DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the arguments and amendments filed on 8/12/2026.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirakata (US Patent 9831801) in view of Lenz et al. (US Patent 11614507). Regarding claims 1 and 7, Hirakata discloses (see fig. 1) a method of operating an inverter circuit (31 and controller 20),the inverter circuit (31 and controller 20) comprising - a low side (side comprising 2, 4, 6), which has a plurality of controllable semiconductor switching elements (2, 4, 6) which are connected in parallel with one another between a first DC voltage terminal (N terminal of input voltage source 10) and a center terminal of the inverter circuit (midpoint between high side and low side), a high side (side comprising 1, 3, 5), which has a plurality of controllable semiconductor switching elements (1, 3, 5) which are connected in parallel with one another between a second DC voltage terminal (P terminal of input voltage source 10) and the center terminal (midpoint between high side and low side) of the inverter circuit,- a first current sensor (17), which is connected in series with exactly one of the controllable semiconductor switching elements (connection to 4) and is adapted to measure a first current which flows through the one of the controllable semiconductor switching elements (operation of 17), and a second current sensor (7), which is arranged between the center terminal (connection to midpoint between high side and low side) and an output terminal (connection to output to motor) of the inverter circuit and is adapted to measure a second current (operation of 7), the method comprising:-- detecting the first current measured by the first current sensor (operation of 20 receiving output from 17) and the second current measured by the second current sensor (operation of 20 receiving output from 7). Hirakata does not disclose performing a plausibility check (S 110) on the first current using the second current. Lenz et al. discloses (see fig. 1) performing a plausibility check on a first current using a second current (see column 23 lines 1-13 which states “As already described for FIG. 1, two current sensors are used for measuring, and the current actual value formed from the first current sensor or the first and second current sensors are constantly checked for plausibility and tolerance in relation to the second current sensor signal. It is thus possible to recognize whether the current sensor signals are synchronized and whether the current actual value lies in the specified amplification tolerance in relation to a current sensor signal. If one or both of the tolerance thresholds are overshot, shutoff occurs via “softstop”. Similarly, it is possible to monitor, for example, whether a cable to the current sensors is actually connected, etc.”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Hirakata to include the method of Lenz et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A GBLENDE whose telephone number is (571)270-5472. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-272-1838. 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.
/JEFFREY A GBLENDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights