or another control unit, is operatively coupled to the comparator and configured to set the at least one hardware limit as input for the comparator (limitations written in the alternative and not required to be read into the claim).
Regarding Claim 35,
Collins teaches the claimed subject matter 24 and further teaches wherein at least one of the control unit (see rejection of claim 24; the control unit 148) and the other control unit is or comprises a microprocessor (pars [17-18]) configured to set the software limit (pars [17-18, 39-41]; Collins teaches the control unit has a processor and a memory and successfully uses its software to compare sensed/measured voltage values to a stored or predetermined limit to open the switch. Therefore, the control unit’s processor has set the appropriate limit noting that the claim does not define how and when the limit is set, just the end result), and/or at least one of the control unit and the other control unit is configured to set the hardware limit (not required to be read into the claim because of the “and/or” recitation that is “and” or “or”).
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.
Claim(s) 20, 25, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins et al. (2022/0063827 A1) in view of Price et al. (2010/0134132 A1).
Regarding Claim 20,
Collins teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 16. Collins does not explicitly disclose an auxiliary power source configured to apply a voltage difference to the switching unit to simulate a current flow.
Price, however, teaches it is known in the art to have an auxiliary power source (60 or 64) configured to apply a voltage difference to a switching unit (par [46], 44 or 46; voltage difference applied to 44 or 46 is part of the combination’s “switching unit” noting the recitation of switching unit is a broad name for a collection of components. The claim does not recite how the auxiliary power source is added to the rest of the circuit in claim 16) to simulate a current flow (the recitation of “to simulate a current flow” is intended use/intended benefit of the auxiliary power source instead of the actual structural/electrical connections. Since Price teaches the auxiliary power source applying voltage difference to the switching unit, it would then teach the intended use/benefit of to simulate a current flow).
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 teachings of Collins to that of Price so that at least Price’s auxiliary power source is connected to Collins’ terminal upstream of its output current sensor. The motivation would have been to provide a preset voltage to the switching unit to ensure that the system is functioning properly.
Regarding Claim 25,
Claim 25 recites the same limitations as discussed above in the rejection of claim 20 and is therefore rejected in the same fashion.Regarding Claim 34,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 20 and teaches wherein the auxiliary power source is configured to apply a voltage difference to an operational amplifier (Price, fig.2, 44 or 46) of the switching unit (the combination of Collins in view of Price would have the operational amplifier as part of Collins’ switching unit and would be added at Collins’ current sensor) to simulate a current flow (the recitation of “to simulate a current flow” is intended use/intended benefit of the auxiliary power source applying a voltage difference to an operational amplifier instead of the actual structural/electrical connections. Since Price teaches the auxiliary power source applying voltage difference to the operational amplifier, it would then teach the intended use/benefit of to simulate a current flow).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins et al. (2022/0063827 A1) in view of Kwack et al. (2021/0313871 A1).
Regarding Claim 21,
Collins teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 16. Collins does not explicitly disclose at least one discharge device is connected in parallel to the at least one consumer.
Kwack, however, teaches it is known in the art to have to at least one discharge device (130) connected in parallel to the at least one consumer (120 and/or 120, 150, par [17]).
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 teachings of Collins to that of Kwack. The motivation would have been for safety purposes by discharging potentially hazardous stored electrical charge in the capacitor of the consumer.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins et al. (2022/0063827 A1) in view of Rasmussen et al. (2005/0185353 A1).
Regarding Claim 32,
Collins teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 19. Collins does not explicitly disclose a voltage divider representative of the at least one hardware limit.
Rasmussen, however, teaches it is known in the art to have a voltage divider (for e.g., 120, 122 and/or 128, 130) representative of the at least one hardware limit (pars [46-47]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Collins to that of Rasmussen’s voltage divider. The motivation would have been because the voltage divider is commonly used in the art to set the hardware limit at the input of the comparator. Thus, one skilled in the art would have obviously used a voltage divider for Collins’ hardware limit set at the input of the comparator.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights