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 .
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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurcik (EP 3819161).
As per Claim 1:
Kurcik discloses all of the following limitations:
“A crash detection circuit of a battery management unit (BMU), comprising: a reference voltage generator configured to generate a reference voltage in response to a crash signal output from a vehicle being input to the BMU; and a comparator configured to compare the reference voltage generated from the reference voltage generator with a processed crashed signal corresponding to the crash signal and to output a crash detection signal in response to the processed crash signal having a duration greater than or equal to a minimum retention time and at a voltage greater than or equal to the reference voltage.”
Kurcik Figure 3 discloses a reference threshold voltage that is compared to a control signal with retention for the purposes of disconnecting a battery in response to a crash.
As per Claim 8:
Kurcik discloses all of the following limitations:
“A crash detection circuit of a battery management unit (BMU), comprising: a reference voltage generator configured to generate a reference voltage in response to a crash signal output from a vehicle being input to the BMU; a maximum voltage limiting circuit configured to limit a maximum voltage of the crash signal output from the vehicle to a set voltage and to generate a capped crash signal; and a comparator configured to compare the reference voltage generated by the reference voltage generator with the capped crash signal output by the maximum voltage limiting circuit, and to output a crash detection signal in response to the capped crash signal having a duration greater than or equal to a minimum retention time and a voltage greater than or equal to the reference voltage.”
Kurcik Figure 3 discloses a reference threshold voltage that is compared to a control signal with retention for the purposes of disconnecting a battery in response to a crash. The voltage of the control signal is limited naturally by the physical constraints of the components and therefore this aspect of this limitation is also disclosed by Kurcik.
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.
Claims 2-4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurcik in view of Hofer (US 2018/0111572).
With regards to Claim 2, Kurcik discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitations:
“wherein the processed crash signal compared with the reference voltage by the comparator corresponds to the crash signal, which is amplified through an amplifier.”
Hofer Paragraph [0046] discloses using an amplifier to amplify compared signals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Kurcik with the amplification disclosed by Hofer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by ensuring a readable signal is present.
With regards to Claim 3, Kurcik discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitations:
“ an amplifier configured to amplify the crash signal with a set gain by receiving the crash signal from the vehicle and generating an amplified crash signal to the reference voltage generator, wherein the processed crash signal corresponds to the amplified crash signal.”
Hofer Paragraph [0046] discloses using an amplifier to amplify compared signals. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize set gain to ensure that a signal is amplified at a known rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Kurcik with the amplification disclosed by Hofer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by ensuring a readable signal is present.
With regards to Claim 4, Kurcik in view of Hofer discloses all of the limitations of Claim 3 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the reference voltage generator comprises a reference voltage generation circuit configured to generate and output the reference voltage in response to the amplified crash signal being output.”
Kurcik Figure 3 discloses a reference voltage generator circuit.
With regards to Claim 6, Kurcik in view of Hofer discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the reference voltage generator further comprises a low-pass filter circuit configured to filter the amplified crash signal and to generate and output the processed crash signal.”
Kurcik discloses a reference voltage generator and a low-pass filter is a well-known electrical component whose use would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regards to Claim 9, Kurcik discloses all of the limitations of Claim 8 but does not disclose the following limitations:
“wherein a signal input to the maximum voltage limiting circuit corresponds to the crash signal, which is amplified through an amplifier.”
Hofer Paragraph [0046] discloses using an amplifier to amplify compared signals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Kurcik with the amplification disclosed by Hofer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by ensuring a readable signal is present.
With regards to Claim 10, Kurcik discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9 but does not disclose the following limitations:
“wherein the amplifier is configured to generate an amplified crash signal by amplifying the crash signal received from the vehicle with a set gain, and to output the amplified crash signal to the reference voltage generator.”
Hofer Paragraph [0046] discloses using an amplifier to amplify compared signals. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize set gain to ensure that a signal is amplified at a known rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Kurcik with the amplification disclosed by Hofer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by ensuring a readable signal is present.
With regards to Claim 11, Kurcik discloses all of the limitations of Claim 8 but does not disclose the following limitations:
“wherein the reference voltage generator comprises a reference voltage generation circuit configured to generate and output the reference voltage in response to the capped crash signal being output from the maximum voltage limiting circuit.”
Kurcik Figure 3 discloses a reference voltage generator circuit.
With regards to Claim 13, Kurcik discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11 but does not disclose the following limitations:
“wherein the reference voltage generator further comprises a low-pass filter circuit configured to filter and output the capped crash signal output from the maximum voltage limiting circuit.”
Kurcik discloses a reference voltage generator and a low-pass filter is a well-known electrical component whose use would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurcik in view of Hofer in view of Osamura (US 2004/0008079).
With regards to Claim 5, Kurcik in view of Hofer discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4 but does not disclose the following limitations that Osamura does disclose:
“wherein the reference voltage generation circuit comprises: a constant voltage source; a switch having one side connected to the constant voltage source and another side connected to a plurality of resistors that are connected in series; and a capacitor having one side connected to a common connection point of the plurality of resistors and another side that is grounded, wherein the reference voltage is output from the common connection point of the plurality of resistors.”
Osamura Figure 1 discloses such a feature. Such a known voltage reference generator would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Kurcik in view of Hofer with the reference voltage change circuit disclosed by Osamura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by utilizing known circuitry.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurcik in view of Kimura (US 2013/0202918).
With regards to Claim 7, Kurcik discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitations that Kimura does disclose:
“a latch configured to latch the crash detection signal output from the comparator, wherein a driving module configured to block an output of a battery is operated by the latched crash detection signal.”
Kimura discloses a latched circuit for disconnecting a battery in an abnormal state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Kurcik with the latch circuit disclosed by Kimura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, as a latch circuit is a known technology that is used for block output in certain conditions.
With regards to Claim 14, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 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. This claim contains a limitation in which, “a first constant voltage source and a second constant voltage source; a switch having one side connected to the first constant voltage source and another side connected to one side of a third resistor; a first diode having an anode connected to the other side of the third resistor and a cathode connected to one side of a fourth resistor; a second diode having an anode connected to the second constant voltage source and a cathode connected to the one side of the fourth resistor; and a capacitor having one side connected to a common connection point of the first and second diodes and the fourth resistor and having another side that is grounded, wherein the reference voltage is output from the common connection point of the first and second diodes and the fourth resistor” which, in combination with the independent claims, represents a limitation that is not disclosed or rendered obvious by the most closely related prior art nor is it disclosed or rendered obvious by any other prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/JOAN T GOODBODY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667