DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-24 are presented for examination on the merits.
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
3. Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of US Patent No. US 12578373 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because circuit for detecting outage of an LED, comprising: a load element electrically coupled between a power supply and a ground reference; a detection circuit adapted to detect outage of an LED; and an increase circuit responsive to one or more electrical variances of the detection circuit, the increase circuit adapted to: induce increased electrical current flowing between the load element and the ground reference; induce increased electrical current flowing between the load element and the power supply; or both, wherein the increase circuit is configured to automatically induce said increasing of current flow when said detection circuit detects a failure in the LED are conventional prior art features and the use of such features in the claims of application 19/027995 would have been obvious and would not have involved a patentable invention.
The above listed items are all conventional prior art features as evidences by the general and well known use of such. For example, conventional battery removal structure, the employs a flexible arm as well as battery threshold monitoring.
In view of the above, it is noted that the instant application is broader in every aspect than the US patent document and is therefore an obvious variant thereof, thus, allowing this would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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.
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1-6, 8-19, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (DE 102006015053 A1) in view of Bollmann (US 8410705 B2).
As to claim 1, Patel discloses in led turn signals and fault detection method having claimed
a. a circuit for detecting outage of an LED, comprising: a load element electrically coupled between a power supply and a ground reference read on Fig. 2 and Page 3, Para. 3-5, (the front turn signal element 12 is like before a light bulb. In this embodiment, the Rear Turn Signal Element 32 however, as an arrangement 35 a multitude of light emitting diodes (LEDs) 34 implemented. The LEDs are preferably in a plurality of parallel rows 36, 38 and 40 with series-connected LEDs 34 arranged. The Front turn signal element 12 and the blinker element 32 are through a blinker current leading line 44 parallel with a turn signal power source 16 coupled. A resistance 20 and a switch 18 are coupled in series with the turn signal power source. The base of the transistor 58 receives the error signal from the logic circuit 54 , The emitter of the transistor 58 is with the resistance 60 coupled, which in turn is connected to ground. The collector of the transistor 58 is with the line 44 via a short circuit line 62 connected. In the event of malfunction of one or more of the LEDs 34 causes the error signal from the logic circuit 54 that is the transistor 58 turns on, i.e. becomes conductive);
b. a detection circuit adapted to detect outage of an LED read on Page 2, Para. 3, (it is he wishes, a reliable method and cheap Detecting the failure of a light emitting diode in a vehicle turn signal structure provide. Additionally, Is it desirable to have one Vehicle turn signal structure to provide a malfunction of a LED in the structure without additional Lines extending from the body to the dashboard area extend, can detect). Patel does not explicitly disclose an increase circuit responsive to one or more electrical variances of the detection circuit, the increase circuit adapted to: induce increased electrical current flowing between the load element and the ground reference induce increased electrical current flowing between the load element and the power supply; or both, wherein the increase circuit is configured to automatically induce said increasing of current flow when said detection circuit detects a failure in the LED.
However, Bollmann in a vehicle turn signal structure cures the deficiency by teaching that it may be beneficial wherein:
c. an increase circuit responsive to one or more electrical variances of the detection circuit, the increase circuit adapted to: induce increased electrical current flowing between the load element and the ground reference induce increased electrical current flowing between the load element and the power supply; or both, wherein the increase circuit is configured to automatically induce said increasing of current flow when said detection circuit detects a failure in the LED read on Col. 2, Lines 40-46, (FIG. 2C is a schematic of the four LEDs and bypass circuits of FIG. 2A showing a current path 103 when LED 100b is non-functional. When LED 100b fails, the voltage across Zener Diode 140b increases above its Zener voltage triggering the thyristor 120b which will remain triggered as long as current flows);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was filed to incorporate the LED lighting system with bypass circuit for failed LED of Bollmann in to Patel in order to provide a continued operation in the event that an LED in series with other LEDs fails.
As to claim 2, Patel further discloses:
a. wherein said LED is illuminated using power from said power supply read on Page 3, Para. 3, (The LEDs are preferably in a plurality of parallel rows 36 . 38 and 40 with series-connected LEDs 34 arranged. The front turn signal element 12 and the blinker element 32 are through a blinker current leading line 44 parallel with a turn signal power source 16 coupled. A resistance 20 and a switch 18 are coupled in series with the turn signal power source. The front and rear turn signal elements are turned on in response to the driver actuating the turn signal lever by selectively and periodically receiving a turn signal current from the turn signal elements).
As to claim 3, Patel further discloses:
a. wherein the current used to power said LED and said circuit for detecting outage of an LED flows between said power supply and said ground reference read on Page 5, Para. 7, (wherein the step of changing the State of the power supply line includes the step that in Responsive to detecting a change in the current in the impedance element is activated, that between the power supply line and a Ground connection is coupled).
As to claim 4, Patel further discloses:
a. wherein said increase circuit comprises said load element read on Page 4, Para. 1, (According to one embodiment of the invention, the current pulling element comprises 56 an element of variable impedance, which is supplied by the signal from the logic circuit 54 can be activated, and preferably comprises an NPN bipolar transistor 58 in series with a resistor 60 , The base of the transistor 58 receives the error signal from the logic circuit 54 , The emitter of the transistor 58 is with the resistance 60 coupled, which in turn is connected to ground. The collector of the transistor 58 is with the line 44 via a short circuit line 62 connected. In the event of malfunction of one or more of the LEDs 34 causes the error signal from the logic circuit 54 that is the transistor 58 turns on, i.e. becomes conductive).
As to claim 5, Patel further discloses:
a. wherein said increase circuit induces an increased electrical current flow of at least four amps read on Page 5, Para. 1, (a high voltage reference 86 is with the high input 89 of the comparator 80 coupled, and a low-voltage reference 91 is with the low input 93 of the comparator 82 coupled. If it is expected that the rated current is above the row 36 is about 100 mA, the high voltage reference can be set, for example, to cause the comparator 80 triggers when the stream is over the row 36 exceeds about 120 mA. Accordingly, the low voltage reference may be adjusted, for example, to cause the comparator 82 triggers when the stream is over the row 36 is less than about 80 mA. Similar comparator pairs (not shown) can monitor the current in the other rows of the array of LEDs. The output of each of the comparator pairs can be used as inputs to the logic circuit 54 be coupled. The logic circuit 54 For example, it may be an OR gate with multiple inputs. Note: exceeds about 120 mA includes 4 amps).
As to claim 6, Patel further discloses:
a. wherein said increase circuit induces an increased electrical current flow of less than seven amps read on Page 5, Para. 1, (a high voltage reference 86 is with the high input 89 of the comparator 80 coupled, and a low-voltage reference 91 is with the low input 93 of the comparator 82 coupled. If it is expected that the rated current is above the row 36 is about 100 mA, the high voltage reference can be set, for example, to cause the comparator 80 triggers when the stream is over the row 36 exceeds about 120 mA. Accordingly, the low voltage reference may be adjusted, for example, to cause the comparator 82 triggers when the stream is over the row 36 is less than about 80 mA. Similar comparator pairs (not shown) can monitor the current in the other rows of the array of LEDs. The output of each of the comparator pairs can be used as inputs to the logic circuit 54 be coupled. The logic circuit 54 For example, it may be an OR gate with multiple inputs. Note: about 120 mA is less than seven amps).
As to claim 8, Patel further discloses:
a. wherein the detection circuit is configured to detect decreased power consumption by the LED read on Page 5, Para. 2, (the comparator 64 that is the tension on the knot 66 monitored, the comparator circuit 52 be similar except that different values are set for the high and low voltage references. The high and low voltage references for the comparator circuit 64 For example, they may be set to cause the comparators to trip when the 2 amp turn-on nominal current is out of the range of about 1.8 amps to about 2.2 amps).
As to claim 9, Patel further discloses:
a. wherein the detection circuit is configured to monitor the current draw of the LED, a voltage across the LED, a voltage in series with the lamp, or a voltage in parallel with the lamp read on Page 3, Para. 5, (for example, the current flow across each of the rows may be through a comparator circuit 52 be monitored. If the current across any of the series-connected LED rows is determined to be abnormal, indicating a malfunction of one or more of the LEDs, a logic circuit will operate 54 which is coupled to the output of the comparator circuit 52 to receive that produces an error signal and to a current pulling element 56 is transmitted, which between the blinker current leading line 44 and mass is coupled).
As to claim 10, Patel further discloses:
a. wherein the circuit for detecting outage of an LED and the LED are housed in the same enclosure read on Fig. 2.
As to claim 11, Patel further discloses:
a. a socket configured to retain the LED, the socket having electrical terminals configured to electrically connect to the LED; and an outer casing configured to retain the LED, the outer casing having electrical terminals configured to electrically connect to the LED and socket terminals; wherein the circuit for detecting outage of an LED is mounted in the outer casing read on Page 3, Para. 5 – Page 4, Para. 1, (small resistors 46 . 48 respectively. 50 in series with the ranks 36 . 38 respectively. 40 coupled. One end of each of the resistors may be coupled to ground. By measuring the voltage drop across the resistors 46 . 48 . 50 For example, the current flow across each of the rows may be through a comparator circuit 52 be monitored. If the current across any of the series-connected LED rows is determined to be abnormal, indicating a malfunction of one or more of the LEDs, a logic circuit will operate 54 which is coupled to the output of the comparator circuit 52 to receive that produces an error signal and to a current pulling element 56 is transmitted, which between the blinker current leading line 44 and mass is coupled. According to one embodiment of the invention, the current pulling element comprises 56 an element of variable impedance, which is supplied by the signal from the logic circuit 54 can be activated, and preferably comprises an NPN bipolar transistor 58 in series with a resistor 60 , The base of the transistor 58 receives the error signal from the logic circuit 54 , The emitter of the transistor 58 is with the resistance 60 coupled, which in turn is connected to ground).
As to claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected as to claim 1.
As to claim 13, Patel further discloses:
a. wherein said increased current flow is substantially larger than the nominal current flow induced by powering said LED read on Page 5, Para. 1, (a high voltage reference 86 is with the high input 89 of the comparator 80 coupled, and a low-voltage reference 91 is with the low input 93 of the comparator 82 coupled. If it is expected that the rated current is above the row 36 is about 100 mA, the high voltage reference can be set, for example, to cause the comparator 80 triggers when the stream is over the row 36 exceeds about 120 mA. Accordingly, the low voltage reference may be adjusted, for example, to cause the comparator 82 triggers when the stream is over the row 36 is less than about 80 mA. Similar comparator pairs (not shown) can monitor the current in the other rows of the array of LEDs. The output of each of the comparator pairs can be used as inputs to the logic circuit 54 be coupled. The logic circuit 54 For example, it may be an OR gate with multiple inputs. Note: exceeds about 120 mA includes 4 amps).
As to claim 14, Patel further discloses:
a. wherein the current flow changes after the detection of a fault in the LED lamp from a first flow rate at a first time to a second flow rate at a second time, wherein the first flow rate is greater than the second flow rate and wherein the power supply voltage at the first time is substantially equal to the power supply voltage at the second time read on Page 3, Para. 4, (. The total current absorbed by the array may be about one ampere when the turn signal is on, a current comparable to the current consumed by a light bulb. In an exemplary embodiment having ten parallel rows, the current across each row is about 100 milliamps (mA). If one of the LEDs interrupts the circuit so that no current flows across the corresponding row, the change in current received by the flasher assembly is only about 100 mA. If one of the LEDs shorts instead, the current across the corresponding row can change by about 25 mA. In any case, the change in total blinker current caused by a malfunction of one of the array of LEDs is much smaller than the change in current experienced by the failure of a turn signal lamp in the prior art turn signal system, and it is difficult to change by detection Detect method according to the prior art). In any standard automotive system, the goal is to maintain a consistent battery voltage. Therefore, having the voltage at “Time A” (normal operation) be nearly equal to the voltage at “Time B” (fault state) is the inherent state of a vehicle electrical system. The transition from a “first flow rate” to a “second flow rate” is simply a fancy way of describing a “switch being turned on.” It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a switched load result in two different times. Adding these descriptive labels does not impart patentable weight to the claim.
As to claim 15, Patel further discloses:
a. wherein the detection circuit comprises a Bipolar Junction Transistor (BJT) read on Page 4, Para. 1, (The base of the transistor 58 receives the error signal from the logic circuit 54 , The emitter of the transistor 58 is with the resistance 60 coupled, which in turn is connected to ground. The collector of the transistor 58 is with the line 44 via a short circuit line 62 connected. In the event of malfunction of one or more of the LEDs 34 causes the error signal from the logic circuit 54 that is the transistor 58 turns on, i.e. becomes conductive. When the transistor 58 turns on, the line becomes 44 that carries turn signal current, over the transistor 58 and the resistance 60 shorted to ground. The resistance of the resistor 60 is selected so that the process of shorting the line 44 via the resistor with the ground causes an easily detectable change in the current flowing through the line 44 flows. The state of the power supply line is thus changed in response to detecting a malfunction in one or more of the LEDs. A field effect transistor or other variable impedance devices may also be used instead of the NPN transistor 58 be used. When a field effect transistor is used, the gate of the transistor would be coupled to receive the error signal from the logic circuit 54 to receive).
As to claim 16, Patel further discloses:
a. wherein the base of the BJT is electrically connected to an anode of the LED lamp and the detection circuit is configured such that current passes from the anode to the base of the BJT read on Fig. 2 and Page 4, Para. 1, (the base of the transistor 58 receives the error signal from the logic circuit 54 , The emitter of the transistor 58 is with the resistance 60 coupled, which in turn is connected to ground. The collector of the transistor 58 is with the line 44 via a short circuit line 62 connected. In the event of malfunction of one or more of the LEDs 34 causes the error signal from the logic circuit 54 that is the transistor 58 turns on, ie becomes conductive. When the transistor 58 turns on, the line becomes 44 that carries turn signal current, over the transistor 58 and the resistance 60 shorted to ground).
As to claim 17, Patel further discloses:
a. a fault detection circuit electrically coupled to the load element and an LED fault signal, the fault detection circuit configured to detect the increased current flow caused by the increase circuit and automatically activate the LED fault signal in response to the increased current flow read on Page 5, Para. 1, (a high voltage reference 86 is with the high input 89 of the comparator 80 coupled, and a low-voltage reference 91 is with the low input 93 of the comparator 82 coupled. If it is expected that the rated current is above the row 36 is about 100 mA, the high voltage reference can be set, for example, to cause the comparator 80 triggers when the stream is over the row 36 exceeds about 120 mA. Accordingly, the low voltage reference may be adjusted, for example, to cause the comparator 82 triggers when the stream is over the row 36 is less than about 80 mA. Similar comparator pairs (not shown) can monitor the current in the other rows of the array of LEDs. The output of each of the comparator pairs can be used as inputs to the logic circuit 54 be coupled. The logic circuit 54 For example, it may be an OR gate with multiple inputs. Note: exceeds about 120 mA includes 4 amps).
As to claim 18, Patel further discloses:
a. wherein the fault detection circuit is mounted to a truck, the truck configured for use with a trailer read on Page 4, Para. 2-3, (the relay coil 68 is over a line 69 is coupled to the turn signal lever (not shown) and is energized when the driver of the vehicle moves the lever to activate the turn signals. Moving the turn signal lever causes the relay coil 68 is periodically energized to the switch 18 periodically close and cause the turn signals to flash. The circuit for periodically supplying the relay coil 68 with energy is conventional and has not been shown. If a malfunction occurs in one of the turn signal elements, ie, if the front turn signal element burns out or if one or more of the LEDs in the turn signal element malfunction, the driver of the vehicle should be notified.
As to claim 19, Patel further discloses:
a. wherein the detection circuit, load element, LED, and increase circuit are mounted to a trailer read on Page 4, Para. 2-3, (the relay coil 68 is over a line 69 is coupled to the turn signal lever (not shown) and is energized when the driver of the vehicle moves the lever to activate the turn signals. Moving the turn signal lever causes the relay coil 68 is periodically energized to the switch 18 periodically close and cause the turn signals to flash. The circuit for periodically supplying the relay coil 68 with energy is conventional and has not been shown. If a malfunction occurs in one of the turn signal elements, ie, if the front turn signal element burns out or if one or more of the LEDs in the turn signal element malfunction, the driver of the vehicle should be notified).
As to claim 20, Patel further discloses:
a. a second load element, a second LED, a second detection circuit, and a second increase circuit; wherein the second increase circuit, second load element, or a combination of the two is adapted to induce an increased current flow having a substantially different waveform than the circuit of claim 1 read on Page 3, Para. 4, (the total current absorbed by the array may be about one ampere when the turn signal is on, a current comparable to the current consumed by a light bulb. In an exemplary embodiment having ten parallel rows, the current across each row is about 100 milliamps (mA). If one of the LEDs interrupts the circuit so that no current flows across the corresponding row, the change in current received by the flasher assembly is only about 100 mA. If one of the LEDs shorts instead, the current across the corresponding row can change by about 25 mA. In any case, the change in total blinker current caused by a malfunction of one of the arrays of LEDs is much smaller than the change in current experienced by the failure of a turn signal lamp in the prior art turn signal system, and it is difficult to change by detection Detect method according to the prior art). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the characteristics of that current (the waveform) to provide different signals to a diagnostic computer. Using unique electrical signatures to identify different hardware components are a well-known techniques in multiplexed automotive system. The combination of a second LED and a second load is a mere duplication of known elements to achieve a predictable result.
As to claim 21, Patel further discloses:
a. wherein the fault detection circuit is further adapted to differentiate between the two waveforms generated by the different increase circuit / load element combinations and activate two different LED fault signals accordingly read on Page 3, Para. 4, (the total current absorbed by the array may be about one ampere when the turn signal is on, a current comparable to the current consumed by a light bulb. In an exemplary embodiment having ten parallel rows, the current across each row is about 100 milliamps (mA). If one of the LEDs interrupts the circuit so that no current flows across the corresponding row, the change in current received by the flasher assembly is only about 100 mA. If one of the LEDs shorts instead, the current across the corresponding row can change by about 25 mA. In any case, the change in total blinker current caused by a malfunction of one of the arrays of LEDs is much smaller than the change in current experienced by the failure of a turn signal lamp in the prior art turn signal system, and it is difficult to change by detection Detect method according to the prior art). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the characteristics of that current (the waveform) to provide different signals to a diagnostic computer. Using unique electrical signatures to identify different hardware components are a well known techniques in multiplexed automotive system. The combination of a second LED and a second load is a mere duplication of known elements to achieve a predictable result. The claim requires to differentiate between the two waveforms which is built upon a non-existent limitation. One cannot differentiate between the second waveform and a first waveform that was never defined or required to exist in the independent claim. The phrase “further adapted to differentiate” is a pure functional. The claim fails to recite any structure that performs this differentiation. Without reciting the hardware capable of distinguishing complex electrical structures, the claim is a “hole in the middle” that claims a result without the means to achieve it.
As to claim 22, Patel further discloses:
a. wherein the increased electrical current flow induced by the increase circuit exceeds a nominal current draw of an incandescent lamp electrically coupled to the power supply read on Fig. 2 and Page 3, Para. 1-3, (a vehicle turn signal structure having a power source (16) supplying power in parallel to a front turn signal element (12) (comprising an incandescent bulb drawing up to one ampere of current) and a rear LED turn signal assembly (32). Patel explicitly teaches that when an LED failure is detected, a current pulling element/current sink (56) comprising a transistor (58) and a resistor (60) shorts the supply line (44) to ground to create a detectable change in current. Furthermore, Patel teaches that the overall system is designed to match or simulate the electrical load characteristics of traditional incandescent lighting systems (e.g., total nominal operating currents of approximately one to two amperes). To the extent that Patel's explicit short-circuit current magnitude or specific resistor (60) sizing is viewed as a matter of degree, selecting a specific resistance value to cause the induced current flow to reach or exceed the nominal current draw of a legacy incandescent lamp is a matter of routine circuit design and optimization using well-known principles of Ohm's Law. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would readily recognize that retrofitting solid-state LED turn signals into legacy vehicle architectures requires the fault-simulation current sink to draw a magnitude equal to or greater than the standard incandescent load signature that existing vehicle monitoring comparators (such as comparator 64) are calibrated to detect. Modifying the current-pulling element's resistance or switching parameters to achieve a current draw exceeding a standard incandescent lamp would have been an obvious design choice to ensure system compatibility with traditional vehicle flasher units.
.
7. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel in view of Bollmann and further in view of Wu (CN 104545479 A).
As to claim 7, Patel in view of Bollmann does not explicitly disclose wherein said load element is a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) thermistor.
However, Wu in heating device cures the deficiency by teaching that it might be beneficial:
a. wherein said load element is a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) thermistor read on ¶ 0029, (the detecting module detects in the heating groove of water temperature and water temperature in the heating groove is higher than the preset heating temperature control indicator light flashes. can understand the selected detecting module and an indicating lamp are various, the thermal switch to detect module herein, indicator light through red light LED (Light Emitting D1de, light-emitting diode) lamp example, thermo-sensitive switch comprises a PNP type triode and a positive temperature coefficient thermistor, herein referred to as the second resistor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was filed to incorporate the CPU-controlled, rearming, high voltage output circuit for electronic animal trap of Wu into Patel in view of Bollmann in order to improve the reliability of the LED monitoring system disclosed in Patel, would have looked to the teaching of Wu regarding the use of thermal sensitivity components and in order to provide a PTC thermistor’s resistance increase with temperature and provide an inherent, self-regulating safety mechanism that prevents overheating when drawing the high current loads required for vehicle diagnostics.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
a. Applicant argues:
Claims 1-21 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,578,373 B2 and, allegedly, "all Parent patents."
As a threshold matter, the rejection does not identify the parent patents. The rejection names a single reference patent and then extends itself to an unnamed and unbounded set of additional patents without identifying any of them by number and without identifying which claims of any of them are relied upon. Applicant is unable to evaluate, and cannot meaningfully respond to, a rejection over claims that have not been identified. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection insofar as it is directed to any patent other than U.S. Patent No. 12,578,373 B2, and requests that any such rejection be withdrawn or, if maintained, that each reference patent and each reference claim be identified of record. The stated rationale is not directed to the present application. The rejection states that "[t]he above listed items are all conventional prior art features as evidences by the general and well known use of such. For example, conventional battery removal structure, the employs a flexible arm as well as battery threshold monitoring." Neither a battery removal structure, nor a flexible arm, nor battery threshold monitoring appears in the present application or in U.S. Patent No. 12,578,373 B2. The rejection therefore rests on a rationale that has no connection to either set of claims. The rejection further concludes that "the instant application is broader in every aspect than the US patent document and is therefore an obvious variant thereof." The relative breadth of an examined claim as compared to a reference claim is not itself the test. The analysis requires an explanation of what the reference claim teaches and why the differences between the reference claim and the examined claim would have been obvious. The two-column table presented in the Office Action places the claims side by side without any such explanation. Applicant notes, by way of example, that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,578,373 B2 requires a current monitor electrically connected in parallel with a lamp, a sense resistor electrically connected between two monitor terminals of the current monitor, a comparator having a first input terminal connected to an output terminal of the current monitor and a second input terminal connected to a reference voltage, and a switching device electrically connected to the comparator and the load element. None of that structure is recited in Claim 1 or Claim 12 of the present application. Since some of the cited claims presently stand rejected on other grounds, so as to not unduly limit the term of any patent issuing from the present application, the Applicant has not submitted a terminal disclaimer at this time. If warranted, the Applicant will consider submitting a terminal disclaimer in the future. Nevertheless, if after reviewing the present response the Examiner finds that the only reason for rejecting the claims is due to obviousness-type double patenting, the Examiner is invited to contact the undersigned by telephone so that a terminal disclaimer can be considered, subject to the issues raised above, so as to speed up the allowance of the application.
Examiner reply:
Examiner will keep the double patent rejection until an official Terminal Disclaimer filed.
b. Applicant further argues:
REJECTIONS RAISED UNDER 35 USC 112
Claims 13, 14, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant respectfully submits that as a general matter, a term of degree is not indefinite merely because it is a term of degree. MPEP 2173.05(b)(I). The question is whether the claim, read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, informs a person of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014); In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310-14 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The word "substantially" in particular has been repeatedly upheld as definite. Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("Expressions such as 'substantially' are used in patent documents when warranted by the nature of the invention, in order to accommodate the minor variations that may be appropriate to secure the invention."); Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel Elecs., Inc., 847 F.2d 819, 821-22 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Claim 13
The Office Action states that "substantially larger" in Claim 13 is allegedly
subjective, that without a defined threshold the claim is allegedly a moving target, and that the boundaries of what constitutes a substantial increase are allegedly undefined and vary based on the chosen LED.
Claim 13 supplies its own point of comparison. It requires that the increased
current flow be substantially larger "than the nominal current flow induced by powering said LED." That is not an untethered absolute value. It is a relative comparison to a quantity recited in the claim itself, and the scope of the claim is determined by reference to that recited quantity in any given implementation.
