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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "1" and "2" have both been used to designate “power supply”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “C” and “G”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-15 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.
In independent claim 1, the word “high” in the limitation “the sense line having a high impedance termination at the second end” is relative and does not “provide enough certainty to one of skill in the art when read in the context of the invention.” See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(I). Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Dependent claims 2-15 inherit this deficiency.
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.
(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, 4-8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20220099724 to Oms.
Regarding claim 1, Oms teaches a power supply system comprising:
a DC power supply (120);
a load to be powered by the power supply (160);
a DC electrical conductor electrically connected at a first end to the power supply and at a second end to the load (130); and
a fault detection system configured to detect a series arc event in the DC electrical conductor (figure 3; ¶ [0039]), the fault detection system comprising:
a sense line conductor having a length the same as the DC electrical conductor and electrically connected at a first end to the power supply and at a second end to the load (140), the sense line having a high impedance termination at the second end (the node where the 130 & 140 meet can be considered high impedance because "high" is relative and the node would have some level of impedance because inherently all wires have impedance);
a differential amplifier (340) having a first input connected to the sense line conductor at a first terminal(S) (b) and a second input connected to the DC electrical conductor at a second terminal (L) (a), and an output providing a voltage differential output (d); and
a comparator (350) to compare the voltage differential output to a predetermined voltage differential threshold (Vref), the comparator providing a fault output dependent on the comparison (e).
Regarding claim 4, Oms teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the predetermined voltage differential threshold is a set point (¶ [0073]: the threshold can be programmed via the FPGA in a manner that is known in the art).
Regarding claim 5, Oms teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the predetermined voltage differential threshold is a dynamic threshold (¶ [0073]: the threshold can be programmed via the FPGA in a manner that is known in the art).
Regarding claim 6, Oms teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the fault detection system is integrated with other circuitry of the load (figure 3: 150 & 160 are connected electrically).
Regarding claim 7, Oms teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the DC electrical conductor comprises a positive line and a negative line connected, respectively, to a positive and a negative terminal of the power supply (¶ [0049]).
Regarding claim 8, Oms teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the power supply is a power generator (¶ [0050]).
Regarding claim 14, Oms teaches the system of claim 1, in combination with aircraft and wherein the system is an aircraft power supply system (¶ [0003]).
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.
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) 2 & 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oms in view of EPO Patent Document No. EP2765665A2 to Grunebast et al.
Regarding claim 2, Oms teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach explicitly further comprising: a high-pass filter connected between the output of the differential amplifier and the comparator.
However, Grunebast teaches a high-pass filter (26) connected between the output of the differential amplifier and the comparator.
It 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 to add a high-pass filter to complement Oms's low-pass filter between the output of the differential amplifier and the comparator of Oms in order to ensure that "the device does not respond to short transient differential currents." (Grunebast)
Regarding claim 3, Oms in view of Grunebast teaches the system of claim 2, and Oms further teaches wherein the comparator output is configured to generate a fault indication in response to the voltage differential output exceeding the threshold (¶ [0043]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oms in view of United States Patent No. 7489138 to Yu et al.
Regarding claim 9, Oms teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach explicitly wherein the power supply is a battery.
However, Yu teaches wherein the power supply is a battery (column 3 lines 42-50).
It 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 for the system to be adaptable to use a battery as the power supply in order to allow for off-grid and/or portable use, thereby increasing the versatility of the system.
Claim(s) 10-13 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oms in view of United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20230213571 to Al-Karaghouli et al.
Regarding claim 10, Oms teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach explicitly wherein the load is a motor drive.
However, Al-Karaghouli teaches wherein the load is a motor drive (¶ [0042]).
It 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 for the system to be adaptable to have a motor drive as the load to allow for installation in vehicles, thereby increasing the versatility of the system.
Regarding claim 11, Oms in view of Al-Karaghouli teaches the system of claim 10, and Al-Karaghouli further teaches comprising: a motor arranged to be driven by the motor drive (¶ [0042]).
Regarding claim 12, Oms in view of Al-Karaghouli teaches the system of claim 10, and Al-Karaghouli further teaches wherein the motor drive comprises switching inverter circuitry (¶ [0036]).
Regarding claim 13, Oms in view of Al-Karaghouli teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the motor drive further comprises motor drive monitor and control circuitry (¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 15, Oms in view of Al-Karaghouli teaches the system of claim 14, but does not teach explicitly wherein the load is a motor drive configured to drive an aircraft motor (see, e.g., ¶¶ [0041] & [0043]).
It 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 for the system to be adaptable to have a motor drive as the load to allow for installation in aircraft, thereby increasing the versatility of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent No. 11016133 to Peralta et al. discloses fault detection in cables to prevent serial arcing. The invention uses a main cable and a sense cable to monitor voltage drop differential and compare it to a threshold, like the instant case.
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20160111870 to Murano et al. discloses arc discharge prevention via redundancy, which the instant case specifically disclaims/teaches away from.
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20010029433 to Scott discloses essentially the same setup as Oms (the primary reference in the rejections supra) and Peralta.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert P Alejnikov whose telephone number is (571)270-5164. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00a-6:00p M-F.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571.272.2619. 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.
/ROBERT P ALEJNIKOV JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights