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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/27/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The non-patent literature document has not been considered, because while an English translation of the search report is provided as a statement of relevance for the search report, no such translation or other statement in English has been provided for the written opinion. As such, this document has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 15-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claims 1 and 29,
The phrase “short circuit determining circuitry to determine, based on the first current value and second current values referred to a primary side, whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings, the second current values referred to the primary side being calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings, wherein when the short circuit determining circuitry determines that a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings, the short circuit determining circuitry determines, based on the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, whether a short circuit occurs in each of the plurality of secondary windings “ in the last two paragraphs of Claim 1 and the similar method step version in the last two paragraphs of Claim 29 lacks proper written description and introduces new matter.
1) At issue here is that the only disclosed formula for the above embodiment is found in paragraph [0060]. Paragraph [0059] explains that the currents Is1 and Is2 are indications of the current flowing the respective secondary windings 22 and 23, Ns1 is the number of turns of secondary winding 22, Ns2 is the number of turns of secondary winding 23, and the use of the first current value Ip, to calculate a difference. As explained in paragraph [0034], the first current value is the actual value of current flowing in the primary winding. As such, each of the values, as best understood and disclosed by applicant, represent the actual values of current or number of turns that exist. At no point does applicant use plural second current values referred to a primary side to determine a short. At no point does applicant reasonably explain what “second current values referred to a primary side” are or the manner in which they are calculated, nor does applicant reasonably explain the difference between second current values referred to a primary side as the actual second current values in the secondary windings.” The only formula used to identify a short circuit, as best understood, relies upon the actual current values in the primary and secondary windings, and uses them to obtain a difference that this then referenced to a threshold for the purpose of identifying a short circuit. As such, applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which applicant calculates a short using any values “referred” to any particular side that are different from the actual current values, or explain the manner in which the second current values referred to the primary side are calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings, as the only disclosed formula that does use the number of turns of the windings also uses the actual values of current determined from the windings, and does not, as best understood, use a current “referred” to any side.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements “short circuit determining circuitry to determine, based on the first current value and second current values referred to a primary side, whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings,” or the manner in which applicant implements “the second current values referred to the primary side, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings, wherein when the short circuit determining circuitry determines that a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings,” as no such formula or other explanation is provided to reasonably demonstrate the manner in which such a calculation or determination is performed, and thus such a person would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the claim feature.
2) The phrase “the short circuit determining circuitry determines, based on the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, whether a short circuit occurs in each of the plurality of secondary windings” in the last paragraph introduces new matter and lacks proper written description, in the combination. As explained above, the only formula that is disclosed with respect to the claimed embodiment is expression 2 in paragraph [0060], but this formula, as best understood, uses the actual currents from the windings. All three currents are claimed, but where the combination would reasonably require the use of more than three currents. While the noted claim feature is reciting that the determination is “based on” the secondary current values,” these values are already found in the expression 2. No other current values are reasonably disclosed to be used, and no current that is “referred to “ one side is found in this expression. As such, the combination of the above noted claim features is not reasonably originally disclosed, and further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognized that applicant had possession of the above noted claim features, as applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which applicant is implementing the claim features, specifically the use of any current that is “referred to” one side, such as the above second current values referred to the primary side.
That stated, applicant does not originally disclose, nor provide any explanation, as to the manner in which both calculated second current values and the actual values of current in the secondary windings are used to determine a short as claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements such a feature in light of the disclosure, and such a person would not reasonably recognize that applicant originally disclosed such a feature.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “short circuit determining circuitry to determine, for each of the plurality of secondary windings, based on the first current value and second current values referred to a primary side or a first current value referred to a secondary side and the second current values, whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings, the second current values referred to the primary side and the first current value referred to the secondary side being calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and a number of turns of each of the plurality of secondary windings” in the last paragraph lines lacks proper written description.
At issue here is that the only disclosed formula for the above embodiment is found in paragraph [0060]. Paragraph [0059] explains that the currents Is1 and Is2 are indications of the current flowing the respective secondary windings 22 and 23, Ns1 is the number of turns of secondary winding 22, Ns2 is the number of turns of secondary winding 23, and the use of the first current value Ip, to calculate a difference. As explained in paragraph [0034], the first current value is the actual value of current flowing in the primary winding. As such, each of the values, as best understood and disclosed by applicant, represent the actual values of current or number of turns that exist. At no point does applicant use plural second current values referred to a primary side or the combination of a first current value referred to a secondary side and second current values to determine a short. At no point does applicant reasonably explain what “second current values referred to a primary side” or “the first current value referred to the secondary side” are or the manner in which they are calculated, nor does applicant reasonably explain the difference between second current values referred to a primary side as the actual second current values in the secondary windings, and the difference between the first current value referred to the secondary side and the actual first current value in the primary winding. The only formula used to identify a short circuit, as best understood, relies upon the actual current values in the primary and secondary windings, and uses them to obtain a difference that this then referenced to a threshold for the purpose of identifying a short circuit. As such, applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which applicant calculates a short using any values “referred” to any particular side that are different from the actual current values, or explain the manner in which the second current values referred to the primary side or the first current value referred to the secondary side are calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings, as the only disclosed formula that does use the number of turns of the windings also uses the actual values of current determined from the windings, and does not, as best understood, use a current “referred” to any side.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements “short circuit determining circuitry to determine, for each of the plurality of secondary windings, based on the first current value and second current values referred to a primary side or a first current value referred to a secondary side and the second current values, whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings,” or the manner in which applicant implements “the second current values referred to the primary side or the first current value referred to the secondary side being calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings, wherein when the short circuit determining circuitry determines that a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings,” as no such formula or other explanation is provided to reasonably demonstrate the manner in which such a calculation or determination is performed, and thus such a person would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the claim feature.
As to Claim 19,
The phrase “the electronic apparatus comprising: the short circuit determining device according to claim 1 to determine whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” on the last two lines introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
1) Applicant does not originally disclose performing two or three distinct determinations of a short circuit in the claimed manner, where Claim 1 recites two distinct determinations, and instant Claim 19 recites another determination. To the extent that Claim 1 is intended to only recite one determination of a short circuit, the combination of the features of Claim 19 and that of Claim 1 still introduces new matter as two distinct determinations of such a short are still claimed, but where the original disclosure does not reasonably originally disclose such a combination.
