DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in this application because Figure 3 shows only generic flow charts with no information presented in each element of the chart. Applicants' invention is unclear from the drawings because a number of methods may fit the same flow diagram. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner Comment
Dependent claims 12-14 are written in independent form. Even though antecedent basis of multiple limitations are not consistent with claim 1. Examiner finds the metes and bounds of the claim are definite and a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of inventive filing could reasonably construct the claim without confusion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,5-6,11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kawahara US 2017/0349126.
In Re 1-3,5-6,11-14 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).
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).
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 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) 4,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara US 2017/0349126 in view of 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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara US 2017/0349126 in view of Vanderley US 2007/0168097.
In Re 8, Kawahara teaches generate the processed voltage as in re 1 above, or (optional) - generate the processed voltage by calculating an integral of the measured voltage.
Kawahara does not teach although Vanderley teaches by filtering the measured voltage with a low-pass filter (para 33 low pass filter) or a band-pass filter. Vanderley further teaches filter used in comparator signal control para 33. 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 Vanderley’s low pass filter to Kawahara’s voltage measurement to process control signals.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara US 2017/0349126 in view of Fendt et al US 6,456,915.
In Re 9, Kawahara teaches to process the measured voltage as in re 1 above.
Kawahara does not teach although Fendt teaches generate the processed voltage by calculating an integral of the square of the measured voltage (abstract). Fendt further teaches integral of square of voltage is a simple way of simply and accurately determining the supply of power abstract. 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 Fendt’s integral of square to Kawahara’s circuit to simply and accurately determining the supply of power.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara US 2017/0349126 in view of Moertl et al US 2018/0267094.
In Re 10, Kawahara teaches the monitoring circuit, provided via the first terminal and second terminal as in re 1 as described above.
Kawahara does not teach although Moertl teaches is further configured to measure the current (measure current para 12), and wherein to processing the measured voltage (para 12 measured voltage at terminal) comprises: - generate the processed voltage by calculating a ratio between the measured voltage and the measured current, whereby the processed voltage is indicative of a resistance of the pyrotechnic device (ratio para 12 and inherent to Ohm’s Law V=IR or V/I = R, V/I being a ratio). Moertl further teaches measurement of conductance with these variables para 12 for safety paras 1-5 . 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 Moertl’s measurement system to Kawahara’s circuits to measure conductance for safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
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