DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 3, 9, 13 and 18 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.
It is unclear what is “close to zero” and recited in claims 3 and 13.
It is unclear what is “near zero current” as recited in claim 9.
It is unclear in claim 18 what the time frame “throughout” is referring to.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation remain open throughout, and the claim also recites remain at least until the output is provided which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception of mental steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) calculation and comparison steps. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the resultant data is not used to do anything beyond display an output. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are either pre solution activity required for routine data gathering or are recitations that the steps are performed by a computer.
Claims 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1 is/are directed to a method which is statutory category of invention. However, the claim recites Mathematical Relationships and/or Mental Processes which are abstract ideas and therefore are judicial exceptions.
The steps of requesting opening of a positive contactor and a negative contactor and acquiring measurements are considered data gathering and, as such, only represent insignificant pre-solution activity.
Under step 2A, Prong 1, calculate voltages as claimed could be no more than a mental step or may be a mathematical comparison. However, both the relationship determinations are abstract ideas.
Evaluate the first contactor voltage and the second contactor voltage in view of a voltage criterion, determine that one or more of the positive contactor and the negative contactor is welded when the respective one of the first contactor voltage and the second contactor voltage fulfill the voltage criterion are just comparison steps. Providing an output is an insignificant post solution activity.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, these steps are not found to be integrated into a practical application, because they are just outputting a determined value.
Under Step 2B, the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the obtaining output voltages are routine data gathering while calculating sums and comparing values are just mental steps.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 simply define the voltage value(s)/thresholds for comparison.
Claims 4 and 14 only claim calculations which is a mental step.
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 recite how the calculations are performed but they are still sums and differences calculations.
The additional language of claim 8 does not integrate the invention into a practical application. It only defines an environment/intended use.
Claim 9 is a comparison determination which is a mental step.
The additional language of claim 10 does not integrate the invention into a practical application. It only defines an environment/intended use.
Regarding claim 18, requesting opening of a positive contactor and a negative contactor keeping the positive contactor and the negative contactor open throughout are considered data gathering and, as such, only represent insignificant pre-solution activity.
Claims 19-20 recite that a computer program is implanting the steps. Courts have found computers and computer implemented processes to be ineligible when generic computer functions are merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by human analog.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 8, 10-11 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salziger (DE102012215190A1). Regarding claims 1 and 11, Salziger teaches a computer system comprising processing circuitry (¶33, fig 1, BCU) configured to request opening of a positive contactor (Fig. 1, contactor 101) and a negative contactor (Fig 1, contactor 110) arranged to controllably connect an electrical energy storage system (Fig 1, storage system 106) to a load (01, [0032], Fig 1, load not represented), acquire measurements ¶36 of a first voltage between a positive pole and a negative pole (126) on the electrical energy storage system side of the contactors (¶36), a second voltage between one of the positive pole or the negative pole and ground on the electrical energy storage system side of the contactors (¶36, measure of voltage corresponding to the isolation resistance), a third voltage between the positive pole and the negative pole on the load side of the contactors (¶37), and a fourth voltage between one of the positive pole or the negative pole and ground on the load side of the contactors (¶36, measure of voltage corresponding to the isolation resistance), calculate a first contactor voltage across one of the negative contactor and the positive contactor and a second contactor voltage across the other one of the negative contactor and the positive contactor based on the first measured voltage, the second measured voltage, the third measured voltage, and the fourth measured voltage (¶37), evaluate the first contactor voltage and the second contactor voltage in view of a voltage criterion (¶37), determine that one or more of the positive contactor and the negative contactor is welded (in need of service) when the respective one of the first contactor voltage and the second contactor voltage fulfill the voltage criterion, and provide an output indicating that one or more of the positive contactor and the negative contactor is welded (claim 2). ¶4 teaches that welded contacts are contacts in need of service.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, fig. 1 and ¶¶1-4 teach that the electrical energy storage system is a propulsion electrical energy storage system of a vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, the measuring and determination occurs when the contactors are open.
Regarding claims 19-20, the program is run on the BCU.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salziger (DE102012215190A1) in view of Hannes (DE102015008467). Salziger teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for the voltage criterion is that one or more of the first contactor voltage the second contactor voltage is below or equal to a voltage threshold. Hannes teaches in ¶¶5 and 23-24 that it was known to use the voltage criterion is that one or more of the first contactor voltage the second contactor voltage is below or equal to a voltage threshold. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Hannes for the purpose of determining a fault.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, detecting no or almost no voltage is the epitome of equal to or below a voltage threshold.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salziger (DE102012215190A1) in view of Hannes (DE102015008467). Salziger teaches the salient features of the claimed invention including calculating voltages as a difference of sum of other voltages. See ¶¶36-37. Hannes teaches it was known to calculate voltages as a difference of sum of other voltages. See ¶¶ 16 and 58-65. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to calculate the first contactor voltage as a difference between the second measured voltage and the fourth measured voltage for the purpose of minimizing the number of required actual voltage measurements.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to calculate the second contactor voltage as a difference between a first difference and a second difference, the first difference being the difference between the first voltage and the second voltage, and the second difference being the difference between the third voltage and the fourth voltage for the purpose of minimizing the number of required actual voltage measurements.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to :calculate the first contactor voltage across the negative contactor as the difference between the fourth voltage and the second voltage, and calculate the second contactor voltage across the positive contactor as the difference between a first difference between the measured first voltage and the measured second voltage and a second difference between the measured third voltage and the measured fourth voltage for the purpose of minimizing the number of required actual voltage measurements.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to calculate the first contactor voltage across the positive contactor as the difference between the second voltage and the fourth voltage, and calculate the second contactor voltage across the negative contactor as the difference between a first difference between the measured third voltage and the measured fourth voltage and a second difference between the measured first voltage and the measured second voltage for the purpose of minimizing the number of required actual voltage measurements.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salziger (DE102012215190A1) in view of Anonymous (SAE Electric Vehicle and Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Conductive Charge Coupler). Salziger teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for
prior to acquiring the voltage measurements, determine that the electrical current output from the electrical energy storage system is at or near zero current. As part of the normal shutdown sequence of a vehicle after charging, testing the contactors for welded contacts should occur at reduced or no current (see Anonymous, p 66/93). The standard check is made after the contactors have been requested to open. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Anonymous for the purpose of safety and accurate voltage measurements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bemrich (U.S. Patent No. 9434261) checks for welded contacts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2122. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights