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 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, 7, and 10-11 is 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.
Claims 1, 7, and 10 include that various parameters- namely “a supply voltage” in claim 1, “a voltage measured value” in claim 7, and “a current measured value” in claim 10- “can be” provided. The use of the phrase “can be” renders this claims indefinite as it is unclear whether the parameters of these claims are required to be provided so as to satisfy the metes and bounds of the invention. Appropriate correction is required to particularly point out that these parameters are provided. For the purposes of mapping the claim limitations for the rejections over prior art given below, the phrase “can be” within these claims has been interpreted the same as the phrase “is” such that the parameters being provided is required as part of the metes and bounds of the claims.
Claim 11 includes the terms “the modules for voltage monitoring” and “the control module”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. “The modules for voltage monitoring” are only introduced in claims 6 and 7, upon which claim 11 does not depend on. There is no other “control module” in the claims prior to its recitation in claim 11. Applicant is required to amend the claim. For the purposes of mapping the claim limitations for the rejections over prior art given below, the claimed “the control module” of claim 11 has been interpreted to be the same as “the brake control unit” as previously introduced in the claims.
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, 5-8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Braumann (DE102009037641A1).
Regarding claim 1, Braumann teaches a brake control unit for operating a motor vehicle brake of a motor vehicle, comprising:
at least one printed circuit board having an electronic circuit arrangement ([0008] and [0013]);
at least one first set of electrical power supply connections at least of a first type and second type, which are associated with a first vehicle electrical system and form a first power supply path ([0008], [0036-0037], and see Figs. 1-2: first supply connections KL30P and GND_1 associated with KL30P-Plus supply terminal 5 and form the power path 18);
at least one second set of electrical power supply connections at least of a first type and second type, which are associated with a second vehicle electrical system and form a second power supply path ([0008], [0036-0037], and see Figs. 1-2: first supply connections KL30V and GND_2 associated with KL30V-Plus supply terminal 5 and form the power path 19);
at least one connection for a reference potential, which is associated with the first power supply path ([0009] and [0036]: GND_1);
at least one connection for a reference potential, which is associated with the second power supply path ([0009] and [0036]: GND_2);
a polarity reversal protection circuit for each power supply path ([0037] and see Fig. 1), and
a common output power supply connection at which a supply voltage can be provided in operation, wherein the common output power supply connection is formed from outputs of the polarity reversal protection circuit for each power supply path brought together at a connection node ([0036-0038], [0040], and see Figs. 1-2: outputs of paths 18 and 19 connect and output for driver terminal 16 and charge pumps LP1 and LP2).
Regarding claim 5, Baumann teaches:
wherein the polarity reversal protection circuit has a signal input for switching ([0038]).
Regarding claim 6, Baumann teaches:
wherein each power supply path comprises a module for voltage monitoring to measure in each case the voltage in a power supply path between the power supply connections of the first type and second type ([0039-0041] and see Fig. 1: each power supply path includes components necessary to produce ADC2 and ADC3 that measures the voltages of S1 and S2 respectively).
Regarding claim 7, Baumann teaches:
wherein the modules for voltage monitoring each have at least one signal output, via which a voltage measured value can be provided ([0039-0041] and see Fig. 1: modules output ADC2 and ADC3 as inputs to the analog/digital converter A/D so that voltages can be measured).
Regarding claim 8, Baumann teaches:
wherein the two power supply connections of the second type are each connected to a reference potential (see Figs 1-2: GND_1 and GND_2).
Regarding claim 12, Baumann teaches:
wherein the first and the second power supply path have an identically designed circuit arrangement (see Fig. 1: the supply paths 18 and 19 are produced from an identical circuit components).
Regarding claim 13, Baumann teaches:
wherein the associated circuit arrangement is arranged on a single printed circuit board of the brake control unit ([0013], [0034], and Fig. 1: brake control unit embodied as a singular circuit).
