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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10, lines 2-3 recites, “determine a overcurrent detection response time”, which should be corrected to “determine an overcurrent detection response time”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “a plurality of mode switching sources” in communication with the programmable logic device and diagnostic microcontroller, in lines 5-6. It is indefinite which elements are referred to as a plurality of mode switching sources (Figures 2-3 shows many elements in communication with 71/171, none are labelled as a mode switching element) or how claimed elements related/operable for the functionality (such as the recited determine a vehicle operation mode) of the trigger sensor. For examination purposes, the recited, “a plurality of mode switching sources” is considered as any elements in communication with the communication with the programmable logic device and diagnostic microcontroller.
Independent Claims 9 and 16 have similar recitations and similarly rejected. Claims 2-8 depend from Claim 1, Claims 10-15 depend from Claim 9 and Claims 17-19 depend from Claim 16 and are rejected due to dependency to a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boury et al. (US2022/0278520, IDS Document).
Regarding Claim 1, Boury discloses a trigger sensor operable with a fuse module (Figures 1-6), the trigger sensor comprising:
a programable logic device and a diagnostics microcontroller unit (comprising 160, Figure 1, 260, Figure 2, details in Figures 4-6) operable to receive outputs from a hall sensor (comprising 155, Figure 1, 255, Figure 2, Figures 4a-6, Paragraphs 114, 134) and one or more external sources (comprising ECU 130, 230, Figures 1-2 respectively), and to provide an output to a fuse module (comprising fuse 158, 258, Figures 1-2 respectively); and
a plurality of mode switching sources in communication with the programable logic device and the diagnostics microcontroller unit (input/out elements coupled to 160, 260, Figures 1-2 respectively), wherein the programable logic device and the diagnostics microcontroller unit determine a vehicle operation mode from a plurality of vehicle operation modes (Paragraphs 128, 139).
Regarding Claim 2, Boury discloses the trigger sensor of Claim 1, wherein the programable logic device and the diagnostics microcontroller unit determine an over current detection response time based on the determined vehicle operation mode (Paragraph 128, “….a collision occurs causing an airbag to be activated. Upon such an event the airbag ECU may send a command to unconditionally blow the fuse, as a safety precaution”, Paragraph 139, “…. if this measured current is larger than the value Imax (see FIG. 3), then the controller knows that there is no time to even try to open the switch, and hence the controller will immediately blow the fuse…”).
Regarding Claim 3, Boury discloses the trigger sensor of Claim 1, wherein the programmable logic device and the diagnostics microcontroller unit determine an over current detection response time based on an internally measured current polarity of a current Hall sensor 155, 255 sensing current through 154 providing current flow/polarity, Figures 1-2 respectively, Paragraphs 128, 139).
Regarding Claim 4, Boury discloses the trigger sensor of Claim 3, wherein the over current detection response time is an amount of delay the current is permitted to be above a threshold value (Paragraph 139, “…. if this measured current is larger than the value Imax (see FIG. 3), then the controller knows that there is no time to even try to open the switch, and hence the controller will immediately blow the fuse…”).
Regarding Claim 5, Boury discloses the trigger sensor of Claim 3, wherein the over current detection response time is switch between multiple, different over current detection response times based on the internally measured current polarity of the current and without an external mode switch signal (Hall sensor 155, 255 sensing current through 154 providing current flow/polarity, Figures 1-2 respectively, Paragraphs 128, 139).
Regarding Claim 6, Boury discloses the trigger sensor of Claim 1, further comprising a pulse width modulation filter connected to the plurality of mode switching sources (PWM in 500, 600, Figures 5-6 respectively).
Regarding Claim 7, Boury discloses the trigger sensor of Claim 6, wherein the pulse width modulation filter is further connected to the diagnostics microcontroller unit and to the programable logic device (PWM in processor in 500, 600, Figures 5-6 respectively).
Regarding Claim 8, Boury discloses the trigger sensor of Claim 1, wherein the trigger sensor is operable to trip a fuse of the fuse module in response to at least one of the following: a current level measurement exceeding a predefined threshold, an external signal from a squib drive, and an external signal from another current sensor indicating an over current (Paragraphs 128, 139).
Regarding Claim 9, Boury discloses a multi-channel-input triggering pyrotechnic fuse for electric vehicle (EV) applications (Figures 1-6, Paragraphs 1-3, 6), comprising:
a programable logic device and a diagnostics microcontroller unit (comprising 160, Figure 1, 260, Figure 2, details in Figures 4-6) operable to receive outputs from a hall sensor (comprising 155, Figure 1, 255, Figure 2, Figures 4a-6) and one or more external sources (comprising ECU 130, 230, Figures 1-2 respectively), and to provide an output to a fuse module (comprising fuse 158, 258, Figures 1-2 respectively); and
a plurality of mode switching sources in communication with the programable logic device and the diagnostics microcontroller unit (input/out elements coupled to 160, 260, Figures 1-2 respectively),
wherein the programable logic device and the diagnostics microcontroller unit determine a vehicle operation mode from a plurality of vehicle operation modes (Paragraphs 128, 139).
Claims 10-13 recite the same limitations as Claims 2, 6-8 respectively, except for the dependency to Claim 9. Therefore, Claims 10-13 are rejected similarly to Claims 2, 6-8 respectively.
Regarding Claim 16, Boury discloses a multi-channel-input triggering pyrotechnic fuse for electric vehicle (EV) applications (Figures 1-6, Paragraphs 1-3, 6), comprising:
a programable logic device and a diagnostics microcontroller unit (comprising 160, Figure 1, 260, Figure 2, details in Figures 4-6) operable to receive outputs from a hall sensor (comprising 155, Figure 1, 255, Figure 2, Figures 4a-6) and one or more external sources (comprising ECU 130, 230, Figures 1-2 respectively), and to provide an output to a fuse module (comprising fuse 158, 258, Figures 1-2 respectively); and
a plurality of mode switching sources in communication with the programable logic device and the diagnostics microcontroller unit (input/out elements coupled to 160, 260, Figures 1-2 respectively),
wherein the programable logic device and the diagnostics microcontroller unit determine a vehicle operation mode from a plurality of vehicle operation modes (Paragraphs 128, 139), and
wherein the programable logic device and the diagnostics microcontroller unit determine a over current detection response time based on the determined vehicle operation mode ((Paragraph 128, “….a collision occurs causing an airbag to be activated. Upon such an event the airbag ECU may send a command to unconditionally blow the fuse, as a safety precaution”, Paragraph 139, “…. if this measured current is larger than the value Imax (see FIG. 3), then the controller knows that there is no time to even try to open the switch, and hence the controller will immediately blow the fuse…”).
Claims 17-19 recite the same limitations as Claims 6-8 respectively, except for the dependency to Claim 16. Therefore, Claims 17-19 are rejected similarly to Claims 6-8 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boury et al. (US2022/0278520, IDS Document).
Regarding Claim 14, Boury discloses the multi-channel-input triggering pyrotechnic fuse of Claim 13, further comprising a resistor (comprising 264, Figure 2). Boury does not specifically disclose a resistor that have a same resistance as a pyro ignitor used to imitate an ignitor for external triggering from the squib drive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide additional elements such as a resistor for testing and/simulation of the trigger sensor using external command/control signals.
Regarding Claim 15, Boury discloses the multi-channel-input triggering pyrotechnic fuse of Claim 13, further comprising an isolation component (Paragraphs 132, 135), wherein the fuse module is externally triggered from the squib drive (Paragraphs 114, :… whereas the controller 160 (and other components which will be described further) operate in the low voltage domain which is galvanically separated from the high-voltage domain”, 128, 134, 139).
Boury does not specifically disclose an optocoupler component, wherein the optocoupler component is externally triggered from the squib drive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the multi-channel-input triggering pyrotechnic fuse, an optocoupler as the isolation component to facilitate an optically triggered, transistor circuit for galvanic isolation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kambham (US 10/833,499) discloses in Figures 1-3, a pyro-fuse control circuit 101 triggers activation of the pyro-fuse 126 responsive to excessive current flow in the conductor 122. For example, if the current flow in the conductor 122 is indicative of a short circuit of the conductor 122 to ground, then the pyro-fuse control circuit 101 triggers activation of the pyro-fuse 126 to sever the conductor 122 and isolate the power source from the load circuit. The pyro-fuse control circuit 101 includes a current sensing circuit 102 and a diagnostic circuit 104 that is coupled to the current sensing circuit 102.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-6002. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 am - 5:30 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, Crystal L Hammond can be reached at (571)270-1682. 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.
/LUCY M THOMAS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2838, 9/05/2026.
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights