Patent Application 17587869 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING SUPER - Rejection

Patent Application 17587869 - SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING SUPER

Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING SUPER CAPACITOR CHARGE VOLTAGE TO EXTEND SUPER CAPACITOR LIFE

Application Information

• Invention Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CONTROLLING SUPER CAPACITOR CHARGE VOLTAGE TO EXTEND SUPER CAPACITOR LIFE
• Application Number: 17587869
• Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2022-01-28T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2022-01-28T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 324
• National Sub-Class: 548000
• Examiner Employee Number: 81993
• Art Unit: 2859
• Tech Center: 2800

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0113441🔗
• US 0062200🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .  As per the remarks of 12/30/2024, claims 1-3, 8, 11, 12, 15 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statment
The Information Disclosure Statements dated 09/30/2024 and 01/03/2025 are acknowledged and the cited references have been considered in this examination.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees.  A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used.  Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/.  The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used.  A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission.  For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to: 
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.  
Claim1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,870,280 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: a method of determining a lifetime parameter of a capacitor in a failsafe device, the method comprising: measuring an amount of energy required to return the failsafe device to a failsafe position; determining an effective capacitance of the capacitor using a measured value. The patented application anticipates the instant application claimed.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
Claim 1 of instant application: 17/587,869
Claim 1 of paten’d application US11,870,280
A method of determining a lifetime parameter of a capacitor in a failsafe device, the method comprising: measuring an amount of energy required to return the failsafe device to a failsafe position; determining an effective capacitance of the capacitor using a measured value associated with energy used by a resistor or a motor of the failsafe device and a constant value representing energy of remaining components of the failsafe device; and comparing the amount of energy to the effective capacitance to determine the lifetime parameter of the capacitor.
  A method of determining a lifetime parameter of a capacitor in a failsafe device, the method comprising: positioning an actuator of the failsafe device in an initial predetermined physical position as detected by the failsafe device; measuring an initial voltage across the capacitor at the initial predetermined physical position; positioning the actuator in a failsafe predetermined physical position as detected by the failsafe device; measuring a final voltage across the capacitor at the failsafe predetermined physical position; determining an amount of energy required to return the actuator of the failsafe device from the initial predetermined physical position to the failsafe predetermined physical position based on the initial voltage and the final voltage; measuring an effective capacitance of the capacitor; and comparing the amount of energy to the effective capacitance to determine the lifetime parameter of the capacitor.

Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,870,280 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: a method of determining a lifetime parameter of a capacitor in a failsafe device, the method comprising: measuring an amount of energy required to return the failsafe device to a failsafe position; determining an effective capacitance of the capacitor using a measured value. The patented application anticipates the instant application claimed.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
Claim 8 of instant application: 17/587,869
Claim 8 of paten’d application US11,870,280
A method of charging a capacitor in a failsafe device, the method comprising: measuring an amount of energy required to return the failsafe device to a failsafe position; measuring an effective capacitance of the capacitor using a measured value associated with energy used by a resistor or a motor of the failsafe device and a constant value representing energy of remaining components of the failsafe device; determining, based on the effective capacitance and the amount of energy, a charge voltage for the capacitor; and charging the capacitor using the charge voltage.
A method of determining a lifetime parameter of a capacitor in a failsafe device, the method comprising: positioning an actuator of the failsafe device in an initial predetermined physical position as detected by the failsafe device; measuring an initial voltage across the capacitor at the initial predetermined physical position; positioning the actuator in a failsafe predetermined physical position as detected by the failsafe device; measuring a final voltage across the capacitor at the failsafe predetermined physical position; determining an amount of energy required to return the actuator of the failsafe device from the initial predetermined physical position to the failsafe predetermined physical position based on the initial voltage and the final voltage; measuring an effective capacitance of the capacitor… comparing 


Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,870,280 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: a method of determining a lifetime parameter of a capacitor in a failsafe device, the method comprising: measuring an amount of energy required to return the failsafe device to a failsafe position; determining an effective capacitance of the capacitor using a measured value. The patented application anticipates the instant application claimed.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
Claim 15 of instant application: 17/587,869
Claim 8 of paten’d application US11,870,280
 A failsafe device assembly, comprising: an actuator; a capacitor; and a processing circuit comprising a processor and memory, the memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processing circuit to: measure an initial voltage across the capacitor in an initial physical position of the actuator; measure a final voltage across the capacitor in a final physical position of the actuator; determine an amount of energy required to return the actuator to a failsafe physical position based on the initial voltage and the final voltage; measure an effective capacitance of the capacitor; compare the amount of energy to the effective capacitance to determine an operational parameter of the actuator; and operate the actuator according to the operational parameter.
A method of determining a lifetime parameter of a capacitor in a failsafe device, the method comprising: positioning an actuator of the failsafe device in an initial predetermined physical position as detected by the failsafe device; measuring an initial voltage across the capacitor at the initial predetermined physical position; positioning the actuator in a failsafe predetermined physical position as detected by the failsafe device; measuring a final voltage across the capacitor at the failsafe predetermined physical position; determining an amount of energy required to return the actuator of the failsafe device from the initial predetermined physical position to the failsafe predetermined physical position based on the initial voltage and the final voltage; measuring an effective capacitance of the capacitor; and comparing the amount of energy to the effective capacitance to determine the lifetime parameter of the capacitor.


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 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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. 
Claims 1, 3-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stupka’77 (US 9,379,577) in view of Stupka00 (US 2014/0062200) further in view of Narita (US 2013/0113441). 
With respect to claims 1, 8, 10 and 15, Stupka77 (hereinafter, Stupka) discloses a method/device of determining a lifetime parameter of a capacitor in a failsafe device (see reproduced drawing figure 5  and 6 below; col. 1, 15-25; col. 6, lines 60-65), the method comprising: measuring an amount of energy required to return the failsafe device to a failsafe position (col. 4, lines 10-20); determining an effective capacitance of the capacitor (col. 3, lines 30-47); and comparing the amount of energy to the effective capacitance to determine the lifetime parameter of the capacitor (col. 3, lines 19-31 and 40). 

    PNG
    media_image1.png
    453
    754
    media_image1.png
    Greyscale


    PNG
    media_image2.png
    487
    696
    media_image2.png
    Greyscale
Stupka, however, does not expressly disclose a measuring energy to return failsafe device to failsafe position.
Stupka00 discloses, on the other hand, a measuring energy to return failsafe device to failsafe position (Para. # 0016: capacitor may be initiated to transfer the predetermined amount of energy from the capacitor to the electrical mechanism to put the mechanism in a failsafe condition).
STUPKA and Stupka00 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely capacitive power system having a service life extension.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the protection circuit to include a failsafe protection device to a capacitive power system of STUPKA in view of the teachings of Stupka00 for effective protection managing the working voltage of the supercapacitor so that there would be enough stored energy for failsafe condition or position.
But both references do not discloses determining effective capacitance using a measured value associated with energy used by a resistor or a motor of the failsafe device.
Narita, however, describes determining effective capacitance using a measured value associated with energy used by a resistor or a motor of the failsafe device and a constant value representing energy of remaining components of the failsafe device (Fig. 1, conv. 1a and switch circuit 14; Para. # 0038: ‘the circuitry converters from high to low voltage as buck converter’, the control power supply circuit 15 converts the DC voltage from the power supply switching circuit 14 into various voltages, which are supplied as control power supplies to individual circuits).
STUPKA, Stupka00 and Narita are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely capacitive power system having a service life extension, and electric actuator.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the protection circuit to include a failsafe protection device and a resistor or a motor of the failsafe device and a constant value representing energy of remaining components of the failsafe to a capacitive power system of STUPKA in view of the teachings of Stupka00 further in view of Narita for a safe and effective protection, managing the working voltage of the supercapacitor so that there would be enough stored energy for failsafe condition or position.
With respect to claims 3, 5 and 12, the combined reference of Stupka, Stupka00 and Narita disclose the method/device of determining the lifetime parameter of the capacitor in the failsafe device as described above, wherein Stupka00 further discloses the effective capacitance of the capacitor is determined using a measured value associated with energy used by a component of the failsafe device and a fixed value representing energy (See para. # 0020 and 0023). 
With respect to claims 4 and 9, the combined reference of Stupka, Stupka00 and Narita disclose the method/device of determining the lifetime parameter of the capacitor in the failsafe device as described above, wherein Stupka 00 discloses  the failsafe device is an actuator (col. 3, lines 42-45). 
With respect to claims 6, 13 and 14, the combined reference of Stupka, Stupka00 and Narita disclose the method/device of determining the lifetime parameter of the capacitor in the failsafe device as described above, wherein Stupka 00 discloses the lifetime parameter is diagnostic information associated with physically testing an ability of the capacitor to return the failsafe device to the failsafe position (See Col. 2, lines 57-64; col. 3, lines 54-63). 
With respect to claims 7, 11 and 20, the combined reference of Stupka, Stupka00 and Narita disclose the method/device of determining the lifetime parameter of the capacitor in the failsafe device as described above, Stupka 000 discloses the method further comprising sending the lifetime parameter to a building management system (BMS), wherein the lifetime parameter indicates that the capacitor should be replaced (Col. 4, lines 7-23; col. 1, lines 53-56).
With respect to claims 17-19, the combined reference of Stupka, Stupka00 and Narita disclose the method/device of determining the lifetime parameter of the capacitor in the failsafe device as described above, Stupka 00 discloses the memory having further instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processing circuit to: determine, based on the effective capacitance, a charge voltage for the capacitor; and charge the capacitor using the charge voltage (Col. 4, lines 57-65).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims 1 and 15 respectively, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, including overcoming the objection or/and rejection sated above. 
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed in the remarks of 12/30/2024 have been considered, and the previous rejections to the claims described in the last office action have been withdrawn,  but a new ground of rejections have been introduced to address the amended claims and related arguments made (see the rejections above).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.  Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).  A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.  In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action.  In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.


Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YALKEW FANTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, DREW A DUNN can be reached on 571-272-2312. 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.




/YALKEW FANTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859