Regarding claim 14, Baumann teaches a method for operating a brake control unit comprising:
at least one printed circuit board having an electronic circuit arrangement ([0013], [0034], and Fig. 1: brake control unit embodied as a singular circuit);
providing at least one first set of electrical power supply connections at least of a first type and second type, which are associated with a first vehicle electrical system and form a first power supply path ([0008], [0036-0037], and see Figs. 1-2: first supply connections KL30P and GND_1 associated with KL30P-Plus supply terminal 5 and form the power path 18),
wherein at least one connection for a reference potential is associated with the first power supply path ([0009] and [0036]: GND_1);
providing at least one second set of electrical power supply connections at least of a first type and second type, which are associated with a second vehicle electrical system and form a second power supply path (([0008], [0036-0037], and see Figs. 1-2: first supply connections KL30V and GND_2 associated with KL30V-Plus supply terminal 5 and form the power path 19),
wherein at least one connection for a reference potential is associated with the second power supply path ([0009] and [0036]: GND_2);
providing a polarity reversal protection circuit for each power supply path ([0037] and see Fig. 1); and
switching of an output supply voltage at an output power supply connection, formed from outputs of the polarity reversal protection circuit for each power supply path brought together at a connection node ([0036-0038], [0040], and see Figs. 1-2: outputs of paths 18 and 19 connect and output for driver terminal 16 and charge pumps LP1 and LP2; [0009], [0031], and [0038]: the voltage outputted by the MOSFETs is switched so as to test for faults; [0016-0017], [0040], and [0044]: when faults are detected based on the measure voltages, the switches are flipped so that the supply path providing the output voltage changes),
wherein the switching depends on the supply voltage available by way of at least one of first and second vehicle electrical system ([0016-0017], [0040-0041], and [0044]: switching occurs for supply line faults, which are determined based voltage potential between ADC1 and ADC2 or ADC1 and ADC3).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braumann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bauer et al. (US2012120535A1).
Regarding claim 2, Braumann does not teach that the polarity reversal protection circuit comprises two transistors connected inversely in series.
In the same field of endeavor, Bauer teaches a polarity reversal protection circuit that comprises two transistors connected inversely in series ([0009-0010] and see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Braumann with the use of two transistors based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to realize the advantages of such a system as taught by Bauer ([0012-0016]). This configuration of MOSFETs in a circuit is additionally known in the art to fully realize the bidirectional blocking of current by guaranteeing no leakage, which singular MOSFETs are unable to fully achieve.
Regarding claim 3, Braumann teaches:
wherein the transistors are MOSFET transistors ([0009]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braumann in view of Bauer as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Texas Instruments (NPL data sheet ‘LM7480 3-V to 65-V, Ideal Diode Controller Driving Back to Back NFETs’; 2022).
Regarding claim 4, Bauer teaches:
wherein an controller is connected in parallel to the transistors in each case (see Fig. 1).
The prior combination does not teach that this controller is an ideal diode controller. However, ideal diode controllers are well known in the art for use of implementing the zero resistance and infinite resistance conditions as is understood to be present in ideal diodes. Texas Instruments discloses the product LM7480 as one such ideal diode controller (see the description in section 3 of the cited data sheet; see the figure titled “Ideal Diode with Switched Output”: the diagramed circuit configuration includes transistors Q1 and Q2 connected to the LM7480 controller in the same manner shown by how transistors 14 and 12 are connected to controller 20 in Fig. 1 of Bauer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the controller to be an ideal diode controller based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to implement the zero resistance or infinite resistance conditions within the transistors of the prior combination.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braumann as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Altenkirch (DE10002537A1).
Regarding claim 9, Braumann doesn’t teach the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Altenkirch teaches:
wherein a module for current measurement is provided in each of the current paths between the power supply connection of the second type and the reference potential ([0017], [0025], and see Fig. 1: branching points are provided in each subsystem between the rest of the subsystem, including the power supply, and the reference ground, and are used to allow a detection device to detect faulty ground connections “via a current measurement”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the effective date of filing to modify Braumann with these teachings based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of detecting faulty ground detections so as to allow “corrective measures if a faulty ground connection is detected”) as taught by Altenkirch ([0002]).
Regarding claim 10, Altenkirch teaches:
wherein the modules for current measurement each have a signal output (([0017], [0025]: signals from these points are sent and processed by the detection device so as to determine current measurements).
Although this detection device is not explicitly capable of providing a current measured value, in the alternate embodiment in Altenkirch where the voltage is measured, the current measured voltage is determined and provided by this detection device ([0009] and [0018]). Therefore, when embodied so that the current is measured directly instead, a skilled artisan would have been able to output the current instead, and it would have been obvious to do so that the measured current value can be relayed to the driver or to mechanics of the vehicle just as is done with the voltage ([0009] and [0018]).
Regarding claim 11, Altenkirch teaches:
wherein at least one of the modules for current measurement and the modules for voltage monitoring are connected for signaling to the control module ([0009] and [0018]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK R BREWER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights