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
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein a plurality of load paths each with at least one electronic fuse are connected to the microcontroller for controlling the electronic fuses via at least one analog-digital converter of the microcontroller” recited in claims 2 and 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hummel et al. Publication No. US 2011/0141643.
Regarding claim 1, Hummel discloses a circuit arrangement comprising:
a controllable electronic fuse [Fig. 3, protective device S] arranged in a load path, whose control input is connected to a logic circuit [Fig. 3, gate of the transistor is connected to the gate drive 12],
a microcontroller [Fig. 3, control unit 1 comprising microcontroller 8] with at least one central processing unit [Fig. 3, a microcontroller 8 inherently contains a CPU], with at least one read-only memory [inherent] in electrical communication therewith and at least one analog-digital converter [Fig. 3, analog-digital converter 10],
a current measuring device [Fig. 3, current measuring device 3; par. 0059] configured to record current through the load path connected to the at least one analog-digital converter for transmitting recorded current values, and
a comparator [Fig. 3, comparator 9] connected to the at least one analog-digital converter for receiving recorded and digitized current values, to the microcontroller for receiving current limit values, and to the logic circuit for transmitting control signals [par. 0059, 0060 discloses that the comparator 9 is connected to at least one A/D converter 10 for receiving current values, to the microcontroller 8 for receiving current limiting values, and to the gate drive 12 for transmitting control signals to the transistor].
Regarding claim 7, Hummel discloses that, prior to starting the write process: before starting to control a write process to the read-only memory, a current limit value for the load path is determined by the central processing unit of the microcontroller and is transmitted to the comparator for its initialization, and before starting to control the write process, a recording of current values through the load path that is independent of the central processing unit is started, if the comparator determines that at least one of the recorded current values exceeds the current limit value, control of the electronic fuse is interrupted independently of the central processing unit via the logic circuit and the electronic fuse is thus turned off
[Fig. 3, the CPU within the microcontroller 8 calculates or determines the required current threshold before staring the process, then microcontroller sends the digital value to DAC 11, which converts it into an analog reference voltage corresponding to the current limit; the comparator 9 compares the actual limit signal from 7 against the reference voltage produced by 11, and if the actual current exceeds the programmed limit, the comparator immediately signals the gate drive to turn off the switching transistor S to stop the operation and protect the circuit].
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.
Claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hummel et al. Publication No. US 2011/0141643.
Regarding claims 2, 5, and 8, Hummel does not disclose that a plurality of load paths each with at least one electronic fuse are connected to the microcontroller for controlling the electronic fuses via at least one analog-digital converter of the microcontroller. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of load paths with at least one transistor connected to the microcontroller via at least one ADC, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claims 3, 6, 11-12, Hummel discloses that wherein the comparator is part of the microcontroller [Fig. 3, the comparator 9 and the microcontroller 8 are part of the control unit 1 as shown. However, Hummel does not explicitly show that the comparator is part of the microcontroller. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the comparator be a part of the microcontroller, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces an put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the comparator into the microcontroller, for the benefit of reducing cost and space.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Hummel does not disclose that the logic circuit is part of the microcontroller. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the logic circuit be a part of the microcontroller, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces an put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the logic circuit into the microcontroller, for the benefit of reducing cost and space.
Regarding claims 9, 12, 16, Hummel discloses that a microcontroller output, which controls the electronic fuse, is reset [par. 0035].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 13-14, and 17 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance of claims 10, 13, 14, and 17: The prior art does not disclose that, if a process of writing to the read-only memory is not intended to be controlled by the central processing unit of the microcontroller, the central processing unit, instead of the comparator, evaluates the digital current values provided by the analog-digital converter and recorded in the load path, and controls the logic circuit. This feature in combination with the rest of the claim limitations not inherently or obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHARTI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8659. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9 AM - 5 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, Thienvu Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
DHARTI PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/DHARTI H PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights