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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al., US20180354436 (hereinafter referred to as Sato), in view of Robinson et al., US20110006736 (hereinafter referred to as Robinson).
In regards to claim 1, a fuse circuit assembly (fuse box 7, switch device 5, fuse 11, & fuse 12; [Fig. 1]) for an energy system (power supply system 100; [Fig. 1]) comprising: a first supply path (left of 61a and 61a to 61b; [Fig. 1]) including: a first supply-connection node (node between 11 & 1; [Fig. 1]) designed to connect the first supply path to a first energy source (Power storage device 1; [Fig. 1]), a first load-connection node (52b; [Fig. 1]) for connecting a safety-relevant load (Essential Load, a load related to driver safety; [0050] & [Fig. 1]), a first fuse node (P1; [Fig. 1]) and a first electrical fuse (fuse 11; [Fig. 1]), the first electrical fuse arranged in a first connection between the first supply-connection node and the first fuse node (implicit; [Fig. 1]), and a second electrical switch (switch 52; [Fig. 1]) arranged in a second connection between the first fuse node and the first load-connection node (implicit; [Fig. 1]); and a second supply path (left of 62a and 62a to 62b; [Fig. 1]) including: a second supply-connection node (node between 12 & 2; [Fig. 1]) designed to connect the second supply path to a second energy source (power storage device 2; [Fig. 1]), a second load-connection node (53b; [Fig. 1]) for connecting the safety-relevant load, a third electrical switch (switch 53; [Fig. 1]) which is arranged in a third connection between the second supply-connection node and the second load-connection node (implicit; [Fig. 1]), wherein the first fuse node of the first supply path is connected to the second supply-connection node of the second supply path via a fourth electrical connection (implicit, the first fuse node is connected to the power storage device 2 through the switch 51, battery unit 22, and the fuse 12; [Fig. 1]) in which a fourth electrical fuse (fuse 12; [Fig. 1]) is arranged.
Sato does not teach the second electrical switch as an electrical fuse, and the third electrical switch as an electrical fuse.
Robinson teaches the second electrical switch (switches; [0045]) as an electrical fuse (controllable fuses; [0045]), and the third electrical switch as an electrical fuse (may be substituted; [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sato in order to incorporate the second electrical switch as an electrical fuse, and the third electrical switch as an electrical fuse as taught by Robinson. Robinson teaches that switches may be substituted for a fuse. Therefore, the motivation would be engineering design choice to balance trip time, robustness, and failure mode.
In regards to claim 2, Sato teaches wherein the second supply path includes a plurality (qty of 3; [Fig. 1]) of third load-connection nodes (left node of loads 81, 82, & 84; [Fig. 1]) each for connecting a simple load (general load or VS load; [Fig. 1]), the third load-connection nodes are each connected to the second supply-connection node via a fifth electrical fuse (fuse 71, 72, or 74; [Fig. 1]) and the simple loads are not safety-relevant or have lower safety requirements than the safety-relevant load (cutoff of power supply is tolerable, stable voltage; [0051] & [0052]).
In regards to claim 4, Sato teaches wherein at least some of the electrical fuses each have a controllable semiconductor switch for disconnecting the associated connection (the second and third fuses are switches; [Fig. 1]).
In regards to claim 5, Sato does not teach wherein the respective semiconductor switch has at least one metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor, MOSFET.
Robinson teaches wherein the respective semiconductor switch has at least one metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor, MOSFET (MOSFETs; [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sato in order to incorporate wherein the respective semiconductor switch has at least one metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor, MOSFET as taught by Robinson. Robinson teaches that switches may be substituted for a fuse. Therefore, the motivation would be engineering design choice to balance trip time, robustness, and failure mode.
In regards to claim 6, Sato does not teach wherein the first electrical fuse has a first MOSFET and the fourth electrical fuse has a second MOSFET, and a drain connection of the first MOSFET is connected to a drain connection of the second MOSFET, and a source connection of the first MOSFET is connected to the first supply-connection node, and a source connection of the second MOSFET is connected to the second supply connection.
Robinson teaches wherein the first electrical fuse has a first MOSFET (MOSFET; [0045]) and the fourth electrical fuse has a second MOSFET (MOSFET; [0045]), and a drain connection of the first MOSFET (right side of fuse 11, Sato; [Fig. 1]) is connected to a drain connection of the second MOSFET (right side of fuse 12, Sato; [Fig. 1]) (the drains are connected through switch 51, Sato; [Fig. 1]), and a source connection of the first MOSFET (left side of fuse 11, Sato; [Fig. 1]) is connected to the first supply-connection node (implicit, Sato; [Fig. 1]), and a source connection of the second MOSFET (left side of fuse 12, Sato; [Fig. 1]) is connected to the second supply connection (implicit, Sato; [Fig. 1]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sato in order to incorporate wherein the first electrical fuse has a first MOSFET and the fourth electrical fuse has a second MOSFET, and a drain connection of the first MOSFET is connected to a drain connection of the second MOSFET, and a source connection of the first MOSFET is connected to the first supply-connection node, and a source connection of the second MOSFET is connected to the second supply connection as taught by Robinson. Robinson teaches that switches may be substituted for a fuse. Therefore, the motivation would be engineering design choice to balance trip time, robustness, and failure mode.
In regards to claim 8, Sato teaches wherein the fuse circuit assembly includes a second fuse node (P2; [Fig. 1]) and a sixth electrical fuse (fuse 12; [Fig. 1]) (Examiner’s Note: the fourth fuse would now be the switch 51 as taught by Sato.) in the second supply path, the sixth electrical fuse is arranged in a fifth connection between the second supply-connection node and the second fuse node (implicit; [Fig. 1]) and the first fuse node of the first supply path is connected to the second fuse node (implicit; [Fig. 1]) via the fourth electrical fuse (switch 51; [Fig. 1]).
In regards to claim 9, Sato does not teach wherein one or more or all of the electrical fuses each have a third MOSFET and a fourth MOSFET which are arranged in a back-to-back configuration, wherein a source connection of the third MOSFET is connected to a source connection of the fourth MOSFET, and a gate of the third MOSFET and a gate of the fourth MOSFET are driven by one and the same gate driver.
Robinson teaches wherein one or more or all of the electrical fuses (second and third electrical fuses) each have a third MOSFET and a fourth MOSFET (MOSFETs; [0045]) which are arranged in a back-to-back configuration, wherein a source connection of the third MOSFET (52b node; [Fig. 1]) is connected to a source connection of the fourth MOSFET (53b node; [Fig. 1]), and a gate of the third MOSFET and a gate of the fourth MOSFET are driven by one and the same gate driver (it is implicit that the MOSFETs would be driven by a gate driver to control the gates; Sato teaches the switches 52 and 53 being controlled by the same control circuit 9.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sato in order to incorporate wherein one or more or all of the electrical fuses each have a third MOSFET and a fourth MOSFET which are arranged in a back-to-back configuration, wherein a source connection of the third MOSFET is connected to a source connection of the fourth MOSFET, and a gate of the third MOSFET and a gate of the fourth MOSFET are driven by one and the same gate driver as taught by Robinson. Robinson teaches that switches may be substituted for a fuse. Therefore, the motivation would be engineering design choice to balance trip time, robustness, and failure mode.
In regards to claim 10, Sato teaches an energy system (power supply system 100; [Fig. 1]) comprising a fuse circuit assembly (fuse box 7, switch device 5, fuse 11, & fuse 12; [Fig. 1]) of claim 1, and the first energy source which is connected to the first supply-connection node, and the second energy source which is connected to the second supply-connection node.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al., US20180354436 (hereinafter referred to as Sato), in view of Robinson et al., US20110006736 (hereinafter referred to as Robinson), and in further view of Marusik, US5945816 (hereinafter referred to as Marusik).
In regards to claim 7, Sato does not teach wherein: the first electrical fuse is designed to detect a signal which is representative of a current flowing between the first supply-connection node and the fuse node and to control a switch state of the first electrical fuse based on the detected signal, and/or the fourth electrical fuse is designed to detect a signal which is representative of a current flowing between the first fuse node and the second supply-connection node and to control a switch state of the fourth electrical fuse based on the detected signal.
Marusik teaches wherein: the first electrical fuse (MOSFET 120; [Abstract] & [Fig. 4]) (fuse 11, Sato) is designed to detect a signal (comparing the voltages from the first and second nodes; [Abstract]) which is representative of a current flowing (the current would equal the difference in the voltages divided by the Rds_on of the MOSFET 120) between the first supply-connection node and the fuse node and to control a switch state of the first electrical fuse based on the detected signal (amplifier 50 controls the state of… MOSFET 120; [Abstract]), and/or the fourth electrical fuse (MOSFET 160; [Fig. 4]) is designed to detect a signal (comparing the voltages from the first and second nodes; [Abstract]) which is representative of a current flowing (the current would equal the difference in the voltages divided by the Rds_on of the MOSFET 160) between the first fuse node and the second supply-connection node and to control a switch state of the fourth electrical fuse based on the detected signal (MOSFET 160 can be controlled by amplifier 90; [Col. 5, Ln. 37-38]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sato in order to incorporate wherein: the first electrical fuse is designed to detect a signal which is representative of a current flowing between the first supply-connection node and the fuse node and to control a switch state of the first electrical fuse based on the detected signal, and/or the fourth electrical fuse is designed to detect a signal which is representative of a current flowing between the first fuse node and the second supply-connection node and to control a switch state of the fourth electrical fuse based on the detected signal as taught by Marusik. Marusik would substitute the fuse 11 of Sato with the MOSFET 120 and the fuse 12 of Sato with the MOSFET 160. The motivation for doing so would be to have a fault tolerant power system without the need for auxiliary power (Marusik, [Abstract]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 & 11 is 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.
Claim 3 is indicated containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 3, especially “wherein the first supply path includes: at least one further second electrical fuse; at least one further third electrical fuse; at least one further first load-connection node; and at least one further second load-connection node for connecting at least one further safety-relevant load”.
Claim 11 is indicated containing allowable subject matter because prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination all of the limitations of claim 3, especially “wherein the energy system comprises: a first diode arranged in a connection between the first load-connection node and a supply connection of the safety-relevant load,” and “a second diode arranged in a further connection between the second load-connection node and the supply connection of the safety-relevant load”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA L FAUBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 5712701682. 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.
SAMANTHA LYNETTE FAUBERT
Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights