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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants' submission filed on February 4, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed with the RCE have been fully considered and they are partially persuasive. Zeng is withdrawn as a reference, even though the Applicants have not filed a certified copy or cited to the translation in an IDS, as requested.
The Zeng reference is replaced with the Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art figure 2. Perreault is maintained as a secondary reference for its teaching of the isolating DC/DC converter internal structure. Rozman (US 2014/0217821) is introduced as a secondary reference for its teaching of connecting DC/DC converters to loads through a switch matrix (see fig 1).
The two ordinally numbered converters is interpreted as referring to the same converters. The “first” converter limitation is interpreted as including a generic description of an isolating converter while the “second” converter limitation is interpreted as referring to the specific internal structure of how to achieve the isolating conversion. While there may be other types of isolating converters that fit within the label if the “first” converter but are different than the “second” converter, the claim does not explicitly recite them as included within the system.
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 “a power distribution unit disposed downstream of the plurality of DC/DC converters” and that this PDU is “configured to selectively connect a DC output of each of the plurality of DC/DC converters…”.
The specification states that “[s]ome of the isolated DC/DC converters 1 may serve DC loads (DC loads_1_to_L), optimally by means of a power distribution unit 2.” (par 59 of the pre-grant publication; emphasis added). Namely there are three types of outputs (loads, storage devices, sources) and the specification clearly states that only the “some” DC/DC converters that feed power to the loads can have a PDU. The specification does not provide written description support for all of the converters (including the ones that feed power to/from the storage devices and sources) have PDUs.
For written description support of this language, the Applicants cite to “Figure 5 and 11 and paragraphs [0073]-[0076]” (Remarks, page 8). Figure 5 shows the same “some” disclosure as paragraph 59. Figure 11 (and the corresponding description on par 73-76) shows DC/DC converters in series. This is not the same embodiment as what is being claimed and, therefore, does not apply.
Figure 10 also shows DC/DC converters in series and does not apply.
Figure 9 could apply. It would appear that the converters (labeled as 1) would correspond only to “some” of the figure 5 converters with a PDU. The switch matrix (21), however, suggests that all of the DC/DC converters could be connected to the same loads. This contradicts the requirements of claim 1 that the converters feed power to an “exclusive set” of one or more loads and that the converters are “configured to operate independently” (if they are paralleled to the same load[s], they are not “independent”).
The Applicants state that the language supports “the claimed independent and simultaneous operation to supply respective exclusive sets.” (Remarks, page 9), but do not offer any supporting explanation for how.
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 PDUs will be interpreted as including a plurality of switches to selectively connect the load-specific converters to any of the available loads. Any switch combination that establishes that the plurality of converters feed power to an “exclusive set” of loads will be interpreted as coincidental.
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 claim 1, 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) serving a plurality of loads, sources, and electrical energy storage systems (on the right side of the figure), wherein inputs of the DC/DC converters are connected in parallel (to the output of the AC/DC converter), and wherein an output of each of the plurality of DC/DC converters is electrically connected to an exclusive set of one or more loads, sources, or electrical storage systems belonging to the plurality of loads, sources, and electrical energy storage systems (the two top converters are connected to loads, the third converter is the only one connected to the BESS, the fourth converter is the only one connected to the PV Solar),
a power distribution unit (“Dynamic power allocation”) disposed downstream of the plurality of DC/DC converters (this dynamic power allocation, while only connected to some of the converters, is in the exact same location as the illustrated PDU [see fig 5]),
wherein at least a first one of the DC/DC converters (topmost) of the converting stage being an isolated DC/DC converter (the downward sloping parallel lines across the DC/DC converter indicates “isolation”),
wherein at least a second one of the DC/DC converters (second one down) of the converting stage being an isolated DC/DC converter (for the same reason as the first),
The ”loads, sources, and electrical energy storage systems” are interpreted as unclaimed intended use limitations. Support for this can be found in the language of the claim. The system comprises “a converting stage”. There are no other indented paragraphs to explicitly recites that the system also comprises the power destinations/sources. Regardless, these are explicitly disclosed by APA.
APA does not expressly disclose the internal structure of the isolating DC/DC converters or of the PDU.
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 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.
The combination teaches the structure of the claimed DC/DC converters. Perreault disclose that the configuration of these isolation converters was known in the prior art. Thus, the prior art obviously includes the same benefits realized from this structure. Namely, that that the converters are “configured to operate independently and simultaneously”. The last wherein clause ineffectively seeks to impart functionality into a description of structure. The claim does not recite any controller (internal or external) or similarly device over which the converter(s) can be manipulated to provide their outputs (“independently” or “simultaneously”).
“is configured to operate” is descriptive of how the Applicants intend to use the converters – it does not impart any narrowing structure into the claimed converters. It does not explicitly incorporate any controller into the claim. This interpretation has been provided through multiple office actions and has not been address or rebutted. Neither have the claims been amended to clarify how the converter structure can give it the intended benefits. Thus, it is presumed to be correct.
Rozman discloses a parallel DC converter system (fig 1; pages 1-2) comprising:
a plurality of DC/DC converters (110n) serving a plurality of outputs (121-123), wherein inputs of the DC/DC converters are connected in parallel (to “INPUT Vdc”), and wherein an output of each of the plurality of DC/DC converters is electrically connected to an exclusive set of one or more output (if the correct set of switches are selected, each converter will be connected to a different/exclusive load); and
a PDU (130) disposed downstream of the plurality of DC/DC converters, wherein the PDU comprises a plurality of switches (131n, 132, 133n) external to the converters and configured to selectively connect a DC output of each of the converters to a selected one of the outputs (par 16-17).
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 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 claim 9, Rozman discloses the PDU comprises a control unit (140) configured to control the at least one switch to distribute power according to loads and/or sources connected to the power grid (no grid is claimed – no loads/sources are claimed; see Rozman par 15); wherein the control unit is configured to manage assignment of the output voltages of the plurality of converters according to loads and/or sources connected to the power grid (redundant – the configuration to control the switches will inherently lead to the “manage assignment of output voltages”, as a closed switch provides the selected voltage to the output).
Also, the claim only broadly recites “according to loads and/or sources”, but does not detail any manner by which the status/existence of either the source or load is known or any manner by which the sensed status correlates to a specific control (data table, comparator, etc.). The Applicants have not addressed this issue or removed the ambiguity from the claim.
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.
Method claim 11 repeats the same structural descriptive language (from claim 1) of how the converters are “configured”. The claim does not recite any actual method steps of operating the converters to be independent or simultaneous. The single method step in the claim simply states “converting”, which only broadly indicates that the converters are on. Throughout multiple office actions, the Applicants have not addressed or rebutted this interpretation. Thus, it is presumed to be correct.
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.
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, Rex Barnie 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