2) The above determination of a short circuit lacks proper written description for the same reasons already explained in the above rejection of Claim 1. As such, for brevity, this rejection is not repeated and instead is incorporated herein.
As to Claim 20,
The phrase “the electronic apparatus comprising: the short circuit determining device according to claim 7 to determine whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” on the last two lines introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
1) Applicant does not originally disclose performing two or three distinct determinations of a short circuit in the claimed manner, where Claim 7 recites two distinct determinations, and instant Claim 20 recites another determination. To the extent that Claim 7 is intended to only recite one determination of a short circuit, the combination of the features of Claim 20 and that of Claim 7 still introduces new matter as two distinct determinations of such a short are still claimed, but where the original disclosure does not reasonably originally disclose such a combination.
2) The above determination of a short circuit lacks proper written description for the same reasons already explained in the above rejection of Claim 7. As such, for brevity, this rejection is not repeated and instead is incorporated herein.
As to Claim 23,
The phrase “the electronic apparatus comprising: the short circuit determining device according to claim 17 to determine whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” on the last two lines introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
1) Applicant does not originally disclose performing two or three distinct determinations of a short circuit in the claimed manner, where Claim 1 recites two distinct determinations, and instant Claim 23 recites another determination. To the extent that Claim 1 is intended to only recite one determination of a short circuit, the combination of the features of Claim 23 and that of Claim 1 still introduces new matter as two distinct determinations of such a short are still claimed, but where the original disclosure does not reasonably originally disclose such a combination.
2) The above determination of a short circuit lacks proper written description for the same reasons already explained in the above rejection of Claim 1. As such, for brevity, this rejection is not repeated and instead is incorporated herein.
As to Claim 24,
The phrase “the electronic apparatus comprising: the short circuit determining device according to claim 18 to determine whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” on the last two lines introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
1) Applicant does not originally disclose performing two or three distinct determinations of a short circuit in the claimed manner, where Claim 7 recites two distinct determinations, and instant Claim 24 recites another determination. To the extent that Claim 7 is intended to only recite one determination of a short circuit, the combination of the features of Claim 24 and that of Claim 7 still introduces new matter as two distinct determinations of such a short are still claimed, but where the original disclosure does not reasonably originally disclose such a combination.
2) The above determination of a short circuit lacks proper written description for the same reasons already explained in the above rejection of Claim 7. As such, for brevity, this rejection is not repeated and instead is incorporated herein.
As to Claims 2-3 and 15-28,
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 15-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for 1) “short circuit determining circuitry to determine, based on the first current value and second current values referred to a primary side, whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings, the second current values referred to the primary side being calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings, wherein when the short circuit determining circuitry determines that a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings, the short circuit determining circuitry determines, based on the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, whether a short circuit occurs in each of the plurality of secondary windings” in Claim 1 and the similar phrase in Claim 29; and 2) “short circuit determining circuitry to determine, for each of the plurality of secondary windings, based on the first current value and second current values referred to a primary side or a first current value referred to a secondary side and the second current values, whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings, the second current values referred to the primary side and the first current value referred to the secondary side being calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and a number of turns of each of the plurality of secondary windings” in the last paragraph of Claim 7. Specifically, the Examiner does not find any explanation as to how applicant is implementing the above 1) determination of a short circuit using a first current value and second current values referred to primary side or a first current value referred to a secondary side and the second current values, or 2) a calculation of the second current values referred to the primary side or the first current value referred to the secondary side calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings. This is a scope of enablement rejection because the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill to use the invention commensurate with the scope of the claims without undue experimentation.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue.” These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability or unpredictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction or guidance presented by invent tor;
(G) The existence or absence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation necessary.
See In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988);
MPEP §2164.01(a)
As to factor (A), the Examiner notes that the claims 1-3, 7, and 15-29 are unbounded. Applicant has not provided any explanation as to how applicant is implementing the determination of a short circuit using first or second current values that are “referred” as claimed above, or reasonably disclose how “the second current values referred to the primary side or the first current value referred to the secondary side being calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings” and as such claims 1-3, 7, and 15-29 would cover any and every way possible to accomplish the claimed feature.
As to factor (G), the Examiner notes that applicant has not provided sufficient working examples via the specification commensurate with the scope of the claims. Applicant does not provide any example of how is implementing “short circuit determining circuitry to determine, for each of the plurality of secondary windings, based on the first current value and second current values referred to a primary side or a first current value referred to a secondary side and the second current values, whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings, the second current values referred to the primary side and the first current value referred to the secondary side being calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and a number of turns of each of the plurality of secondary windings” or “the second current values referred to the primary side or the first current value referred to the secondary side being calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings” as claimed. The specification is silent as to how the second current values or the first current value are calculated, or how they are calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings. The specification is further silent as to how any referred values are then used to make a determination of a short circuit. Applicant does not provide any explanation, such as a formula, flow chart, or other reasonable explanation to demonstrate the manner in which these current values are calculated and used in any determination of a short circuit. While applicant does disclose an equation in paragraph [0060], this equation is for calculating a difference between actually obtained current values to find a difference value, and is not used for and cannot be used for calculating the current values as claimed. Therefore, the specification fails to disclose any suitable and sufficient working examples to perform the above claimed feature.
As to factor (H), the Examiner notes that the quantity of experimentation need is high. Applicant provides no examples or explanation as to how applicant is implementing the determination of a short circuit using “referred” values of current, or the second current values referred to the primary side or the first current value referred to the secondary side from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings as explained above. Applicant further does not provide any details of how applicant is calculating the second current values or first current value as claimed and then using them in a short circuit determination. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would have to independently identify how the second current values or first current value can be calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings, including identifying the needed relationships, what difference, if any such a calculation needs to be for each individual second current value or first current value, the type of second current values or first current value that needs to be calculated, and how these calculated “referred” values of current can be used in any short circuit determination, as necessary to perform or accomplish the claimed functions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have to independently figure out how to implement the calculation of the second current values or first current value from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings, and then independent identify how such calculated “referred” current values can be used to determine a short circuit as claimed.