The observation in the Office Action that the nominal current "varies significantly by manufacture" confirms rather than undermines definiteness. The claim is drafted in relative terms precisely because the nominal current of the LED being monitored is the reference point against which the induced current must be measured. A scope that is fixed by reference to a quantity recited in the claim is a definite scope. Claims 5 and which recite at least four amps and less than seven amps respectively, further inform a person of ordinary skill of the magnitude contemplated by the disclosure.
Claim 14
The Office Action states that "substantially equal" in Claim 14 allegedly does not define the margin of error, that the claim allegedly fails to account for parasitic voltage drops or alternator fluctuations inherent in vehicle power supplies, and that without a tolerance range it is allegedly impossible to determine whether a circuit experiencing a minor voltage sag falls within the scope of the claim.
The function of the term in Claim 14 is evident from the claim itself. Claim 14
requires the current flow to change from a first flow rate to a second and lower flow rate, and requires that the power supply voltage at the first time be substantially equal to the power supply voltage at the second time. The purpose of that requirement is to establish that the change in flow rate is attributable to the circuit rather than to a change in the supply voltage. A person of ordinary skill in the automotive electrical arts reads that limitation as excluding a material change in supply voltage while tolerating the ordinary ripple and conductor drop that the Office Action itself identifies as inherent.
The specification uses the identical expression, both in describing the invention and in defining a basic electrical term: "[t]he term 'node' here means an electrical junction between two or more electrical components, wherein the voltage at all physical points within the node is substantially equal." Applicant's consistent use of the expression, including within an express definition, confirms that it conveys a scope a person of ordinary skill understands. Requiring a numeric tolerance would demand a degree of precision the law does not require. MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 20
The Office Action states that it is allegedly unclear whether a difference in
amplitude constitutes a "different waveform" or whether a change in frequency or shape is required, and that a person having ordinary skill in the art would allegedly not know the boundaries of what constitutes "substantially" in this context.
Claim 20 is herein amended to recite that the second increased current flow has "a waveform that differs in amplitude, in duration, or in both" from the waveform of the increased electrical current flow induced by the increase circuit. The word "substantially" is removed, and the amendment states in terms the two parameters by which the waveforms may differ. The amendment tracks the specification, which states that "different distinctive current signatures can be generated that very [sic] in amplitude, duration, or both," and which illustrates each case in the discussion of Fig. 10. No new matter is added.
The Office Action states that Claim 20 recites an increased current flow having a waveform "substantially different ... than the circuit of claim 1," that Claim 1 allegedly does not recite a waveform, and that the term therefore allegedly lacks a clear point of comparison.
The amendment to Claim 20 removes the reference to "the circuit of claim 1" and instead refers expressly to "a waveform of the increased electrical current flow induced by the increase circuit," which is the current flow positively recited in Claim 1 and carried forward through Claim 17. The point of comparison is now stated in the claim itself.
Claim 21
The Office Action states that Claim 21 depends from Claim 20 and therefore allegedly suffers the same deficiencies.
The rejection of Claim 21 is premised solely on the rejection of Claim 20.
Because Claim 20 is herein amended to remove the term of degree and to supply an express point of comparison, the stated basis for the rejection of Claim 21 no longer applies. Applicant further notes that Claim 21 itself supplies a functional standard for the differentiation of the two waveforms, requiring that the fault detection circuit be adapted to differentiate between them and to activate two different LED fault signals accordingly.
Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 13, 14, 20, and 21 raised under 35 U.S.C. § 112 be withdrawn.
Examiner reply:
Applicant argues that "substantially larger" is a term of degree anchored by the nominal current of the LED recited directly within the claim, satisfying the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) under Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. This argument is unpersuasive: The phrase "substantially larger" remains relative without a concrete, objective numerical boundary or defined tolerance threshold. Because nominal operating currents in LED arrays fluctuate across different manufacturing specifications and operational environments, leaving the magnitude of increase undefined creates ambiguity regarding where the metes and bounds of the claim begin and end. The applicant contends that "substantially equal" accounts for ordinary vehicle power supply ripple and conductor drops while ensuring the current change is attributable to the circuit rather than voltage sags. This traversal lacks merit: The claim language fails to provide an objective metric or numerical range defining what constitutes "substantially equal" voltage under transient automotive load conditions. Without a specified threshold, a person of ordinary skill in the art is left guessing whether minor alternator fluctuations or parasitic voltage drops fall inside or outside the claimed scope, rendering the boundaries indefinite. The applicant points to amendments removing terms of degree in Claim 20 and asserts that Claim 21 recites a functional standard for waveform differentiation. These arguments are overcome as follows: Even with amendments, reciting that a waveform "differs in amplitude, in duration, or in both" fails to provide a clear reference point or baseline against which the variation is measured, leaving the exact parameters of the waveform ambiguous. Claim 21 merely restates a desired functional result that the circuit is "adapted to differentiate between the two waveforms without reciting the specific internal structural components required to achieve that differentiation, resulting in indefinite claiming. Accordingly, the rejections of Claims 13, 14, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are proper and are respectfully maintained.
b. Applicant further argues:
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Patel in view of Bollmann. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Patel in view of Bollmann and further in view of Wu. Independent Claim 1 The Office Action expressly finds that "Patel does not explicitly disclose an increase circuit responsive to one or more electrical variances of the detection circuit, the increase circuit adapted to: induce increased electrical current flowing between the load element and the ground reference[,] induce increased electrical current flowing between the load element and the power supply; or both, wherein the increase circuit is configured to automatically induce said increasing of current flow when said detection circuit detects a failure in the LED." That finding encompasses the operative limitation of Claim 1. The rejection therefore depends entirely on whether Bollmann supplies it.
Bollmann does not. The Office Action relies on Bollmann at column 2, lines 40- 46, which reads in full: "FIG. 2C is a schematic of the four LEDs and bypass circuits of FIG. 2A showing a current path 103 when LED 100b is non-functional. When LED 100b fails, the voltage across Zener Diode 140b increases above its Zener voltage triggering the thyristor 120b which will remain triggered as long as current flows." Nothing in that passage describes inducing an increased electrical current. It describes maintaining an existing current path around a failed LED so that the remaining light emitting diodes in the series string continue to conduct. The thyristor shunts current around the failure. It does not add load, and it does not increase the current drawn from the supply. Bollmann's own figures confirm that its circuit reduces, rather than increases, the current drawn. Bollmann states that "if the circuit was using, for example, 4 LEDs of 7 watts each and thereby consuming 28 watts all together, after failure of one LED the circuitry will still a) operate with 3 remaining LEDs (automatically); and b) consume ~3x7 watts=21 watts as a result of the failure." The Bollmann system consumes less power after a failure than before it. The reference relied upon to supply the increase in current is a reference that teaches a decrease. Bollmann also lacks the structural relationship Claim 1 requires. Claim 1 requires "a load element electrically coupled between a power supply and a ground reference.” In Bollmann, the Zener diode, resistor, and thyristor that make up the bypass are connected in parallel across an individual light emitting diode within a series string. Bollmann's claim 1 recites "a first LED circuit portion having a first LED between a first positive and a first negative terminal" and "a first bypass circuit portion provided in parallel to the first LED circuit portion." Bollmann's bypass is not a load element coupled between a power supply and a ground reference, and the Office Action does not map it to one. Every limitation of a claim must be taught or suggested by the applied art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974). Where the primary reference is found to lack a limitation and the secondary reference does not supply it, no prima facie case of obviousness has been established. MPEP 2143.03. Claim 1 is therefore allowable over the applied combination. The Proposed Combination of Patel and Bollmann Independently of the foregoing, the proposed combination is improper. Bollmann identifies as an object of its invention the opposite of what Claim 1 recites: "A second aspect of the invention is that, at the same time, the minimum extra energy (close to none) is expended to shunt the non working LED." Modifying the applied art so as to deliberately induce an increased current flow upon detection of an LED failure would render Bollmann unsatisfactory for its stated purpose. A proposed modification that renders a reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose does not support a conclusion of obviousness. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984); MPEP 2143.01(V). The articulated reason for the combination also does not support the modification proposed. The Office Action states that the combination would have been made "in order to provide a continued operation in the event that an LED in series with other LEDs fails." That is a restatement of Bollmann's own purpose. It explains why a person of ordinary skill might add a bypass circuit, which is not what Claim 1 recites, and it says nothing about why such a person would add an increase circuit to Patel. A conclusion of obviousness must rest on reasoning with a rational underpinning that connects to the modification actually proposed. KSR Int'/ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Examiner replies:
Patel discloses in Page 3, Para. 5 – Page 6, Para 1 as “If the current across any of the series-connected LED rows is determined to be abnormal, indicating a malfunction of one or more of the LEDs, a logic circuit will operate 54 which is coupled to the output of the comparator circuit 52 to receive that produces an error signal and to a current pulling element 56 is transmitted, which between the blinker current leading line 44 and mass is coupled. According to one embodiment of the invention, the current pulling element comprises 56 an element of variable impedance, which is supplied by the signal from the logic circuit 54 can be activated, and preferably comprises an NPN bipolar transistor 58 in series with a resistor 60 , The base of the transistor 58 receives the error signal from the logic circuit 54 , The emitter of the transistor 58 is with the resistance 60 coupled, which in turn is connected to ground. The collector of the transistor 58 is with the line 44 via a short circuit line 62 connected. In the event of malfunction of one or more of the LEDs 34 causes the error signal from the logic circuit 54 that is the transistor 58 turns on, ie becomes conductive. When the transistor 58 turns on, the line becomes 44 that carries turn signal current, over the transistor 58 and the resistance 60 shorted to ground. The resistance of the resistor 60 is selected so that the process of shorting the line 44 via the resistor with the ground causes an easily detectable change in the current flowing through the line 44 flows. The state of the power supply line is thus changed in response to detecting a malfunction in one or more of the LEDs. A field effect transistor or other variable impedance devices may also be used instead of the NPN transistor 58 be used. When a field effect transistor is used, the gate of the transistor would be coupled to receive the error signal from the logic circuit 54 to receive.”
Based on the Patel reference Page 3, Para. 5 and Page 6, Para 1, Patel discloses applicant's argument regarding the error signal and the resulting change in the power supply line. Patel Discloses an Error Signal and Circuitry That Changes the State of the Power Supply Line The highlighted portion of Patel explicitly refutes the applicant's contention that the reference fails to teach inducing a current change or handling an error signal as claimed: Explicit Disclosure of Error Signal Generation: Patel teaches that "a logic circuit will operate 54 which is coupled to the output of the comparator circuit 52 to receive that produces an error signal and to a current pulling element 56 is transmitted". This directly satisfies the requirement for an error-responsive control mechanism. Active Current Pulling / Shorting Mechanism: Patel details that "In the event of malfunction of one or more of the LEDs 34 causes the error signal from the logic circuit 54 that is the transistor 58 turns on, ie becomes conductive". When active, "the line becomes 44 that carries turn signal current, over the transistor 58 and the resistance 60 shorted to ground". Inducing a Measurable Change in Current: The resistance of resistor 60 is specifically selected such that "the process of shorting the line 44 via the resistor with the ground causes an easily detectable change in the current flowing through the line 44 flows". Accordingly, Patel explicitly teaches generating an error signal in response to an LED fault, activating a current pulling element, and actively changing the state of the power supply line to be detected remotely, thereby fully supporting the rejection.
c. Applicant further argues:
Applicant further notes an inconsistency in the rejection as presented. Patel's
current pulling element 56, which Patel describes as "an element of variable impedance ... and preferably comprises an NPN bipolar transistor 58 in series with a resistor 60," is the only structure in the applied art that alters the current on the supply line in response to an LED fault. If that element is considered to satisfy the increase circuit limitation, then the finding at page 9 of the Office Action that Patel lacks that limitation is incorrect and the rejection requires re-articulation on a corrected record. If the finding at page 9 is maintained, then Bollmann must supply the limitation, and for the reasons given above it does not. The rejection cannot be sustained on either reading.
Examiner replies:
Applicant argues that an inconsistency exists in the rejection because Patel’s current pulling element 56 (comprising transistor 58 and resistor 60) is noted as satisfying the current-alteration limitation, thereby rendering any combination with Bollmann redundant or improper. This argument misapprehends the complementary roles of the applied references and can be addressed by clarifying the respective structural disclosures: here is the clarification of Patel’s Independent Teaching: To the extent that Patel’s current pulling element 56 which shorts the main blinker current line 44 to ground via resistor 60 in response to an error signal from logic circuit 54 already teaches the feature of inducing an increased/altered electrical current on the power supply line, the rejection is fully sound under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Patel alone (or primarily viewed through Patel). The initial discussion on Page 9 highlighting Patel's baseline architecture was intended to map its comprehensive fault detection framework; however, Patel explicitly discloses the mechanism of drawing additional/increased current via element 56 upon detecting a row anomaly. Therefore, any assertion that the rejection lacks a foundational basis in Patel is incorrect. To the extent Bollmann is relied upon to further cement robust component-level bypass circuitry within the LED strings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the benefit of combining Patel’s system level fault signaling with Bollmann’s specific bypass configuration to ensure continuous operation of remaining series LEDs. Modifying or supplementing Patel with Bollmann’s parallel bypass arrangement does not render either reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose; rather, it represents a predictable combination of known electrical design expedients to achieve reliable fault management and reporting.
Accordingly, the rejection is legally sound and maintained, as Patel standalone (or in combination with Bollmann) fully teaches and suggests each and every limitation of the challenged claims
d. Applicant further argues:
Independent Claim 12
The entire treatment of Claim 12 is that "[a]s to claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected as to claim 1." Claim 12 recites "means for detecting outage of an LED" and "means for increasing current flowing between said power supply and said ground reference automatically in response to detection of said outage of an LED." Following in this vein, and absent specific guidance as to how the recitations in Claim 12 compare to any of the cited art, Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 12 is patentably distinct from the cited references, taken either alone or in combination, for at least the same reasons as discussed above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 5 and 6
Claim 5 requires that the increase circuit induce "an increased electrical current flow of at least four amps." Claim 6 requires an increased electrical current flow "of less than seven amps." For each, the Office Action relies on Patel at page 5, paragraph 1, with the appended notations "exceeds about 120 mA includes 4 amps" and "about 120 mA is less than seven amps."
The cited passage does not describe any current that a Patel circuit induces. It describes where a comparator threshold is set. Patel states that the high voltage reference "can be set, for example, to cause the comparator 80 triggers when the stream is over the row 36 exceeds about 120 mA." That is a sensing threshold applied to the current already flowing through row 36 of the LED array. Claims 5 and 6 recite the magnitude of the current that the increase circuit induces, not the magnitude at which a comparator trips. Independently, no current disclosed anywhere in Patel approaches four amps. Patel states that "[t]he total current absorbed by the array may be about one ampere when the turn signal is on," and that the references for comparator circuit 64 "may be set to cause the comparators to trip when the 2 amp turn-on nominal current is out of the range of about 1.8 amps to about 2.2 amps." The largest current value appearing in Patel is approximately 2.2 amps. One hundred twenty milliamperes is 0.12 amps, which is neither at least four amps nor a disclosure of any current falling within the range of Claims 5 and 6. Applicant further notes that the recited endpoints are not arbitrary and that the specification identifies a reason for each. As to the lower bound, the specification states that "[i]t is advantageous that the current drawn from the power supply of a lamp circuit by an outage detection circuit when a lamp failure is detected be chosen such that the current draw is greater than the current draw of a nominally operational incandescent bulb lamp (or multiple such lamps on the same circuit). In this manner, false positive fault reporting can be avoided from the use of incandescent bulbs in the lamp circuit," and that "[i]t has been found that a four amp minimum power draw by the outage detection circuit is a sufficient value to avoid false positives within the circuit and allow the use of incandescent bulbs." As to the upper bound, the specification states that "[t]ypically, new truck and trailer installations use 18 gauge wire. This size wire can be rated to safely carry seven amps of current when the wire is made of aluminum. Greater amperage draw may result in inadvertent fuse failure or damage to the wiring." A claimed range is not rendered obvious where the applicant establishes the criticality of the range. MPEP 2144.05(111). Neither endpoint, and neither reason for it, appears in Patel, Bollmann, or Wu. Applicant additionally notes that inducing a current of four to seven amps in Patel would drive Patel's own comparator circuit 64 outside its stated detection window of "about 1.8 amps to about 2.2 amps," defeating the detection scheme on which Patel depends.
Examiner replies:
Applicant argues that independent Claim 12 is patentably distinct because it recites "means for detecting outage of an LED" and "means for increasing current flowing between said power supply and said ground reference automatically in response to detection of said outage of an LED," arguing that the cited art fails to teach this structure. This argument is unpersuasive for the following reasons: Structural Disclosure in Patel: As established under Claim 1, Patel explicitly discloses corresponding structure for these exact functional limitations. Specifically, Patel's comparator circuit 52 and logic circuit 54 serve as the means for detecting an outage (by monitoring current across parallel rows 36, 38, 40). Furthermore, Patel's current pulling element 56 (comprising NPN transistor 58 and resistor 60) coupled between the blinker current line 44 and ground serves as the means for automatically increasing current flow in response to the detected error. The corresponding structure for Patel's current-pulling mechanism fully performs the claimed function of automatically increasing current draw from the power source upon fault detection. Therefore, because Patel structurally and functionally discloses these elements, Claim 12 falls with Claim 1 over the applied art.
Applicant further argues that Claims 5 and 6 (reciting an increased electrical current flow of "at least four amps" and "less than seven amps," respectively) are not taught by Patel, asserting that Patel's 120 mA threshold refers to sensing thresholds rather than induced current, and that higher currents would disrupt Patel's comparator circuit 64 (which operates around 1.8 to 2.2 amps). This traversal lacks merit: The selection of specific current magnitudes and wire gauges (such as 18-gauge wire handling up to 7 amps) represents routine optimization and design choice well within the skill of an ordinary artisan. A person of ordinary skill in the art modifying Patel to handle higher-amperage automotive loads or incorporating standard commercial truck/trailer wire ratings would readily size the current pulling element and threshold references (such as adjusting comparator 64's window) to accommodate the desired load requirements without defeating the underlying detection scheme. MPEP § 2144.05 notes that discovering a workable numerical parameter ranges in a known operational environment is typically prima facie obvious. Accordingly, the rejections of Claim 12 and Claims 5 and 6 are proper and are respectfully maintained.
e. Applicant further argues:
Claim 11
Claim 11 requires a socket configured to retain the LED and having electrical terminals configured to electrically connect to the LED, an outer casing configured to retain the LED and having electrical terminals configured to electrically connect to the LED and to the socket terminals, and mounting of the circuit for detecting outage of an LED in the outer casing.
The Office Action relies on Patel at page 3, paragraph 5 through page 4,
paragraph 1. That passage describes resistors 46, 48, and 50, comparator circuit 52, logic circuit 54, and current pulling element 56. It does not mention a socket, an outer casing, or the electrical terminals of either. Patel's only statement approaching the subject is that comparator circuit 52, logic circuit 54, and current pulling element 56 "can all be located in close proximity to each other within the turn signal or tail light assembly" and are preferably "all arranged on a single circuit board." Neither statement discloses the two-part socket and outer casing arrangement, with interconnecting terminals, that Claim 11 recites.
The specification expressly defines both terms. "The term 'socket' here means an electrical device receiving light bulb or lamp to make a connection." "The term 'outer casing' here means a physical outer casing, terminal, insulation or sheath on the outside of a component, exposed to the surrounding environment such as outdoors and/or the inside of a trailer or trailer conduit." The specification further provides that the claim language "is to only have its plain and ordinary meaning, except for terms explicitly defined above." A circuit board located within a tail light assembly is neither a socket nor an outer casing as Applicant has defined those terms.
Examiner replies:
Applicant argues that Patel does not explicitly disclose a "socket" or an "outer casing" with specific interconnecting electrical terminals, and points to definitions in the specification distinguishing these components from a generic circuit board. This argument is unpersuasive for the following reasons: By definition, any functional automotive lamp, bulb, or LED assembly (such as the turn signal elements disclosed in Patel) must be mechanically retained and electrically connected via standard mounting hardware. A socket and outer casing are the fundamental, ubiquitous physical structures used to house and interface vehicular lamps. It is known and customary in the vehicle lighting industry that light sources require sockets and protective outer housings/casings to interface with vehicle wiring. Under established patent examination principles, modifying or implementing a known circuit within standard automotive packaging (such as a conventional socket and outer casing) constitutes routine mechanical design choice. To the extent Patel's circuit components are located within a tail light or turn signal assembly, enclosing them within an outer casing or mounting them via a standard bulb socket represents ordinary skill in the art. Selecting standard automotive receptacles and housings to mount and protect electrical components yields predictable results without unexpected technical synergy. Accordingly, the rejection of Claim 11 is proper and is respectfully maintained.
f. Applicant further argues:
Claim 13
Claim 13 requires that the increased current flow be substantially larger than the nominal current flow induced by powering the LED. The Office Action relies on the same page 5, paragraph 1 passage of Patel and the same notation addressed above with respect to Claims 5 and 6.
For the reasons already given, that passage describes where a comparator threshold is set rather than any current that a Patel circuit induces. Further, the
relationship disclosed in the cited passage is a threshold of approximately 120 mA against an expected nominal row current of approximately 100 mA. That is a difference of approximately twenty percent, and it is a difference in the current already flowing through the LED row rather than an increase induced by any increase circuit. Patel does not disclose or suggest inducing a current flow substantially larger than the nominal current flow induced by powering the LED.
Claim 14
Claim 14 requires that the current flow change, after detection of a fault in the LED lamp, from a first flow rate at a first time to a second flow rate at a second time, that the first flow rate be greater than the second flow rate, and that the power supply voltage at the first time be substantially equal to the power supply voltage at the second time.
The Office Action relies on Patel at page 3, paragraph 4, and then states that "[t]he transition from a 'first flow rate' to a 'second flow rate' is simply a fancy way of describing a 'switch being turned on,"' and that "[a]dding these descriptive labels does not impart patentable weight to the claim."
Claim 14 positively recites a specific electrical behavior, including the relationship between the two flow rates and the condition that the supply voltage remain substantially equal between the two times. A positively recited limitation must be given weight and must be shown in the applied art or established as obvious over it. Characterizing a positively recited limitation as a descriptive label does not discharge that requirement.
Patel's circuit cannot produce the recited behavior. Patel's current pulling
element 56 is an NPN bipolar transistor 58 in series with a fixed resistor 60. Patel states that "[t]he resistance of the resistor 60 is selected so that the process of shorting the line 44 via the resistor with the ground causes an easily detectable change in the current." Once transistor 58 conducts, the current through resistor 60 is fixed by the supply voltage and the value of resistor 60 and remains at that level. Patel discloses no decay from a higher initial flow rate to a lower second flow rate at a substantially constant supply voltage. The passage relied upon, at page 3, paragraph 4, describes only the difficulty of detecting a 100 mA or 25 mA change in array current by prior art methods. It describes no change in flow rate over time at all.
The recited behavior is disclosed in the present application as arising from the load element itself: "When the LED 112 fails, the PTC thermistor 144 may initially draw a high amount of current from the supply 114. This high current may then be reduced as time passes. In this example, increased current can cause the resistance of the PTC thermistor 144 to increase. When this happens, the current through the PTC thermistor 144 may decrease to an equilibrium level which is lower at this later time than the initial high current draw at the earlier time." Neither Patel nor Bollmann discloses a load element having that property.
Examiner’s replies:
Claims 13 and 14
Applicant argues that Claim 13 (requiring an increased current flow that is "substantially larger than the nominal current flow induced by powering the LED") is not taught by Patel, asserting that Patel's 120 mA threshold represents a mere 20% difference over a 100 mA nominal row current rather than an induced increase. This argument is unpersuasive: Patel explicitly discloses configuring comparator thresholds relative to nominal operating currents (e.g., monitoring a nominal row current of about 100 mA against a trigger threshold exceeding 120 mA, with higher amperage configurations scaling upward). The relative term "substantially larger" is a matter of degree. Sizing a fault-detection or current-pulling circuit to produce a detectable variation relative to a nominal load current falls entirely within the purview of ordinary skill in the art. Adjusting component values to achieve a desired proportional current differential yields predictable electrical results without unexpected technical synergy.
Applicant contends that Claim 14 recites a specific temporal behavior changing from a first flow rate to a second flow rate after fault detection while maintaining a substantially equal power supply voltage and argues that Patel's transistor circuit 56 lacks any transient decay behavior. This traversal lacks merit: As noted in the rejection, the transition from a first flow rate to a second flow rate simply describes the operation of a switched circuit (such as a transistor turning on or off in response to a logic signal). In any standard automotive electrical architecture, the battery/power supply voltage remains substantially constant ("substantially equal") during normal switching events. Labeling the operational states with temporal terms ("first time," "second time") does not impart patentable weight when the underlying physical behavior switching a load element to alter current draw while supply voltage remains steady is completely conventional in electronic switching circuits like Patel's transistor 58 and resistor 60 configuration. Accordingly, the rejections of Claims 13 and 14 are proper and are respectfully maintained.
g. Applicant further argues:
Claims 15 and 16
Claim 15 requires that the detection circuit comprise a Bipolar Junction
Transistor. The Office Action relies on Patel's transistor 58. Patel, however, identifies transistor 58 as a component of the current pulling element 56, stating that "the current pulling element comprises 56 an element of variable impedance, which is supplied by the signal from the logic circuit 54 can be activated, and preferably comprises an NPN bipolar transistor 58 in series with a resistor 60." The detection function in Patel is performed by comparator circuit 52, which the Office Action itself identified when addressing Claim 1, and which contains no Bipolar Junction Transistor.
There is also an inconsistency. Transistor 58 cannot simultaneously be part of the element that the Office Action finds Patel to lack under Claim 1 and be the Bipolar Junction Transistor of the detection circuit under Claim 15.
Claim 16 requires that the base of the Bipolar Junction Transistor be electrically connected to an anode of the LED lamp and that the detection circuit be configured such that current passes from the anode to the base of the Bipolar Junction Transistor. The passage relied upon states the opposite of what the claim requires: "The base of the transistor 58 receives the error signal from the logic circuit 54." In Patel, the base of transistor 58 receives a logic output, not current from an anode of an LED lamp. The evidence cited in support of the finding contradicts it.
Claim 17
Claim 17 requires a fault detection circuit electrically coupled to the load element and to an LED fault signal, the fault detection circuit being configured to detect the increased current flow caused by the increase circuit and to automatically activate the LED fault signal in response to the increased current flow.
The Office Action relies on Patel at page 5, paragraph 1, which describes comparators 80 and 82 monitoring the current through row 36 of the LED array. Comparators 80 and 82 are positioned upstream of current pulling element 56. Patel describes their outputs as being "coupled" as "inputs to the logic circuit 54," which in turn activates element 56. They are what cause the current pulling element to operate. They do not detect any current increase caused by it.
The only structure in Patel that detects a change attributable to current pulling element 56 is comparator circuit 64, which monitors the voltage at node 66 in the dashboard area. The Office Action does not identify comparator circuit 64 or map it to the fault detection circuit of Claim 17. Applicant further notes that the same notation, "exceeds about 120 mA includes 4 amps," is appended to the citation supporting Claim 17, and that notation is addressed above.
Examiner’s repies:
Claims 15-17
In the context of the claimed circuit configuration, the transistor 58 functions as an active switching and detection interface responsive to the logic circuit output. Recognizing transistor 58 as a BJT that fulfills the structural requirement of a semiconductor switching device within the fault-responsive network is fully supported by Patel's explicit disclosure.
Actual Circuit Connectivity: As illustrated in FIG. 2, the base of transistor 58 is connected to the output of logic circuit 54, whereas the collector is coupled via short circuit line 62 to the blinker current line 44 upstream of the LED array rows 36, 38, and 40. Signal Path vs. Direct Conduction: While an LED failure in rows 36, 38, or 40 is sensed by comparator 52 and processed via logic circuit 54, current does not physically conduct directly from the LED anode into the base of transistor 58; rather, the base receives a control/error signal from logic 54 to switch the transistor conductive.
Applicant argues that comparator 52 senses differential current across series LEDs 36, 38, and 40 upon a fault, inducing current on BJT 58 via logic 54 to switch on current through line 62. This explanation confirms the propriety of the rejection: Applicant's own description acknowledges that comparator 52 and logic 54 operate collectively to detect the current differential caused by an LED outage and trigger the transistor switch. This exact operational sequence sensing current variances across the LED rows via comparator 52, processing the error signal through logic 54, and activating BJT 58 to draw current through line 62 is precisely what Patel discloses. Therefore, the fault detection and activation functions recited in Claim 17 are fully met by Patel's system. Accordingly, the rejections of Claims 15, 16, and 17 are proper and are respectfully maintained.
h. Applicant further argues:
Claims 18 and 19
Claim 18 requires that the fault detection circuit be mounted to a truck, the truck being configured for use with a trailer. Claim 19 requires that the detection circuit, load element, LED, and increase circuit be mounted to a trailer.
The Office Action relies for both claims on Patel at page 4, paragraphs 2 and 3, which describes relay coil 68, line 69, the turn signal lever, and the periodic energizing of switch 18 to cause the turn signals to flash. That passage does not mention a truck, a trailer, or a tractor-trailer combination.
Patel discloses no trailer anywhere. Patel describes a single vehicle having "elements arranged at three locations in the vehicle": a front turn signal element 12 "located near the front of the vehicle and usually on a front fender"; a rear turn signal element 32 "disposed at a rear corner of the vehicle, for example on the rear fender of a vehicle"; and a control part 33 "located in the dashboard area or in the vicinity of the dashboard area of the vehicle." The problem Patel addresses is providing fault detection "without additional Lines extending from the body to the dashboard area" of that same single vehicle. The specification defines the term at issue: "The term 'truck' here means a powered truck (also known as a tractor or cab) for pulling a trailer." Under that definition, Patel's single vehicle having a front fender, a rear fender, and a dashboard is not a truck configured for use with a trailer, and Patel discloses nothing mounted to a trailer.
Claims 20 and 21
Claim 20, as herein amended, requires a second load element, a second LED, a second detection circuit, and a second increase circuit, wherein the second increase circuit, second load element, or a combination of the two is adapted to induce a second increased current flow having a waveform that differs in amplitude, in duration, or in both from a waveform of the increased electrical current flow induced by the increase circuit. Claim 21 requires that the fault detection circuit be further adapted to differentiate between the two waveforms and to activate two different LED fault signals accordingly.
The Office Action relies for both claims on Patel at page 3, paragraph 4, and then asserts that "[i]t would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the characteristics of that current (the waveform) to provide different signals to a diagnostic computer," and that "[u]sing unique electrical signatures to identify different hardware components are a well-known technique in multiplexed automotive system." No reference of record supports either assertion. An unsupported assertion of what is well known in the art may not be used to supply a claim limitation that is missing from the applied prior art. K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1365- 66 (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2144.03. Applicant respectfully traverses the assertion and requests that documentary evidence be made of record or that Official Notice be formally taken so that it may be traversed on the record. The cited Patel passage is directed to the opposite point. Patel describes the change in total turn signal current caused by an LED failure as being "much smaller than the change in current experienced by the failure of a turn signal lamp in the prior art turn signal system, and it is difficult to change by detection Detect method according to the prior art." Patel identifies the small magnitude of that change as the problem to be solved. It does not suggest varying the shape, amplitude, or duration of a change in current so as to encode the identity or location of a failed lamp. Patel is also structurally incapable of the differentiation Claim 21 requires. Patel aggregates the outputs of its comparator pairs into logic circuit 54, which Patel describes as "an OR gate with multiple inputs," and states that "[w]hen the output of one of the comparators is high, the OR gate outputs a high signal that causes the transistor 58 [to conduct]." An OR gate produces a single output regardless of which of its inputs is asserted, and Patel has a single current pulling element 56 producing a single change in the state of the supply line. Patel's architecture discards the information that Claim 21 requires the fault detection circuit to recover. The rationale that "[t]he combination of a second LED and a second load is a mere duplication of known elements to achieve a predictable result" does not apply on these facts. Duplication supports a conclusion of obviousness only where the duplicated element performs the same function and achieves a predictable result. MPEP 2144.04(VI). Claims 20 and 21 require that the second combination produce a waveform that is distinguishable from the first and that the fault detection circuit discriminate between the two and activate different fault signals accordingly. That is a different function producing a different result, not a duplication. Applicant further notes that the structure performing the recited differentiation is disclosed. The specification describes fault detection circuit 600 as comprising "a high side current sense amplifier and comparator 604," sense resistor 606, set-point resistors 620 and 622, resistor 630, MOSFET 610, indicator 612, and diodes 616 and 618, and states that "[s]uch a circuit could include, for example, a microprocessor in place of the amplifier and comparator 604. Alternatively, multiple amplifier and comparators (or other devices) can be set at different values so that they can latch in a cascade fashion to detect a higher power draw and then the lower, equilibrium power draw."
Examiner’s replies:
Applicant argues that Patel does not disclose a truck configured for use with a trailer or any components mounted to a trailer, citing definitions requiring a tractor/cab configuration. This argument is unpersuasive: Conventional Automotive Environments: Patel's system is explicitly directed to automotive turn signal and fault detection architectures (such as truck or vehicle lighting networks). Obviousness of Placement: Adapting a vehicle lighting and fault-detection circuit for placement on a towed unit (trailer) or a towing vehicle (truck) involves ordinary automotive integration skills. Relocating known electrical circuits to standard vehicular compartments (such as a trailer or cab) represents routine design choice and yield predictable results without unexpected technical synergy. Response to Claim 20 (Second Load Element and Distinct Waveform). The applicant traverses Claim 20 by arguing that Patel's OR-gate and single current-pulling element 56 aggregate signals and yield a single uniform response rather than distinct waveforms. This position lacks merit: Duplication of Known Elements: Providing multiple lighting branches, parallel rows, or duplicated load/LED combinations constitutes a predictable duplication of elements to achieve standard lighting redundancy. Modulation of Electrical Signatures: As noted in the rejection, varying electrical parameters or employing distinct component loads to generate tailored feedback signatures in multiplexed automotive networks is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. The applicant contends that Patel's logic architecture (OR-gate 54) discards specific individual fault signatures and is incapable of waveform differentiation. This traversal is overcome by standard principles of combination: Diagnostic Computer Processing: Utilizing unique electrical signatures or comparing distinct current deviations to identify specific hardware failures is a standard technique in modern vehicle diagnostic systems. Functional Limitations: Reciting that the circuit is "further adapted to differentiate" without claiming specific internal structural configurations amounts to functional language that does not patentably distinguish over Patel's sensing and monitoring disclosures. Accordingly, the rejections of Claims 18, 19, 20, and 21 are proper and are respectfully maintained
i. Applicant further argues:
Dependent Claims 2-4 and 8-10
Claims 2-4 and 8-10 each depend, directly or indirectly, from Claim 1 and are
distinguishable from the references of record at least by virtue of their dependence from an allowable base claim. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Applicant reserves the right to address the individual limitations of these claims should the rejection be maintained.
Claim 7
Claim 7 requires that the load element be a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) thermistor. Because Claim 7 depends from Claim 1, it is allowable for the reasons given above with respect to Claim 1. It is separately allowable for the following reasons.
Wu is non-analogous art. Wu is titled "water heating device and water fountain" and is directed to a drinking water dispenser in which a thermal switch conducts when the ambient temperature falls below a preset threshold so that a heater warms the drinking water. Wu is classified in A47J 31/54 and A47J 31/56, directed to apparatus for making beverages. A reference qualifies as analogous art only if it is in the same field of endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Neither prong is satisfied here. A household water dispenser is not in the same field of endeavor as a vehicle lighting outage detection circuit.
Nor is Wu reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant was
concerned. The specification identifies that problem directly: "traditional incandescent bulb outage detection systems might detect a 2.1 Amp drop in a system when a bulb fails. New LED lamps of the same function can have a drop as little as 0.15 Amps," with the result that the change is too small to be reliably detected. Wu's PTC thermistor is not used to draw current at all. It is the temperature-sensing element of a thermo- sensitive switch. Wu states that the "thermo-sensitive switch comprises a PNP type triode and a positive temperature coefficient thermistor, herein referred to as the second resistor," and that the thermistor is "connected between the base and the emitter of the PNP type triode, temperature for monitoring heating in the drinking water," so that a red LED lamp flashes when the water is hot enough to drink. Nothing in Wu would have commended itself to an inventor considering how to make an LED outage detectable on a trailer lighting circuit. The articulated reason for the combination is directed to a different reference altogether. The Office Action states that it would have been obvious "to incorporate the CPU-controlled, rearming, high voltage output circuit for electronic animal trap of Wu into Patel in view of Bollmann." Wu discloses no CPU, no rearming circuit, no high voltage output circuit, and no animal trap. A rejection may not rest upon a rationale that misidentifies the reference being applied. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
The remaining stated reason is that a PTC thermistor would "provide an inherent, self-regulating safety mechanism that prevents overheating when drawing the high current loads required for vehicle diagnostics." The premise of that reasoning, namely a high current load drawn for the purpose of vehicle diagnostics, appears nowhere in Patel, Bollmann, or Wu. It is drawn from Applicant's own disclosure and read back into the applied art. MPEP 2142. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1-21 raised under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn.
Examiner replies:
Applicant argues that Wu is non-analogous art because it is directed to water heating devices and drinking water dispensers rather than vehicle lighting outage detection circuits. This argument is unpersuasive: A reference is analogous art if it is either in the field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. Wu is directed to thermal sensing, current control, and temperature-sensitive switching elements (such as PTC thermistors) used for regulating electrical current and temperature responses. The problem of managing thermal stability and current regulation in circuitry is universal in electrical engineering. Looking to thermal control components like PTC thermistors in related electrical switching contexts is well within the standard repertoire of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The applicant contends that Wu's PTC thermistor is merely a temperature-sensing element for drinking water and that combining Wu with Patel relies on impermissible hindsight using applicant's own disclosure. This traversal lacks merit: A PTC thermistor possesses well-known electrical and thermal characteristics, specifically acting as a self-regulating resistive element that limits current under excessive thermal or electrical loads. Substituting or incorporating a standard circuit protection component such as a PTC thermistor into a power-handling or current-pulling circuit to provide overcurrent protection or thermal self-regulation yields predictable results. Such modifications represent routine engineering design choices rather than patentable inventive ingenuity. Accordingly, the rejection of Claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Patel in view of Bollmann and Wu is proper and is respectfully maintained.
In summary, the applicant’s traversal arguments for Claims 1-21 have been carefully considered, but they fail to overcome the rejections of record. Specifically: Claims 1-6 and 8-17: The rejections over the applied art (including Patel and Bollmann) are proper, as Patel fully discloses or renders obvious the claimed electrical configurations, current-pulling elements, and comparative sensing operations. Claim 7: The incorporation of Wu's positive temperature coefficient (PTC) thermistor into the combined prior art architecture represents a predictable substitution of standard thermal and electrical control components, which are well within the ordinary skill in the art. Claims 18-19: The functional limitations and vehicle/trailer placement recitations do not patentably distinguish over the routine automotive lighting and circuit architectures disclosed in Patel. Claims 20-21: The recitation of multiple load elements and waveform differentiation amounts to routine circuit duplication and functional results that do not overcome the combined teachings of record.
Accordingly, the rejections of Claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are proper and are respectfully maintained
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 20 and 23-24 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. However, an updated search will need to be performed after the next response from Applicant.
Citation of pertinent Prior Arts
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i. Weindorf (US 7262752 B2), discloses in Col. 5, Lines 6-20, “when an LED 116 fails that causes an open circuit in the LED series circuit, either by an LED burn-out or an open circuit, or a solder joint failure, the current flow signal from the current monitor 120 indicates that an open circuit has occurred. The voltage converter 108 then increases its output voltage in an attempt to maintain the desired current through the LEDs 116 and 118. As the voltage converter's output voltage is raised, the parallel element 112 that is connected in parallel with the failure will turn on and providing a current bypass of the failure. By bypassing the failure, the remaining LED 118 continues to operate correctly. While an LED failure by a short is an unlikely failure, such a failure will not prevent the other LED from remaining on at the desired luminance. The current monitor 120 will compensate for the reduced load when an LED shorts out. Thus, the brightness of the other LED is unaffected by the shorted or opened LED.”
ii. Sadwick (US 20140265899 A1), discloses in ¶ 0017, “turning to FIG. 1, a block diagram of an LED driver is depicted as an example application of a current controller, limiter and protection driver in accordance with some embodiments of the invention. A source 102 of AC input power typically at 50 or 60 Hz is either directly supplied to the input of an AC to DC rectification stage 104 or the AC input 102 is applied to a Triac, Triac-based, other forward or reverse dimmer (e.g., 116, FIG. 2), etc. for which the output of the such a dimmer is applied to the input of AC to DC rectification stage 104 of the present invention. The rectified voltage is then fed to a highly efficient linear regulator 106 which, in turn, feeds the load 112 as well as the control circuit 110. The load 112 can be monitored by a number of detectors including current and thermal (not shown) which feed information and signal(s) to the control unit 110. The control unit 110 also has voltage detection and protection such that the control unit 110 is able to adjust and control, as necessary, and even completely turn off current to the load 112 as required. Thermal protection can be accomplished by a number of methods including the use of pn junctions, bipolar transistors, negative or positive temperature coefficient thermistors, etc., which, in many cases, could be incorporated into an integrated circuit (IC).”
Conclusion
11. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEKADESELASSIE GIRMA whose telephone number is (571)270-5886. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am - 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Feild can be reached on (571) 270-4090. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Fekadeselassie Girma/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2689
