DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed April 6, 2026, are fully acknowledged by the Examiner. Currently, claims 1-25 are pending with claims 1-3, 6-10, 13, 15, 17-19, 22 and 24 amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have obviated the previously-filed claim objections of claims 1, 5-9, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 25. Similarly, Applicant’s amendments to the claims have obviated the previously-filed rejections of claims 3, 4, 6-9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The following is a complete response to the April 6, 2026 communication.
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 1-25 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim currently sets forth that “the inverter cells have an input supplied with DC and an output that provides AC”. The Examiner is of the position that the recitation of each of “DC” and “AC” render the scope of the claim as indefinite because it is unclear if such recitations reference back to the prior-claimed recitations of “a DC voltage supply” and “a high-frequency AC voltage supply” respectively. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-25 are rejected due to their respective dependency on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites that the inverter cells “of the first group are supplied jointly by a first DC voltage source, and the inverter cells of the second group are supplied jointly by a second DC voltage source”. The Examiner is of the position that the further reciting of respective DC voltage sources to portions of the claimed inverter cells renders the scope of claim 6 as indefinite when taken in view of the issues already noted in the rejection of claim 1 above. Specifically, the structural and functional relationship between each of the first and second DC voltage source in claim 6 and the already recited “the inverter cells each have an input supplied with DC” in claim 1 is indefinite because it is, at most, unclear if the DC in claim 1 is voltage. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 7-9, each respective claim is rejected for substantially similar rationale as set forth with respect to claim 6 above. Specifically, each of claims 7-9 recite various recitations with respect to DC voltages (claim 7), DC voltage (claim 8) and a plurality of DC voltage sources (claim 9) fail to have the structural and functional relationship between each noted feature and the already recited “the inverter cells each have an input supplied with DC” in claim 1 clearly definite so as to render the scope of each claim as definite. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-11 of the Remarks filed April 6, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Gilbert in view of Kikuo have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Applicant has persuasively argued that the input to the relied upon inverters 5 of Kikuo do not include a DC supply as their input but, rather, rely upon an AC supply from the main inverter 3. Accordingly, the prior combination of Gilbert and Kikuo cannot provide for each and every limitation as set forth in presently-amended independent claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the following new grounds of rejection has been set forth in the action above:
Claims 1-25 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 the Examiner’s position that the newly submitted claim language in independent claim 1 has necessitated the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for at least the reasoning set forth in the action above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD HUPCZEY, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 8 am - 4 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/Ronald Hupczey, Jr./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights