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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed May 26, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicants have corrected an issue with how the converters are named, but the claim still improperly combines the embodiments of figures 5 and 11. The claims require that the converters have inputs connected in parallel and that there is a PDU disposed downstream. This is directed to figure 5. The Examiner also notes that figure 5 shows the PDU is connected to one converter (not a plurality). The amended limitations of the PDU and control unit are supported by figure 11, where the converter inputs are connected in series and the control unit’s determinations and calculations are for the benefit of an EV charger (not the loads of figure 5).
The §112(a) rejection is maintained.
Regarding the art rejection, Rozman ‘784 clearly discloses the PDU with switches (fig 1-2, item 130) and that the control unit (140) coordinates power distribution to the DC loads by determining a number of converters (par 18-19), calculating a voltage reference (par 25), and then generating switching orders (par 19). The Examiner notes that the “calculating a reference voltage” is only broadly named – no actual calculations are listed in the claim and the calculated reference has no real use or function in the claim. That the switching orders are “in accordance” with the reference does not explicitly recite (or inform the public) about how the control unit uses this information to make its switching orders decision.
The Applicants conclude that the cited references do not teach the amended control unit language without any analysis of the references (Remarks, page 8). Rozman clearly has a control unit with nearly identical functionality – not just a “generic switch matrix”. As the amendments do not distinguish over the prior art, the art rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-11, 13-16 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein inputs of the DC/DC converters are connected in parallel and wherein some of the plurality of DC/DC converters are configured to serve a plurality of DC loads” and “a power distribution unit disposed downstream of the DC/DC converters configured to serve the plurality of DC loads”. This language is directed to the embodiment of figure 5.
Claim 1 then also recites, “a control unit configured to coordinate power distribution to the plurality of DC loads by … determining a number of DC/DC converters to be assigned to the DC load, calculating a voltage reference … and generating switching orders…”. This language is directed to the embodiment of figure 11 (see Applicants’ remarks 5/26/26, page 8, bottom; also see specification figures 11-13 and par 75-81). As can be seen in figure 11, the DC/DC converter inputs are in series (not parallel) and all of them (not some) are connected to the load (EV charger – unclear if this is a DC load or an AC load) through the power distribution unit.
The two embodiments are mutually exclusive. Converter inputs in parallel explicitly prohibits them from also being in series. Connecting a limited number (“some”) of the converters to DC loads explicitly prohibits all of them from being connected to those same loads.
There is no written description support in the original filed application for how the two embodiments can be combined into a single claim.
The same analysis applies to claim 11.
Claims 2-10, 13-16 and 22-23 are similarly rejected as they depend from, and inherit the deficiencies of, claims 1 and 11.
For the purpose of the art rejection of the claims, the claims will be interpreted as reciting: converter inputs in series; that any, some or all of the converter outputs are connected to the DC loads through the PDU; and that the control unit controls the PDU (as recited in the amended language).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 has been amended to include all of the limitations of claim 9. Claim 9 is actually (improperly) broader than claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (“APA”; specification, figure 2 and pages 1-2) in view of Perreault (US 2015/0295497) and Rozman (US 2014/0217821).
With respect to claims 1 and 9, APA discloses a parallel isolating DC/DC converter system (fig 2), comprising:
a converting stage comprising a plurality of DC/DC converters (labeled as DC/DC in the middle of the figure), wherein inputs of the DC/DC converters are connected in parallel (to the output of the AC/DC converter), wherein some of the plurality of DC/DC converters are configured to serve a plurality of DC loads (ineffective language to clearly define actual connections [or the absence of connections] that are external to the converters; see below),
a power distribution unit (“dynamic power allocation”) disposed downstream of the DC/DC converters configured to serve the plurality of DC loads (see fig 2),
wherein at least one of the DC/DC converters of the converting stage being an isolated DC/DC converter (the downward sloping parallel lines across the DC/DC converter indicates “isolation”).
All of the converters are exactly the same (see Applicants’ figure 6). This is the converters structure or “configuration”. The configuration of the converter ends at its output terminals. Figure 5 illustrates that different converters are connected to different destinations (loads, sources). But those connections are external to the converters and are not part of how the converters are configured. The language of the claim, directed to “some” of the converters, does not: 1) actually define how these converters are connected to a PDU and DC loads; or 2) explicitly prohibit all of the converters from having the same connection. In other words, the claim language “some” does not exclude “all”. Further support for this can be found in the open-ended transitional phrase, “comprising”, in the preamble. MPEP §2111.03(I).
APA discloses isolating DC/DC converters with parallel inputs and outputs that are connected, via a PDU, to a plurality of DC loads. APA does not expressly disclose the internal structure of the isolating DC/DC converters, the PDU’s external switches or the control unit.
Perreault discloses a single-stage isolated DC/DC converter (fig 9; par 53-57) comprising at least two DC/AC converters (902, 904) connected in parallel to a single primary winding of a transformer unit (906; the presence of the resonant tank is not prohibited by the claim language or the Applicants’ interpretation of the claim language – “connected together then fed”), and an AC/DC converter (unlabeled – to the right of 906) configured to provide a DC output, the at least two DC/AC converters and the AC/DC converter being connected to the transformer unit for coupling the DC/AC converters to the AC/DC converter.
APA and Perreault are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely isolated DC/DC converters. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify each of the APA isolating converters to include the internal structure, as taught by Perreault. The motivation for doing so would have been to fill in the blanks in the APA disclosure. APA requires an isolation converter, but does not expressly disclose how to build it. Thus, the skilled artisan would have consulted the prior art to find corresponding structure with a reasonable expectation of success.
This modification would be for at least the two top-most APA converters (the ones expressly marked as isolating). Alternatively, this modification would be for all four APA converters.
Rozman discloses a parallel DC converter system (fig 1; pages 1-2) comprising:
a converter stage comprising a plurality of DC/DC converters (110n), wherein inputs of the DC/DC converters are connected in parallel (to “INPUT Vdc”), and wherein some of the plurality of DC/DC converters are configured to serve a plurality of DC loads (they all are; or, alternatively, only “some” are when they are actively switched to a load);
a PDU (130) disposed downstream of the DC/DC converters configured to serve the plurality of DC loads, wherein the PDU comprises a plurality of switches (131n, 132, 133n) external to the DC/DC converters and configured to selectively connect a DC output of each DC/DC converters to one or more of the plurality of loads (par 16-17); and
a control unit (140) configured to coordinate power distribution to the plurality of DC loads (par 18-19) by, for each DC load of the plurality of loads, determining a number of DC/DC converters to be assigned to each DC load (par 18-19), calculating a voltage reference for at least one of the assigned DC/DC converters (par 25), and generating switching orders in accordance with the determined number of DC/DC converters and the calculated voltage reference (par 19, 25).
Rozman discloses a PDU as a switching matrix between the converters and DC loads. The switches are controlled by a control unit that makes the recited determinations and calculations. The Examiner notes the breadth of the claim language that the generated switching orders are “in accordance with” the determination and calculation – there is no clear indication in the claim of how this is done. Thus, Rozman’s power demand sensing, converter capacity analysis, and voltage reference calculation reads on the claim language.
APA and Rozman are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely a load allocation system to selectively provide power from multiple inputs to multiple outputs. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the APA dynamic power allocation to be a controlled switch matrix, as taught by Rozman. The motivation for doing so would have been to realize the functionality given by the name “dynamic power allocation”. APA simply uses the term without explaining how to build it. Thus, the skilled artisan would have considered known power allocation structures, including a switch matrix.
With respect to claim 2, APA discloses another converting stage (AC/DC converter) comprising at least one converter, wherein the other converting stage is connected upstream of the parallel connection of the DC/DC converters (see fig 2), wherein the parallel connection is a DC bus (see fig 2; substitute specification page 1, line 28).
With respect to claim 7, Rozman discloses the PDU is configured to distribute the power to at least one consumer load (via 332-2, 332-3, 332-4), wherein the PDU comprises at least one switch (SSPC; par 2) per DC/DC converter configured to connect or disconnect outputs of at least two DC/DC converters to the consumer load.
With respect to claim 8, Rozman discloses the PDU comprises a plurality of switches per converter (there are N switches per converter, N = the number of loads) configured to connect or disconnect outputs of the converting stage, wherein the number of switches corresponds to the number of loads.
With respect to claims 11 and 13, APA, Perreault and Rozman combine to disclose the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 1-2, respectively.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Perreault, Rozman and Raju (US 2016/0065081).
With respect to claim 3, APA discloses the converter of the other converting stage, but does not expressly disclose it is unidirectional or the structure it comprises. Raju discloses a power distribution grid (fig 1; par 17-35) comprising a converting stage (10) comprising a plurality of isolating DC/DC converters (22-28) and another converting stage (rectifier 14) comprising at least one converter connected upstream of the plurality of isolating DC/DC converters (see fig 2), wherein the upstream converter comprises a diode or thyristor rectifier (shown in fig 1; described in paragraph 17).
APA and Raju are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely rectifiers at the input of a power distribution system. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the APA rectifier to be built using diodes, thereby making it “unidirectional”, as taught by Raju. This is a common and ubiquitous structure for rectifiers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Perreault, Rozman and Rozman (“Rozman II”; US 10,396,680).
APA discloses the upstream rectifier that that it is bidirectional (sub specification, page 1, lines 29-31). APA does not expressly disclose the internal construction of the rectifier. Rozman II discloses that its rectifier is “based on” a 2-level topology (col. 1, lines 19-25).
APA and Rozman II are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely rectifiers upstream of power distribution systems. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the APA rectifier to be a two-level, as taught by Rozman. The motivation for doing so would have to replace one known device with an equivalent with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, the claim only broadly recites that the rectifier is “based on” the named topologies. There is no explicit recitation in the claim of the actual rectifier topology/structure being claimed.
Conclusion
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 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 ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights