DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs 7, filed 9/18/26, with respect to drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs 7-10, filed 9/18/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kawahara in view of Arnold as described below. Examiner notes claim 8 optional limitation, was rejected in view of Kawahara. Further, claim 1 amendment has different language and limitations than previously pending claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8’s further limitation of “calculating an integral of the measured voltage” does not modify or further limit claim 1 and the language before of “calculating the integral over time of the function of the measured voltage”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,5-6,8,9,11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara US 2017/0349126 in view of Arnold et al US 4,052,717.
In Re 1 Kawahara teaches:
1. A deployment circuit for a pyrotechnic device (squib abstract, 70a-h fig 4), comprising:
- a first terminal (To1a) and a second terminal (To1b) configured to be connected to the pyrotechnic device;
- a driver circuit (15,14a) configured to energize the pyrotechnic device by selectively applying a voltage or current to the first terminal and second terminal as a function of at least one control signal (Sh1,SI1, paras 51-55);
- a monitoring circuit (65) configured to:
- measure a voltage (deltaV) across the first terminal and second terminal,
- process the measured voltage (paras 55-59, differential amplification),
- determine whether the processed voltage is greater than a threshold (Vth paras 66-67), and
- in response to determining that the processed voltage is greater than the threshold, assert a comparison signal (Sok activiation success para 67 deltaV > thr, not Sng activation failure); and
- a control circuit (1,20 fig 3) configured to:
- receive a fire request signal (Sd1-Sd4) and the comparison signal (Sok),
- in response to the fire request signal (paras 61,71-75), generate the at least one control signal (Sh1 SI1) in order to energize the pyrotechnic device via the driver circuit (fig 9),
- determine whether the comparison signal (SoK) is asserted,
- in response to determining that the comparison signal is de-asserted (Sok not active, Sng is active), energize again the pyrotechnic device (para 84, “signal Sng indicating activation failure of the occupant protection device 9, the activation processing unit 22 again transmits the activation signal Scnt for activating the occupant protection device 9 whose activation fails to the power supply unit 10” where Sh1 and SI1 driven in response to Scnt)(at least all figs and paras).
Kawahara does not teach although Arnold teaches to generate a processed voltage by calculating an integral over time of a function of the measured voltage (fig 6 item 518, note open transitional phrase comprising being inclusive, further e can be zero or null and col 9 l 45 – col 10 l 5 “ produces a function which is an integral of the square of the difference or variation of the battery terminal voltage” with natural phenomenon of variation not always not occurring). Arnold further teaches processing measured voltage for determination col 9 l 45 – col 10 l 5, further Arnolds embodiment is an alternative of embodiments 1-3 which use simpler processing of measure voltage including merely measured value, further Kawahara teaches his voltage detecting unit 65 as non limiting with possibility of alternatives. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to replace Kawahara’s measured voltage process with Arnold’s for voltage determination with a PHOSITA to expect success of combination of art.
In Re 2-3,5-6,8,9,11-14 Kawahara in view of Arnold, Kawahara further teaches:
2. The deployment circuit of claim 1, wherein the driver circuit comprises: - at least one electronic switch (12) configured to selectively connect the first terminal and second terminal to a supply voltage (8 Vbat) as a function of the at least one control signal.
3. The deployment circuit of claim 2, wherein the driver circuit further comprises: - a current limiter (61,64) configured to limit the current provided to the first terminal and second terminal to a maximum value (paras 55-58).
5. The deployment circuit of claim 1, wherein the control circuit is further configured to:
- in response to the fire request signal (s11 fig 10), start a timer (s13),
- determine whether the timer reaches a time threshold (s13 yes), and - in response to determining that the timer reaches the time threshold, stop an energization of the pyrotechnic device via the driver circuit (s14 yes).
6. The deployment circuit of claim 5, wherein the control circuit is further configured to determine whether the comparison signal is asserted (Sok), in response to determining that the timer reaches the time threshold (S13 yes)(post activation of side and or current airbags 70b-h the monitoring circuit 65 determines deltaV of each respective airbag and Sok per para 67 of output units 14b-14h).
8. (Currently Amended) The deployment circuit of claim 1, wherein calculating the integral over time of the function of the measured voltage is calculating an integral of the measured voltage (see Kawahara in view of Arnold as in re 1 above, and the 35 USC 112d rejection above).
9. (Currently Amended) The deployment circuit of claim[[s]] 1, wherein calculating the integral over time of the function of the measured voltage is calculating an integral of [[the]] a square of the measured voltage (Kawahar in view of Arnold, Arnold fig 6 item 518, note open transitional phrase comprising being inclusive, further e can be zero or null and col 9 l 45 – col 10 l 5 “ produces a function which is an integral of the square of the difference or variation of the battery terminal voltage” with natural phenomenon of variation not always not occurring).
11. The deployment circuit of claim 1: wherein the energizing again the pyrotechnic device comprises generating again (para 84) the at least one control signal in order to energize the pyrotechnic device via the driver circuit; or (optional) wherein the deployment circuit comprises a further driver circuit configured to energize the pyrotechnic device by selectively applying a voltage or current to the first terminal and second terminal as a function of at least one further control signal, and wherein the energizing again the pyrotechnic device comprises generating the at least one further control signal in order to energize the pyrotechnic device via the further driver circuit.
In Re 12, the integrated circuit (para 51 “integrated circuit) of claim 12 rejected over in re 1 as taught by Kawahara as described above.
In Re 13, the vehicle (fig 2) of claim 13 rejected over in re 1 as taught by Kawahara as described above.
In Re 14, the method (at least figs 9-11) of claim 14 rejected over in re 1 as taught by Kawahara as described above.
Claim(s) 4,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara US 2017/0349126 in view of Arnold et al US 4,052,717 and Zimmerman et al US 2025/0085326.
In Re 4, Kawahara teaches the maximum value and control signal as in re 1 above.
Kawahara does not teach although Zimmerman teaches the maximum value is settable via the at least one control signal (abstract “A respective current limit is set corresponding to each time interval”, paras 6-10,33). Zimmerman further teaches battery power management para 3. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Zimmerman’s settable value via control signal to Kawahara’s vehicle to manage battery power.
In Re 7, Kawahara teaches
- in response to the fire request signal (Sd1-Sd4), - in response to determining that a timer reaches a time threshold (S13 yes fig 10), set the maximum value of the current limiter to a first value (factory set value), and - then determine whether the comparison signal is asserted (post activation of side and or current airbags 70b-h the monitoring circuit 65 determines deltaV of each respective airbag and Sok per para 67 of output units 14b-14h).
Kawahara does not teach although Zimmerman teaches set the maximum value of the current limiter to a second value, wherein the second value is smaller than the first value (abstract “A respective current limit is set corresponding to each time interval”, paras 6-10,33 including a smaller limit value). Zimmerman further teaches battery power management para 3. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Zimmerman’s settable value via control signal to Kawahara’s vehicle to manage battery power.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: teaches electrical power equals current time voltage, P=IV, also known as Watts Law; further the integral or net change over time of measured voltage yields an average value and or in conjunction with current and or resistance yields net power, e.g. P=VI, P=I^2R, P=V^2/R, all functions known to be integrated; further the integral over time of root mean squared voltage (V_RMS) is an average power calculation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Interview Agendas can be faxed to examiner at (571)273-3748.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARL C STAUBACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
