DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hitachi (JP-H06-291631).
Regarding claim 1, Figure 2 of Hitachi discloses an electronic control unit comprising:
a microcontroller [1]
a power semiconductor element [Q1]
a gate drive circuit that generates a gate drive current of the power semiconductor element on a basis of a command from the microcontroller [3-5]
wherein the gate drive circuit detects a change in an output voltage of the power semiconductor element to detect start of an on/off operation of switching, increases a gate drive current in a process of the switching in an on state and before reaching a peak voltage, and decreases the gate drive current in a process of the switching in an off state and before reaching the peak voltage [Figure 3; paragraphs 18-22]
Regarding claim 3, Figure 2 of Hitachi discloses wherein the gate drive circuit has a delay circuit that adjusts a timing from detection of the start of the on/off operation to increase or decrease of the gate drive current [Figure 3; paragraphs 18-22].
Regarding claim 4, Figure 2 of Hitachi discloses wherein the gate drive circuit is a constant current drive system or a constant voltage drive system [Figure 3; paragraphs 18-22].
Regarding claim 6, Figure 2 of Hitachi discloses a gate driving method of a power semiconductor element, comprising:
a step of detecting a change in a voltage between a drain terminal and a source terminal of a power semiconductor element to detect start of an on/off operation of switching [Figure 3; paragraphs 18-22]
a step of increasing a gate drive current in a process of the switching when the power semiconductor element is in an on state and before reaching a peak voltage [Figure 3; paragraphs 18-22]
a step of decreasing the gate drive current in a process of the switching when the power semiconductor element is in an off state and before reaching the peak voltage [Figure 3; paragraphs 18-22]
Regarding claim 8, Figure 2 of Hitachi discloses wherein a timing from detection of the start of the on/off operation of the power semiconductor element to increase or decrease of the gate drive current is delayed by a predetermined time [Figure 3; paragraphs 18-22].
Regarding claim 9, Figure 2 of Hitachi discloses wherein the gate driving method is either a constant current drive system of performing gate driving with a constant current or a constant voltage drive system of generating a gate drive current with a drive voltage and a resistor [Figure 3; paragraphs 18-22].
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) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi (JP-H06-291631).
Regarding claim 2, Figure 2 of Hitachi does not explicitly disclose wherein the gate drive circuit has capacitive coupling that detects an output voltage of the power semiconductor element.
However, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit of Hitachi by using a capacitive coupling to detect an output voltage as a matter of simple design-choice, since it was well-known in the art to use capacitors to filter signals and would have been a matter of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Figure 2 of Hitachi does not explicitly disclose wherein a change in the voltage between the drain terminal and the source terminal of the power semiconductor element is detected by using capacitive coupling.
However, it would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit of Hitachi by using a capacitive coupling to detect an output voltage as a matter of simple design-choice, since it was well-known in the art to use capacitors to filter signals and would have been a matter of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tomi S Skibinski whose telephone number is (571)270-7581. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 10am - 8pm.
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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/TOMI SKIBINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842