In view of the forgoing, the Examiner finds that the unbounded modes of operation are directed to an invention for which no working examples have been provided commensurate with the scope of the claims. Based on the Wands factors (A), (G), and (H), the Examiner concludes that applicant's specification does not enable those skilled in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The Examiner notes that the claimed features encompass any and all structures and/or acts for achieving their results and operation, including those which were not what the applicant had invented and those which could be invented in the future. As such, claims 1-3, 7, and 15-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 (a) for lacking an enabling disclosure commensurate with the scope of the claims.
As to Claims 2, 3, and 15-28,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claims and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons
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 1-3, 7, and 15-29 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “the transformer transforming a voltage of AC power fed to the primary winding and outputting the AC power after voltage transformation from a plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” on lines 3-6 is indefinite. Apparatus claims are directed towards the apparatus itself and not the use thereof. Claiming that the transformer is actively “transforming” a voltage is indefinite, because it amounts of a method step of using the transformer, which, as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), is indefinite. This phrase is being interpreted to mean the transformer has an intended use of transforming, but does not actually and is not required to actually transform a voltage as claimed.
The phrase “short circuit determining circuitry to determine, based on the first current value and second current values referred to a primary side, whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings, the second current values referred to the primary side being calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings, wherein when the short circuit determining circuitry determines that a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings, the short circuit determining circuitry determines, based on the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, whether a short circuit occurs in each of the plurality of secondary windings” on the last two paragraphs is indefinite.
1) Applicant does not reasonably explain what the second current values referred to a primary side are or how such a feature should be interpreted. The original disclosure is completely silent as to what such a value is intended to represent, or how such a value is calculated to reasonable demonstrate the meaning of this value. At issue here is that the only disclosed formula for the above embodiment is found in paragraph [0060]. Paragraph [0059] explains that the currents Is1 and Is2 are indications of the current flowing the respective secondary windings 22 and 23, Ns1 is the number of turns of secondary winding 22, Ns2 is the number of turns of secondary winding 23, and the use of the first current value Ip, to calculate a difference. As explained in paragraph [0034], the first current value is the actual value of current flowing in the primary winding. As such, each of the values, as best understood and disclosed by applicant, represent the actual values of current or number of turns that exist. At no point does applicant reasonably explain what “second current values referred to a primary side” are or the manner in which they are calculated, nor does applicant reasonably explain the difference between second current values referred to a primary side as the actual second current values in the secondary windings. The only formula used to identify a short circuit, as best understood, relies upon the actual current values in the primary and secondary windings, and uses them to obtain a difference that this then referenced to a threshold for the purpose of identifying a short circuit. As such, applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which applicant calculates the second current values referred to the primary side from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings, as the only disclosed formula that does use the number of turns of the windings also uses the actual values of current determined from the windings, and does not, as best understood, use a current “referred” to any side. As such, the difference between the second current values and the actual second current values of the secondary windings themselves are unclear, and it is unclear how such second current values should be interpreted. For the purpose of compact prosecution, and in light of the disclosure, the Examiner is interpreting that the second current values referred to a primary side and any calculation thereof is the same as the obtained second current values from the secondary windings.
2) It is unclear if the short circuit determining circuitry is the device that has the ability to calculate the referred second current values, or if these values need only be obtained but could be obtained from some other device or process. Applicant does state that the short circuit determining circuitry “to determine, based on the first current value and second current values referred to a primary side, whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of second secondary windings,” but such a phrase only requires the circuitry to have the ability to make a determination of a short circuit. Applicant does later claim “the second current values referred to the primary side being calculated” from various values, but this only, at most, describes the manner in which the second current values are obtained, but it does not require the circuitry in the claim to perform this function. As such it is unclear whether the values are obtained by the claimed circuitry, or need only be present in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, and consistent with the above explanation from 1), the second current values referred to the primary side are being interpreted to have already been obtained, where the final product values are all that is required in the claim, regardless of the manner in which they are obtained, and that these second current values can be the same as the second current values obtained from the secondary windings.
3) The phrase “the short circuit determining circuitry determines” is indefinite. Apparatus claims are directed towards the apparatus itself and not the use thereof. Claiming that the short circuit determining circuitry actively “determines” is indefinite, because it amounts of a method step of using the short circuit determining circuitry, which, as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), is indefinite. This phrase is being interpreted to mean the short circuit determining circuitry has an intended use of determining, but does not actually and is not required to actually determine as claimed. This phrase is additionally indefinite because it is distinctly recite from the initially recited “short circuit determining circuit to determine,” where as best understood, both determination recitations refer to the same determination feature of the disclosure but are distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these distinctly recited determination claim features are therefore unclear.
4) The phrase “at least any of the plurality of secondary windings” recited above is unclear. The difference between reciting “in any of the plurality of secondary windings” in contrast with reciting in “at least any of the plurality of secondary windings” is unclear. Reciting “in any of the plurality of windings” means that if a short is detected in any of these windings, the short circuit determining circuit is able to detect such a short. However, adding “at least” in front of this phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what additional scope features are or are not included by adding such a phrase.
5) It is unclear what the phrase “second current values referred to a primary side” means in light of the disclosure. Specifically, it is unclear what scope the phrase “referred to a primary side” includes, and it is unclear how such a phrase should be interpreted in light of the disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose what being referred to a particular side means, and the difference between merely reciting that a current value is calculated as claimed, as opposed to calculating a current that is referred to a particular side, is therefore unclear.
As to Claim 2,
The phrase “the first current acquiring circuitry measures the first current value, the first current value being a value of current flowing in an electrical path between a power source and the primary winding, the power source feeding electric power to the transformer” on lines 1-4 is indefinite.
1) Apparatus claims are directed towards the apparatus itself and not the use thereof. Claiming that the first current acquiring circuitry actively “measures” the first current value is indefinite, because it amounts of a method step of using the first current acquiring circuitry, which, as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), is indefinite. This phrase is being interpreted to mean the first current acquiring circuitry has an intended use of measuring, but does not actually and is not required to actually measure first current value as claimed.
2) Claim 1 recites that the first current acquiring circuitry “acquires” the first current value, and applicant is now distinctly reciting the circuitry “measures” the first current value. As best understood, both recitations refer to the same features of the disclosure but are being distinctly recited. As such, the difference and relationship between the above measuring and the previously recited acquiring of the first current is unclear, in light of the disclosure. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting these features to be the same.
As to Claim 3,
The phrase “the second current acquiring circuitry measures the second current values, the second current values being values of current flowing in electrical paths between the plurality of secondary windings and corresponding electronic apparatuses electrically connected to the plurality of secondary windings” on lines 2-6 is indefinite.
1) Apparatus claims are directed towards the apparatus itself and not the use thereof. Claiming that the second current acquiring circuitry actively “measures” the second current values is indefinite, because it amounts of a method step of using the second current acquiring circuitry, which, as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), is indefinite. This phrase is being interpreted to mean the second current acquiring circuitry has an intended use of measuring, but does not actually and is not required to actually measure second current values as claimed.
2) Claim 1 recites that the second current acquiring circuitry “acquires” the second current values, and applicant is now distinctly reciting the circuitry “measures” the second current values. As best understood, both recitations refer to the same features of the disclosure but are being distinctly recited. As such, the difference and relationship between the above measuring and the previously recited acquiring of the second current is unclear, in light of the disclosure. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting these features to be the same.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “the transformer transforming a voltage of AC power fed to the primary winding and outputting the AC power after voltage transformation from a plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” on lines 2-4 is indefinite. Apparatus claims are directed towards the apparatus itself and not the use thereof. Claiming that the transformer is actively “transforming” a voltage is indefinite, because it amounts of a method step of using the transformer, which, as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), is indefinite. This phrase is being interpreted to mean the transformer has an intended use of transforming, but does not actually and is not required to actually transform a voltage as claimed.
The phrase “short circuit determining circuitry to determine, for each of the plurality of secondary windings, based on the first current value and second current values referred to a primary side or a first current value referred to a secondary side and the second current values, whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings, the second current values referred to the primary side being calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings, wherein when the short circuit determining circuitry determines that a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings” on the last two paragraphs is indefinite.
1) Applicant does not reasonably explain what the second current values referred to a primary side or the first current value referred to a secondary side are or how such a feature should be interpreted. The original disclosure is completely silent as to what these values are intended to represent, or how such values are calculated to reasonable demonstrate the meaning of these values. At issue here is that the only disclosed formula for the above embodiment is found in paragraph [0060]. Paragraph [0059] explains that the currents Is1 and Is2 are indications of the current flowing the respective secondary windings 22 and 23, Ns1 is the number of turns of secondary winding 22, Ns2 is the number of turns of secondary winding 23, and the use of the first current value Ip, to calculate a difference. As explained in paragraph [0034], the first current value is the actual value of current flowing in the primary winding. As such, each of the values, as best understood and disclosed by applicant, represent the actual values of current or number of turns that exist. At no point does applicant reasonably explain what “second current values referred to a primary side” or “a first current value referred to a secondary side” are or the manner in which they are calculated, nor does applicant reasonably explain the difference between second current values referred to a primary side or the actual second current values in the secondary windings, or the difference between the first current value referred to a secondary side and the actual first current value in the primary winding. The only formula used to identify a short circuit, as best understood, relies upon the actual current values in the primary and secondary windings, and uses them to obtain a difference that this then referenced to a threshold for the purpose of identifying a short circuit. As such, applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which applicant calculates the second current values referred to the primary side or the first current value referred to the secondary side from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings, as the only disclosed formula that does use the number of turns of the windings also uses the actual values of current determined from the windings, and does not, as best understood, use a current “referred” to any side. As such, the difference between the referred second current values and the actual second current values of the secondary windings themselves and the difference between the referred first current value and the actual first current value in the winding itself are unclear, and it is unclear how such second or first current values should be interpreted. For the purpose of compact prosecution, and in light of the disclosure, the Examiner is interpreting that the referred second and first current values and any calculation thereof is the same as the obtained second or first current values from the respective primary or secondary windings.
2) It is unclear if the short circuit determining circuitry is the device that has the ability to calculate the referred first or second current values, or if these values need only be obtained but could be obtained from some other device or process. Applicant does state that the short circuit determining circuitry “to determine … based on the first current value and second current values referred to a primary side or a first current value referred to a secondary side and the second current values, whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of second secondary windings,” but such a phrase only requires the circuitry to have the ability to make a determination of a short circuit. Applicant does later claim the referred first or second current values as “being calculated” from various values, but this only, at most, describes the manner in which the referred first or second current values are obtained, but it does not require the circuitry in the claim to perform this function. As such it is unclear whether the values are obtained by the claimed circuitry, or need only be present in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, and consistent with the above explanation from 1), the referred first or second current values to have already been obtained, where the final product values are all that is required in the claim, regardless of the manner in which they are obtained, and that 2) these first or second current values can be the same as the respective first or second current values obtained from the respective primary or secondary windings.
3) The phrase “the second current values” on line 4 of the last paragraph is indefinite. Applicant previously recites second current values that are acquired by the second current acquiring circuitry, and recites second current values that are referred to a primary side. The above phrase can reasonably refer to either of these features, thus rendering the phrase indefinite as it is unclear which of these prior recitation is being referenced.
4) The phrase “at least any of the plurality of secondary windings” recited above is unclear. The difference between reciting “in any of the plurality of secondary windings” in contrast with reciting in “at least any of the plurality of secondary windings” is unclear. Reciting “in any of the plurality of windings” means that if a short is detected in any of these windings, the short circuit determining circuit is able to detect such a short. However, adding “at least” in front of this phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what additional scope features are or are not included by adding such a phrase.
5) It is unclear what the phrase “second current values referred to a primary side” or “first current value referred to a secondary side” means in light of the disclosure. Specifically, it is unclear what scope the phrases “referred to a primary side” or “referred to a secondary side” includes, and it is unclear how such a phrase should be interpreted in light of the disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose what being referred to a particular side means, and the difference between merely reciting that a current value is calculated as claimed, as opposed to calculating a current that is referred to a particular side, is therefore unclear.
As to Claim 15,
The phrase “the first current acquiring circuitry measures the first current value, the first current value being a value of current flowing in an electrical path between a power source and the primary winding, the power source feeding electric power to the transformer” on lines 1-4 is indefinite.
1) At issue here is that more than one first current value was previously recited in Claim 7, in that a first current value was acquired from the first current acquiring circuitry, and a referred first current value was also recited distinctly in Claim 7. It is unclear which of these first current values this phrase is referencing, thus rending the claim indefinite.
2) The phrase “the power source feeding electric power to the primary winding of the transformer” is indefinite. Claiming that the power source is actively “feeding” is indefinite, because it amounts of a method step of using the power source, which, as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), is indefinite. This phrase is being interpreted to mean the power source has an intended use of feeding, but does not actually and is not required to actually feed as claimed. This phrase is additionally indefinite because it is unclear if the “power source” is positively recited in the claim. As best understood, the power source itself is not part of the short circuit determining device, but where the claims are expressly directed towards what this short circuit determining device comprises. As such, it is unclear if this feature is or is not positively recited.
As to Claim 16,
The phrase “the second current acquiring circuitry measures the second current values, the second current values being values of current flowing in electrical paths between the plurality of secondary windings and corresponding electronic apparatuses electrically connected to the plurality of secondary windings” on lines 1-5 is indefinite. At issue here is that more than one second current values recitation was previously recited in Claim 7, in that second current values were acquired from the second current acquiring circuitry, and referred second current values were also recited distinctly in Claim 7. It is unclear which of these second current values this phrase is referencing, thus rending the claim indefinite.
As to Claims 17 and 18,
The phrase “circuit protecting circuitry to electrically disconnect the primary winding from a power source when the short circuit determining circuitry determines that a short circuit occurs, the power source feeding electric power to the primary winding of the transformer” on lines 2-4 is indefinite.
1) The phrase “the short circuit determining circuitry determines” is indefinite. Apparatus claims are directed towards the apparatus itself and not the use thereof. Claiming that the short circuit determining circuitry actively “determines” is indefinite, because it amounts of a method step of using the short circuit determining circuitry, which, as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), is indefinite. This phrase is being interpreted to mean the short circuit determining circuitry has an intended use of determining, but does not actually and is not required to actually determine as claimed. This phrase is additionally indefinite because it is distinctly recite from the initially recited “short circuit determining circuit to determine” and “the short circuit determining circuitry determines” already recited in Claim 1 and where, as best understood, all determination recitations refer to the same determination feature of the disclosure but are distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these distinctly recited determination claim features are therefore unclear.
2) The phrase “the power source feeding electric power to the primary winding of the transformer” is indefinite. Claiming that the power source is actively “feeding” is indefinite, because it amounts of a method step of using the power source, which, as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), is indefinite. This phrase is being interpreted to mean the power source has an intended use of feeding, but does not actually and is not required to actually feed as claimed. This phrase is additionally indefinite because it is unclear if the “power source” is positively recited in the claim. As best understood, the power source itself is not part of the short circuit determining device, but where the claims are expressly directed towards what this short circuit determining device comprises. As such, it is unclear if this feature is or is not positively recited.
As to Claim 19,
The phrase “An electronic apparatus electrically connected to any of a plurality of secondary windings of a transformer, the transformer transforming a voltage of AC power fed to a primary winding of the transformer and outputting the AC power after voltage transformation from the plurality of secondary windings, the electronic apparatus comprising: the short circuit determining device according to claim 1 to determine whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
1) This claim is indefinite because it depends from Claim 1, and thus incorporates all of the features already recited in Claim 1. However, this claim reintroduces many of the same features, such as the transformer, plurality of secondary windings, and a short circuit, but where all of these features have already been recited in Claim 1. As best understood, these features are the same as those already recited in Claim 1 but are being distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these features and those already recited in Claim 1 are therefore unclear.
2) The second issue is that it is unclear what new limitations are being introduced in Claim 19. All of the same features recited in the body of this claim were already recited in Claim 1, and thus the scope difference between Claims 1 and 19 are therefore unclear.
3) The phrase “the short circuit determining device according to claim 1 to determine whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” is indefinite, because Claim 1 already recites an intended use of the short circuit determination device to determine a short in any of the plurality of secondary windings as claimed. The difference and relationship between these distinct recitations are therefore unclear.
4) The phrase “the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” is indefinite, because applicant has twice recited this phrase, once in Claim 1, and again in Claim 19 in a distinct manner. It is therefore unclear what plurality of secondary windings this phrase is referencing.
5) The phrase “at least any of the plurality of secondary windings” recited above is unclear. The difference between reciting “in any of the plurality of secondary windings” in contrast with reciting in “at least any of the plurality of secondary windings” is unclear. Reciting “in any of the plurality of windings” means that if a short is detected in any of these windings, the short circuit determining circuit is able to detect such a short. However, adding “at least” in front of this phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what additional scope features are or are not included by adding such a phrase.
6) The phrase “the short circuit determining circuitry to determine” is indefinite. This phrase is indefinite because it is distinctly recite from the initially recited “short circuit determining circuit to determine” from Claim 1, but where, as best understood, both determination recitations refer to the same determination feature of the disclosure but are distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these distinctly recited determination claim features are therefore unclear.
7) The phrase “the transformer transforming a voltage of AC power fed to the primary winding and outputting the AC power after voltage transformation from a plurality of secondary windings” is indefinite. Apparatus claims are directed towards the apparatus itself and not the use thereof. Claiming that the transformer is actively “transforming” a voltage is indefinite, because it amounts of a method step of using the transformer, which, as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), is indefinite. This phrase is being interpreted to mean the transformer has an intended use of transforming, but does not actually and is not required to actually transform a voltage as claimed.
As to Claim 20,
The phrase “An electronic apparatus electrically connected to any of a plurality of secondary windings of a transformer, the transformer transforming a voltage of AC power fed to a primary winding of the transformer and outputting the AC power after voltage transformation from the plurality of secondary windings, the electronic apparatus comprising: the short circuit determining device according to claim 7 to determine whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
1) This claim is indefinite because it depends from Claim 7, and thus incorporates all of the features already recited in Claim 7. However, this claim reintroduces many of the same features, such as the transformer, plurality of secondary windings, and a short circuit, but where all of these features have already been recited in Claim 7. As best understood, these features are the same as those already recited in Claim 7 but are being distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these features and those already recited in Claim 7 are therefore unclear.
2) The second issue is that it is unclear what new limitations are being introduced in Claim 20. All of the same features recited in the body of this claim were already recited in Claim 7, and thus the scope difference between Claims 7 and 20 are therefore unclear.
3) The phrase “the short circuit determining device according to claim 7 to determine whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” is indefinite, because Claim 7 already recites an intended use of the short circuit determination device to determine a short in any of the plurality of secondary windings as claimed. The difference and relationship between these distinct recitations are therefore unclear.
4) The phrase “the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” is indefinite, because applicant has twice recited this phrase, once in Claim 7, and again in Claim 20 in a distinct manner. It is therefore unclear what plurality of secondary windings this phrase is referencing.
5) The phrase “at least any of the plurality of secondary windings” recited above is unclear. The difference between reciting “in any of the plurality of secondary windings” in contrast with reciting in “at least any of the plurality of secondary windings” is unclear. Reciting “in any of the plurality of windings” means that if a short is detected in any of these windings, the short circuit determining circuit is able to detect such a short. However, adding “at least” in front of this phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what additional scope features are or are not included by adding such a phrase.
6) The phrase “the short circuit determining circuitry to determine” is indefinite. This phrase is indefinite because it is distinctly recite from the initially recited “short circuit determining circuit to determine” from Claim 7, but where, as best understood, both determination recitations refer to the same determination feature of the disclosure but are distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these distinctly recited determination claim features are therefore unclear.
7) The phrase “the transformer transforming a voltage of AC power fed to the primary winding and outputting the AC power after voltage transformation from a plurality of secondary windings” is indefinite. Apparatus claims are directed towards the apparatus itself and not the use thereof. Claiming that the transformer is actively “transforming” a voltage is indefinite, because it amounts of a method step of using the transformer, which, as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), is indefinite. This phrase is being interpreted to mean the transformer has an intended use of transforming, but does not actually and is not required to actually transform a voltage as claimed.
As to Claims 21 and 22,
The phrase “circuit protecting circuitry to electrically disconnect the primary winding from a power source when the short circuit determining circuitry determines that a short circuit occurs, the power source feeding electric power to the primary winding of the transformer” on lines 2-4 is indefinite.
1) The phrase “the short circuit determining circuitry determines” is indefinite. Apparatus claims are directed towards the apparatus itself and not the use thereof. Claiming that the short circuit determining circuitry actively “determines” is indefinite, because it amounts of a method step of using the short circuit determining circuitry, which, as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), is indefinite. This phrase is being interpreted to mean the short circuit determining circuitry has an intended use of determining, but does not actually and is not required to actually determine as claimed. This phrase is additionally indefinite because it is distinctly recite from the initially recited “short circuit determining circuit to determine” and “the short circuit determining circuitry determines” already recited in Claim 1 and where, as best understood, all determination recitations refer to the same determination feature of the disclosure but are distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these distinctly recited determination claim features are therefore unclear.
2) The phrase “the power source feeding electric power to the primary winding of the transformer” is indefinite. Claiming that the power source is actively “feeding” is indefinite, because it amounts of a method step of using the power source, which, as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), is indefinite. This phrase is being interpreted to mean the power source has an intended use of feeding, but does not actually and is not required to actually feed as claimed. This phrase is additionally indefinite because it is unclear if the “power source” is positively recited in the claim. As best understood, the power source itself is not part of the short circuit determining device, but where the claims are expressly directed towards what this short circuit determining device comprises. As such, it is unclear if this feature is or is not positively recited.
As to Claim 23,
The phrase “An electronic apparatus electrically connected to any of a plurality of secondary windings of a transformer, the transformer transforming a voltage of AC power fed to a primary winding of the transformer and outputting the AC power after voltage transformation from the plurality of secondary windings, the electronic apparatus comprising: the short circuit determining device according to claim 17 to determine whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
1) This claim is indefinite because it depends from Claim 1, and thus incorporates all of the features already recited in Claim 1. However, this claim reintroduces many of the same features, such as the transformer, plurality of secondary windings, and a short circuit, but where all of these features have already been recited in Claim 1. As best understood, these features are the same as those already recited in Claim 1 but are being distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these features and those already recited in Claim 1 are therefore unclear.
2) The second issue is that it is unclear what new limitations are being introduced in Claim 23. All of the same features recited in the body of this claim were already recited in Claim 1, and thus the scope difference between Claims 1 and 23 are therefore unclear.
3) The phrase “the short circuit determining device according to claim 1 to determine whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” is indefinite, because Claim 1 already recites an intended use of the short circuit determination device to determine a short in any of the plurality of secondary windings as claimed. The difference and relationship between these distinct recitations are therefore unclear.
4) The phrase “the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” is indefinite, because applicant has twice recited this phrase, once in Claim 1, and again in Claim 23 in a distinct manner. It is therefore unclear what plurality of secondary windings this phrase is referencing.
5) The phrase “at least any of the plurality of secondary windings” recited above is unclear. The difference between reciting “in any of the plurality of secondary windings” in contrast with reciting in “at least any of the plurality of secondary windings” is unclear. Reciting “in any of the plurality of windings” means that if a short is detected in any of these windings, the short circuit determining circuit is able to detect such a short. However, adding “at least” in front of this phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what additional scope features are or are not included by adding such a phrase.
6) The phrase “the short circuit determining circuitry to determine” is indefinite. This phrase is indefinite because it is distinctly recite from the initially recited “short circuit determining circuit to determine” from Claim 1, but where, as best understood, both determination recitations refer to the same determination feature of the disclosure but are distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these distinctly recited determination claim features are therefore unclear.
7) The phrase “the transformer transforming a voltage of AC power fed to the primary winding and outputting the AC power after voltage transformation from a plurality of secondary windings” is indefinite. Apparatus claims are directed towards the apparatus itself and not the use thereof. Claiming that the transformer is actively “transforming” a voltage is indefinite, because it amounts of a method step of using the transformer, which, as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), is indefinite. This phrase is being interpreted to mean the transformer has an intended use of transforming, but does not actually and is not required to actually transform a voltage as claimed.
As to Claim 24,
The phrase “An electronic apparatus electrically connected to any of a plurality of secondary windings of a transformer, the transformer transforming a voltage of AC power fed to a primary winding of the transformer and outputting the AC power after voltage transformation from the plurality of secondary windings, the electronic apparatus comprising: the short circuit determining device according to claim 18 to determine whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
1) This claim is indefinite because it depends from Claim 7, and thus incorporates all of the features already recited in Claim 7. However, this claim reintroduces many of the same features, such as the transformer, plurality of secondary windings, and a short circuit, but where all of these features have already been recited in Claim 7. As best understood, these features are the same as those already recited in Claim 7 but are being distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these features and those already recited in Claim 7 are therefore unclear.
2) The second issue is that it is unclear what new limitations are being introduced in Claim 20. All of the same features recited in the body of this claim were already recited in Claim 7, and thus the scope difference between Claims 7 and 20 are therefore unclear.
3) The phrase “the short circuit determining device according to claim 7 to determine whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” is indefinite, because Claim 7 already recites an intended use of the short circuit determination device to determine a short in any of the plurality of secondary windings as claimed. The difference and relationship between these distinct recitations are therefore unclear.
4) The phrase “the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” is indefinite, because applicant has twice recited this phrase, once in Claim 7, and again in Claim 20 in a distinct manner. It is therefore unclear what plurality of secondary windings this phrase is referencing.
5) The phrase “at least any of the plurality of secondary windings” recited above is unclear. The difference between reciting “in any of the plurality of secondary windings” in contrast with reciting in “at least any of the plurality of secondary windings” is unclear. Reciting “in any of the plurality of windings” means that if a short is detected in any of these windings, the short circuit determining circuit is able to detect such a short. However, adding “at least” in front of this phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what additional scope features are or are not included by adding such a phrase.
6) The phrase “the short circuit determining circuitry to determine” is indefinite. This phrase is indefinite because it is distinctly recite from the initially recited “short circuit determining circuit to determine” from Claim 7, but where, as best understood, both determination recitations refer to the same determination feature of the disclosure but are distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these distinctly recited determination claim features are therefore unclear.
7) The phrase “the transformer transforming a voltage of AC power fed to the primary winding and outputting the AC power after voltage transformation from a plurality of secondary windings” is indefinite. Apparatus claims are directed towards the apparatus itself and not the use thereof. Claiming that the transformer is actively “transforming” a voltage is indefinite, because it amounts of a method step of using the transformer, which, as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), is indefinite. This phrase is being interpreted to mean the transformer has an intended use of transforming, but does not actually and is not required to actually transform a voltage as claimed.
As to Claims 25 and 26,
The phrases “the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer” and “the AC power output from the connected one of the plurality of secondary windings” on lines 2-4 is indefinite.
A plurality of secondary windings and a transformer were previously recited more than once, in that they were initially recited in Claims 1 and 7 and 19 and 20, and it is unclear which secondary windings and which transformer the above phrase is referencing.
As to Claims 27 and 28,
The phrase “the circuit controlling circuitry stops the power conversion circuit, when the short circuit determining circuitry determines that a short circuit occurs” on lines 3-4 is indefinite.
Applicant is actively claiming that the above circuity “stops” the power conversion circuit, and that the short circuit determining circuitry “determines,” in the above phrase, but where such features are method steps of stopping and determining. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), it is indefinite to actively reciting the use of an apparatus inside an apparatus claim, and these features are therefore indefinite.
As to Claim 29,
The phrase “determining, based on the first current value and second current values referred to a primary side, whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings, the second current values referred to the primary side being calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings, wherein when the short circuit determining circuitry determines that a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings, and, upon determining that a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings, determining, based on the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, whether a short circuit occurs in each of the plurality of secondary windings” on the last two paragraphs is indefinite.
1) Applicant does not reasonably explain what the second current values referred to a primary side are or how such a feature should be interpreted. The original disclosure is completely silent as to what such a value is intended to represent, or how such a value is calculated to reasonable demonstrate the meaning of this value. At issue here is that the only disclosed formula for the above embodiment is found in paragraph [0060]. Paragraph [0059] explains that the currents Is1 and Is2 are indications of the current flowing the respective secondary windings 22 and 23, Ns1 is the number of turns of secondary winding 22, Ns2 is the number of turns of secondary winding 23, and the use of the first current value Ip, to calculate a difference. As explained in paragraph [0034], the first current value is the actual value of current flowing in the primary winding. As such, each of the values, as best understood and disclosed by applicant, represent the actual values of current or number of turns that exist. At no point does applicant reasonably explain what “second current values referred to a primary side” are or the manner in which they are calculated, nor does applicant reasonably explain the difference between second current values referred to a primary side as the actual second current values in the secondary windings. The only formula used to identify a short circuit, as best understood, relies upon the actual current values in the primary and secondary windings, and uses them to obtain a difference that this then referenced to a threshold for the purpose of identifying a short circuit. As such, applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which applicant calculates the second current values referred to the primary side from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings, as the only disclosed formula that does use the number of turns of the windings also uses the actual values of current determined from the windings, and does not, as best understood, use a current “referred” to any side. As such, the difference between the second current values and the actual second current values of the secondary windings themselves are unclear, and it is unclear how such second current values should be interpreted. For the purpose of compact prosecution, and in light of the disclosure, the Examiner is interpreting that the second current values referred to a primary side and any calculation thereof is the same as the obtained second current values from the secondary windings.
2) Applicant claims “the second current values referred to the primary side being calculated,” but where it is unclear if such a calculation is or is not required in the claim. Method claims are directed towards the actual use of the device, and not an intended use. By reciting that the second current values “being calculated,” it is unclear if these values are required to actively be calculated in the method claim, or could be calculated outside the method, and where this phrase is merely describing where these values come from. For the purpose of compact prosecution, and consistent with the above explanation from 1), the second current values referred to the primary side are being interpreted to have already been obtained, where the final product values are all that is required in the claim, regardless of the manner in which they are obtained, and that these second current values can be the same as the second current values obtained from the secondary windings.
4) The phrase “at least any of the plurality of secondary windings” recited above is unclear. The difference between reciting “in any of the plurality of secondary windings” in contrast with reciting in “at least any of the plurality of secondary windings” is unclear. Reciting “in any of the plurality of windings” means that if a short is detected in any of these windings, the short circuit determining circuit is able to detect such a short. However, adding “at least” in front of this phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what additional scope features are or are not included by adding such a phrase.
5) It is unclear what the phrase “second current values referred to a primary side” means in light of the disclosure. Specifically, it is unclear what scope the phrase “referred to a primary side” includes, and it is unclear how such a phrase should be interpreted in light of the disclosure. The original disclosure does not reasonably disclose what being referred to a particular side means, and the difference between merely reciting that a current value is calculated as claimed, as opposed to calculating a current that is referred to a particular side, is therefore unclear.
As to Claims 2, 3, and 15-28,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claims and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 15-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimura et al. (Shimura) (US 2018/0038721).
As to Claims 1 and 29,
Shimura discloses A short circuit determining device, comprising: first current acquiring circuitry (R315,301) to acquire a first current value (Paragraph [0023]), the first current value being a value of current flowing into a primary winding (20a) of a transformer (30) (Paragraph [0023]), (Figure 1), the transformer transforming a voltage of AC power fed to the primary winding and outputting the AC power after voltage transformation from a plurality of secondary windings (top and bottom 20b) of the transformer (Paragraph [0015]-[0017] / note the point of the rectifier as disclosed is to actually or at least be able to rectify AC power), the plurality secondary windings each having the same number of turns (Figure 1); second current acquiring circuitry (407,408) to acquire second current values (Paragraph [0042] / note that acquiring voltage values must include current values as they are directly related and only differ based on a resistance), the second current values being values of current flowing from the plurality of secondary windings (Paragraph [0042]), (Figure 1); and short circuit determining circuitry (405) to determine, for each of the plurality of secondar windings, based on the first current value and second current values referred to a primary side, whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings (Paragraph [0047]), the second current values referred to the primary side being calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and numbers of turns of the plurality of secondary windings (Paragraph [0044] / note the circuit 408 calculates voltage/current values that must be based, at least in part, on the second current values of the secondary windings, and the number of turns of the windings, as any value computed or obtained is influenced by each of these features), wherein when the short circuit determining circuitry determines that a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings, the short circuit determining circuitry determines, based on the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, whether a short circuit occurs in each of the plurality of secondary windings (Paragraphs [0043],[0044],[0047]).
As to Claim 2,
Shimura discloses the first current acquiring circuitry measures the first current value, the first current value being a value of current flowing in an electrical path between a power source and the primary winding, the power source feeding electric power to the transformer (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0023]).
As to Claim 3,
Shimura discloses the second current acquiring circuitry measures the second current values, the second current values being values of current flowing in electrical paths between the plurality of secondary windings and corresponding electronic apparatuses electrically connected to the plurality of secondary windings (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0042]).
As to Claim 7,
Shimura discloses A short circuit determining device, comprising: first current acquiring circuitry (R315,301) to acquire a first current value (Paragraph [0023]), the first current value being a value of current flowing into a primary winding (20a) of a transformer (30) (Paragraph [0023]), (Figure 1), the transformer transforming a voltage of AC power fed to the primary winding and outputting the AC power after voltage transformation from a plurality of secondary windings (top and bottom 20b) of the transformer (Paragraph [0015]-[0017] / note the point of the rectifier as disclosed is to actually or at least be able to rectify AC power), the plurality secondary windings each having the same number of turns (Figure 1); second current acquiring circuitry (407,408) to acquire second current values (Paragraph [0042] / note that acquiring voltage values must include current values as they are directly related and only differ based on a resistance), the second current values being values of current flowing from the plurality of secondary windings (Paragraph [0042]), (Figure 1); and short circuit determining circuitry (405) to determine, for each of the plurality of secondary windings, based on the first current value and second current values referred to a primary side, or a first current value referred to a secondary side and the second current values whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings (Paragraph [0047]), the second current values referred to the primary side and the first current value referred to the secondary side being calculated from the first current value, the second current values of the plurality of secondary windings, a number of turns of the primary winding, and a number of turns of each of the plurality of secondary windings (Paragraph [0044] / note the circuit 408 calculates voltage/current values that must be based, at least in part, on the second current values of the secondary windings, and the number of turns of the windings, as any value computed or obtained is influenced by each of these features) (Paragraphs [0043],[0044],[0047]).
As to Claim 15,
Shimura discloses the first current acquiring circuitry measures the first current value, the first current value being a value of current flowing in an electrical path between a power source and the primary winding, the power source feeding electric power to the transformer (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0023]).
As to Claim 16,
Shimura discloses the second current acquiring circuitry measures the second current values, the second current values being values of current flowing in electrical paths between the plurality of secondary windings and corresponding electronic apparatuses electrically connected to the plurality of secondary windings (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0042]).
As to Claims 17 and 18,
Shimura discloses circuit protecting circuitry (301) to electrically disconnect the primary winding from a power source when the short circuit determining circuitry determines that a short circuit occurs, the power source feeding electric power to the primary winding of the transformer (Paragraphs [0023],[0024]) / note CS signal performs this function).
As to Claims 19, 20, 23, and 24,
Shimura discloses An electronic apparatus electrically connected to any of a plurality of secondary windings (top and bottom windings 20b) of a transformer (30), the transformer transforming a voltage of AC power fed to a primary winding of the transformer and outputting the AC power after voltage transformation from the plurality of secondary windings (Paragraph [0015]-[0017] / note the point of the rectifier as disclosed is to actually or at least be able to rectify AC power), the electronic apparatus comprising: the short circuit determining device according to claims 1 or 7 or 17 or 18 to determine whether a short circuit occurs in at least any of the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer (Paragraphs [0043],[0044],[0047]).
As to Claims 21 and 22,
Shimura discloses circuit protecting circuitry (301) to electrically disconnect the primary winding from a power source when the short circuit determining circuitry determines that a short circuit occurs, the power source feeding electric power to the primary winding of the transformer (Paragraphs [0023],[0024]) / note CS signal performs this function).
As to Claims 25 and 26,
Shimura discloses a power conversion circuit electrically connected to any of the plurality of secondary windings of the transformer, the power conversion circuit being configured to convert the AC power output from the connected one of the plurality of secondary windings into electric power to be fed to a load device (1c) , and output the converted electric power to the load device (Paragraphs [0035],[0036] / note converter, and note that the signal output from the secondary windings are representative of a converted AC power).
As to Claims 27 and 28,
Shimura discloses: circuit controlling circuitry (407,408, 405, 406,410) configured to control the power conversion circuit, wherein the circuit controlling circuitry stops the power conversion circuit, when the short circuit determining circuitry determines that a short circuit occurs (Paragraph [0034]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2022/0003809 to Jianjun et al. which discloses a sensor circuit diagnosis and including a determination of a short circuit using a primary and two secondary windings, and 2) US 2013/0326888 to Ura which discloses a short circuit detection process to detect a short circuit in the signals from resolver secondary coils.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights