Sure. Here is an inventive step argument as requested:

*** Start of Inventive Step Argument

– Inventive Step when starting from D1 as the closest prior art

The subject matter of new claim 1 fulfills the requirements of an inventive step for the following reasons:

– Closest Prior Art D1

D1 discloses a solid state power controller with a controller that limits power dissipation based on measured voltage across the solid state switch. Although D1 addresses the control of power dissipation, it does not disclose the specific use of a non-programmable state machine with distinct states for controlling a semiconductor switching unit.

– Objective Technical Problem

The objective technical problem can be formulated as providing a solid state power controller with a reliable and deterministic state transition mechanism that minimizes complexity, enhances safety, and simplifies the certification process for aviation technology applications.

– Could-Would Approach

Even if the skilled person starting from D1 would consider the teaching of prior art D2, which discloses an intelligent solid-state circuit breaker controlled by a digital signal processor, they would not arrive at the subject matter of new claim 1. D2 teaches an approach that relies on digital processing and programmability to control the operation states of the circuit breaker, which is fundamentally different from the non-programmable, hardware-based logic control required by the claimed invention.

D1, being focused on power dissipation control, does not provide any guidance towards implementing a non-programmable state machine nor suggests the concept of an intermediate state for inrush current management. The combination of D1 and D2 would not lead the skilled person to the invention as claimed in NEW_CLAIM_1 because the core principle of the claimed invention—non-programmable control for critical functionalities—is not hinted at or suggested by either D1 or D2. The novel concept of a non-programmable state machine with specific state transitions to manage inrush current through an intermediate state remains untaught and unobvious.

– Conclusion

For the above reasons, the subject matter of new claim 1 fulfills the requirements of an inventive step. The non-programmable nature of the state machine and its capability to control the semiconductor switching unit through a unique intermediate state for current limitation represent an inventive contribution over the combined teachings of D1 and D2. The skilled person, even when considering the teachings of D2, would not be led to the claimed invention starting from D1.

*** End of Inventive Step Argument

This inventive step argument is structured around the problem-solution approach, emphasizing that the claimed SSPC’s non-programmable state machine and the intermediate state for inrush current management would not be obvious to a skilled person familiar with D1 and D2. The argument is based on the fact that neither D1 nor D2, alone or in combination, provide any indication or motivation to develop a SSPC with the specific features claimed in NEW_CLAIM_1.

Sure. Here is the draft report letter as requested:

[Your Letterhead]

[Client’s Address]
[Date]

Dear [Client’s Name],

Subject: Filing of New Claim 1 for Solid State Power Controller Patent Application

I am pleased to inform you that we have filed a revised claim 1 for your solid state power controller (SSPC) patent application, as detailed in Annex A attached to this letter. The new claim incorporates key features that we believe significantly strengthen the novelty and inventive step of your invention over the cited prior art documents D1 and D2.

In our analysis, we have identified that the non-programmable state machine and the management of inrush current through an intermediate state are not disclosed in either of the prior art documents. The new claim 1 now explicitly defines the SSPC as including a non-programmable state machine configured to control a semiconductor switching unit with distinct operational states. This feature emphasizes the hardware-based logic control, which is a departure from the programmable digital processors described in the prior art.

Furthermore, we have argued that the skilled person, starting from D1, would not arrive at the subject matter of new claim 1, even when considering the teachings of D2. Our argument is based on the premise that neither D1 nor D2 suggests the use of a non-programmable state machine, nor do they teach the concept of an intermediate state for managing inrush current. This approach not only ensures a reliable and predictable SSPC but also simplifies the certification process, which is of utmost importance in aviation technology.

We believe these arguments have strong merit and present a compelling case for the novelty and inventive step of your SSPC in light of the examined prior art. The filing of the revised claim 1 represents a strategic step in securing robust patent protection for your invention.

Should you have any questions or require further information regarding the revised claim or the arguments presented, please do not hesitate to contact us. We are committed to providing you with the highest level of service and support.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Title]

Annex A: New Claim 1

1. A solid state power controller, comprising:
– a power supply line (110) configured to be connected between a power source (200) and a load (300);
– a semiconductor switching unit (120) provided on the power supply line (110) and configured to switch between at least three states, including a conducting state, a non-conducting state, and an intermediate state, according to a command signal, wherein the semiconductor switching unit (120) is configured to, in the intermediate state, limit a current on the power supply line (110), according to the command signal, to be below a predetermined current threshold; and wherein the semiconductor switching unit (120) is formed by one or more non-programmable electronic components;
– a state machine (130) configured to exhibit at least three states including an ON state, an OFF state, and a pre-charge state; output the command signal according to a current state of the state machine (130); the command signal indicates the semiconductor switching unit (120) to be in the intermediate state if the current state of the state machine (130) is the pre-charge state; characterized in that the state machine (130) is a non-programmable logic part formed by a plurality of non-programmable electronic components and is configured to allow for transitions from the OFF state to the pre-charge state, from the pre-charge state to the OFF state, from the pre-charge state to the ON state, and from the ON state to the OFF state.

Claim 1 of the document EP 3 692 849 A2 outlines the features of an article of footwear that includes an innovative heating system integrated within an inner liner. However, before diving into the analysis, it is important to clarify that this document represents a patent application, not a granted patent. The status of a European patent application can be determined through its publication number (e.g., A1, A2 for applications; B1 for granted patents), and in this case, “A2” indicates it is a published application.

Now, let’s analyze claim 1 for an engineer-level understanding:

The claim protects an article of footwear (like a boot or shoe) that has the following components:

1. An outer shell: This includes the visible exterior parts of the footwear, such as the upper part that covers the top of the foot and the sole structure that makes contact with the ground.

2. An inner liner: This is designed to fit snugly inside the outer shell and can be removed if necessary. The inner liner includes a heating system to keep the foot warm.

3. Heating system: Integrated within the inner liner, it consists of a power source (like a battery) and a heating element.

4. Upper and lower liner portions: The inner liner is divided into two parts—the upper liner portion, which may cover the ankle and lower leg, and the lower liner portion, which fits inside the bottom part of the outer shell.

5. Battery compartment area: Located within the upper liner portion, this special compartment is designed to hold the power source (battery). It’s sandwiched between an outer and an inner layer of the inner liner’s material for ease of access and protection.

6. Toe cap heating element: The heating element is strategically placed along the outer perimeter of the forefoot region of the lower liner portion. This is the part of the shoe that covers and protects the toes, so the heating element is positioned to warm this area specifically.

In summary, claim 1 seeks to protect the design and functionality of a footwear article with an integrated, removable heating system focused on warming the toe region, which is powered by a battery housed in a specific compartment within the liner. This design aims to provide warmth and comfort in cold conditions while allowing the user to remove and possibly replace or recharge the power source as needed. As an engineer reading this claim, you should understand that if you were to create or work on a similar footwear product, you would need to avoid including all of these features together to steer clear of infringing this patent application should it be granted.

The family members with known citations are EP3692849A2, US9427041B2, EP3692849A3, WO2014036049A1 across WO, EP, US.

The family patent citations are:

– US2009032520A1

Cited as US2009032520A1 in US.

Not cited in EP, WO

– US2012188750A1

Cited as US2012188750A1 in US.

Not cited in WO, EP

[Qthena provides the full summary in the live product. Here only first two entries are shown for demo purposes.]

Sure, here’s a summary that highlights the key takeaways related to eye tracking from the paper “Eye Tracking for Tele-robotic Surgery: A Comparative Evaluation of Head-worn Solutions”:

1. **Purpose and Importance**: The paper focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of eye-tracking technology in tele-robotic surgery. Eye-tracking metrics, particularly gaze tracking and pupillometry, are considered promising for assessing cognitive load, which could enhance training and patient safety by providing user-specific feedback.

2. **Eye-Tracking Systems Compared**: Two head-worn eye-tracking systems were compared: the Tobii Pro 3 Glasses and the Pupil Labs Core. These were chosen over console-mounted setups due to their ability to maintain a constant eye-to-camera distance and minimize issues such as occlusions and extreme pupil angles, which are common in the tele-robotic surgery environment.

3. **Methods**: A matched-user study with ten participants was conducted using the da Vinci Research Kit (dVRK). The study involved a calibration phase, a pick-and-place task to simulate surgery (performed three times), and a final calibration to assess gaze stability using a grid of AprilTags.

4. **Calibration Techniques**: The Tobii Pro Glasses used a one-point calibration procedure, while the Pupil Labs Core used a 9-point calibration procedure. Both systems required different approaches to map the gaze onto the dVRK screen.

5. **Results – Pupil Diameter Stability**: The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis of pupil diameters during tasks showed similar stability across both eye-tracking systems, indicating that both are capable of reliably measuring pupil diameter changes.

6. **Results – Gaze Stability**: The Tobii Glasses demonstrated more temporal gaze stability compared to Pupil Labs. However, both systems exhibited a similar error margin of about 4cm in gaze estimation when the calibration was current. The Tobii Glasses showed a less even distribution of error across the screen, with higher error at the edges, while the Pupil Labs had a more even error distribution.

7. **Conclusions**: Both eye-tracking systems showed comparable performance in pupil diameter and gaze estimation in a tele-robotic surgery setting when calibrations were not outdated. The Tobii Glasses had more stable gaze tracking but required a workaround for gaze mapping, while the Pupil Labs offered direct calibration capabilities and a more even error distribution.

8. **Acknowledgements and Funding**: The study thanks Tobii for providing the equipment and mentions funding from an Intuitive Surgical Technology Research Grant and Johns Hopkins University internal funds.

This study is significant for your team as it demonstrates the application of eye-tracking technology in a challenging environment like tele-robotic surgery and compares different head-worn systems’ performance in terms of gaze and pupil diameter stability. It shows the potential for eye-tracking technology to contribute to user training and patient safety in medical settings.