DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2024 is considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the at least one control unit" in Line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9, recites the limitation "the initial envelope or updated envelope current" in Line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Eppensteiner et al. (US 11525858), hereinafter ‘Eppensteiner’.
Regarding Claim 1, Eppensteiner discloses a method for monitoring a circuit (Figs. 1 and 2) to provide a predictive maintenance (Abstract), the method comprising: measuring at least one parameter at least at one measurement position, the at least at one measurement position being on or in the circuit (Col. 8, Lines 24-31 positions P1 and P2 mounted in integrated circuit semiconductor material); acquiring the at least one parameter (Col. 8, Lines 24-31 acquires current system parameters, temperature, voltage, as well as signal propagation time determined by sensors; Fig. 3); calculating at least one actual value based on the at least one parameter; determining a deviation of the at least one actual value from a target value (Fig. 3; Col. 9, Lines 14-27 an applicable limit value for the signal propagation time at the respective position P1, P2 is determined by the central monitoring unit UW based on the current system parameter values determined at the respective position P1, P2, in particular based on the current temperature and voltage values; The determination of the determined applicable limit value for the signal propagation time at the respective position P1, P2 is performed such that a respective critical value for the signal propagation time at the respective position P1, P2 is not exceeded by the applicable limit value determined. That is, the applicable limit value is an, e.g., predefinable tolerance or guard interval below the respective critical value for the signal propagation time at the respective position P1, P2; analysis of applicable limit value and critical value are compared; Col. 3, Line 64-Col. 4, Line 14); analyzing the deviation (Col. 9, Lines 14-29); and outputting an analysis result based on the analysis (Col. 9, Lines 29-31 electronic device should or must be replaced because of error states occurring; Col. 3, Line 64-Col. 4, Line 14).
Regarding Claim 2, Eppensteiner further discloses wherein the circuit has at least one electronic tripping unit and/or at least one control unit (Fig. 1, BE device; Col. 8, Lines 12-21; Col. 8, Lines 48-52; Fig. 1, BE also has a central monitoring unit UW), wherein the at least one parameter comprises: a voltage and/or a current that characterizes at least one current path of the electronic tripping unit; a voltage and/or a current of the at least one control unit at an output of the control unit (Col. 3, Line 64-Col. 4, Line 14) and/or a temperature at least at one measurement position of the circuit at an input and/or output of the electronic tripping unit.
Regarding Claim 3, Eppensteiner further discloses wherein the at least one actual value has an actual resistance and the target value has a target resistance, and/or wherein the analysis of the deviation is carried out based on the deviation (Fig. 3; Col. 9, Lines 14-27 The determination of the determined applicable limit value for the signal propagation time at the respective position P1, P2 is performed such that a respective critical value for the signal propagation time at the respective position P1, P2 is not exceeded by the applicable limit value determined. That is, the applicable limit value is an, e.g., predefinable tolerance or guard interval below the respective critical value for the signal propagation time at the respective position P1, P2; Col. 11, Lines 14-22 comparison result of limit value exceeding or nor exceeding, wherein each monitoring unit UE1, UE2, UE3 comprises sensors T1, U1, LZ1 per Col. 10, lines 26-34; further in Col. 6, Lines 9-19 determined values of temperature and voltage are used for determining applicable limit value resulting as a means of inferring the age of device and analysis of data by the monitoring unit) and/or on a measurement tolerance or a variable measurement tolerance.
Regarding Claim 4, Eppensteiner further discloses wherein a learning method including at least one of the following steps is carried out before the measuring or upon startup: measuring the at least one parameter at the at least one measurement position (Col. 8, Lines 23-31), the at least at one measurement position being located on or in the circuit (Col. 8, Lines 23-31); acquiring the at least one parameter; calculating at least one actual value based on the at least one parameter; and/or defining the target value and/or a measurement tolerance based on the actual value (Fig. 3, Col. 11, Lines 23-44).
Regarding Claim 5, Eppensteiner further discloses wherein the learning method includes an applying and/or subsequent measuring of at least one of the following applied parameters: a voltage and/or a current that characterizes at least one current path of the electronic tripping unit; a voltage and/or a current of the at least one control unit at an output of the control unit (Col. 9, Lines 14-19; Fig. 3; Col. 11, Lines 23-34); or a temperature at least at one measurement position of the circuit at the input and/or output of the electronic tripping unit, wherein at least one or a plurality of applied parameters are applied in and/or to the circuit (Fig. 1; Col. 11, Lines 23-34), and wherein a measuring is carried out subsequently and/or essentially at the same time in order to ascertain a plurality of actual values and to obtain, based thereon, a plurality of target values and/or measurement tolerances (Col. 9, Lines 4-13).
Regarding Claim 6, Eppensteiner further discloses wherein a spectrum analysis comprising an applying of a plurality of frequencies for voltage and/or current to at least one measurement position is carried out in a learning method, wherein the measuring, acquiring, calculating, and/or defining is carried out continuously in order to determine a plurality of target values (Col. 9, Lines 4-13 performed continuously and repeatedly) and/or measurement tolerances that are used to create an initial envelope curve.
Regarding Claim 7, Eppensteiner further discloses wherein the learning method is continued for a readjustment period, after an initial startup, during operation of the circuit in order to take into account a change occurring over time in target values and/or measurement tolerances during measuring, and, based thereon, to adjust the target values, the measurement tolerances, and/or an initial envelope curve in order to obtain updated target values, updated measurement tolerances, and/or an updated envelope curve (Col. 10 Lines 35-46).
Regarding Claim 8, Eppensteiner further discloses wherein the learning method is continued during operation of the circuit after an initial startup, via which updated target values, updated measurement tolerances, and/or an updated envelope curve are ascertained continuously, and wherein this takes place based on at least one of the following criteria: reception of at least one updated target value, updated measurement tolerance, and/or updated envelope curve through a data connection; or definition of an updated target value, updated measurement tolerance, and/or updated envelope curve based on the reception and/or via a user input (Col. 10 Lines 35-46; Col. 9, Lines 4-13 performed continuously and repeatedly).
Regarding Claim 9, Eppensteiner further discloses wherein the determining of a deviation comprises: calculating a difference between at least one actual value and a target value and/or updated target value; and comparing between the initial envelope curve or updated envelope curve and a latest envelope curve, wherein the difference is calculated between the initial envelope curve or updated envelope curve and the latest envelope curve (Col. 9, Lines 42-Col. 10, Line 11).
Regarding Claim 10, Eppensteiner further discloses wherein the analysis ascertains whether a deviation lies within the measurement tolerance and/or updated measurement tolerance and is permissible or is impermissible, and/or wherein the analysis based on the deviation includes a determination of the cause of the deviation, and/or wherein the output of the analysis result to a user takes place, wherein the analysis result includes a summary of the analysis, a classification of the analysis, and/or a recommended action (Col. 9, Line 62-Col. 10, Line 11 comparison of value and determines if value exceeds a limit value; As a result of the indication, there can be a suitable reaction at the superordinate system level GS, e.g., via alarm signals, by taking appropriate action, etc. For example, the electronic device BE or the corresponding system component can be replaced or maintenance of the overall system GS can be initiated).
Regarding Claim 11, Eppensteiner further discloses a computing unit comprising a processor for carrying out the method according to claim 1 (Col. 8, Lines 48-59).
Regarding Claim 12, Eppensteiner further discloses a measuring device to measure a control of a circuit, wherein the measuring device is configured to carry out an essentially synchronous measurement of the at least one parameter and to implement the method according to claim 1 (Col. 9, Lines 4-13 performed continuously and repeatedly).
Regarding Claims 13-15, Eppensteiner further discloses a computer program product comprising instructions that are adapted to be executed by a computing unit and, upon execution of the program by a computing unit, cause the computing unit to implement the method according to claim 1, of Claim 14 a nonvolatile, computer-readable storage medium comprising a computer program product according to claim 13, and of Claim 15 a vehicle comprising at least one nonvolatile, computer-readable storage medium according to claim 14. (Col. 8, Lines 48-59).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESA ALLGOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 PM.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/ALESA ALLGOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights