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 .
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species I, figure 4A
Species II, figure 4B
The species are independent or distinct because as shown in species I, figure 4A, the fault isolation circuit 23 is shown to be connected between load module 121 and a node. In species II, figure 4B, the fault isolation circuit 23 is shown to be coupled between the node and a second module 122. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1 and 11 are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
It requires different search queries.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Christopher Maier on 8/21/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species II, figure 4B. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 4 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13. 15-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (US Pub. 2024/0332968).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches an electric power conversion system, configured to receive electric energy provided by a first power supply (e.g., 202) (fig.2) and supply power to at least two load modules (e.g., load 209) (fig. 2), the system comprising:
a first direct current to direct current conversion module (e.g., 213, left side) (fig.2) configured to perform voltage conversion processing on the electric energy, and provide the electric energy to the at least two load modules (see fig. 2); and
a second direct current to direct current conversion module (e.g., 213, right side) (fig. 2) configured to perform voltage conversion processing on the electric energy and provide the electric energy to the at least two load modules (fig. 2);
a fault isolation module (e.g., breaker 204) (fig. 2) (also see [0068]);
wherein the at least two load modules comprise a first load module and a second load module (e.g., at least 3 Yaw Motor 209 shown in figure 2); and
an input side (e.g., input side) (see fig. 2 below) of the first direct current to direct current conversion module is coupled to the first power supply (see fig. 2), an output side (e.g., output side) (see fig. 2 below) of the first direct current to direct current conversion module is coupled to the first load module (see fig. 2), and the output side of the first direct current to direct current conversion module is further coupled to the second load module by using the fault isolation module (see fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the fault isolation module is configured to connect or disconnect the first direct current to direct current conversion module to/from the second load module (implied to a circuit breaker 204) (also see [0068] for “circuit breaker”).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches wherein an input side of the second direct current to direct current conversion module is coupled to the first power supply (see figure 2), an output side of the second direct current to direct current conversion module is coupled to the first load module (see fig. 2), and the output side of the second direct current to direct current conversion module is further coupled to the second load module by using the fault isolation module (see fig. 2); and the fault isolation module (i.e., 204) is further configured to connect or disconnect the second direct current to direct current conversion module to/from the second load module (204 is a circuit breaker, therefore, to connect or disconnect is implicit to a circuit breaker) ([0068] for “circuit breaker”).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches wherein some load modules in the at least two load modules are coupled to a second power supply (e.g. Power Supply 209) (see fig. 2), the second power supply is coupled to some other load modules in the at least two load modules by using the fault isolation module (see fig. 2), and a voltage of the electric energy provided by the second power supply is less than a voltage of the electric energy provided by the first power supply (refer to [0089]; and the fault isolation module is further configured to connect/disconnect the second power supply to/from the some other load modules (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches the fault isolation module is further configured to: be in a disconnected state when a fault occurs (implicit to a circuit breaker) ([0068] for “circuit breaker”).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches the fault comprises one or more of the following faults: a fault of any load module in the at least one two load modules; a fault of the second power supply; and a fault of the first direct current to direct current conversion module, or a fault of the second direct current to direct current conversion module (refer to “circuit breaker” in para [0068]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches the fault isolation module comprises at least one electronic switch, or at least one mechanical switch, or the combination of at least one electronic switch and at least one mechanical switch (e.g., 204 is a switch) (fig.2).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches the electric power conversion system is a power generator which implicitly contains a housing (refer to para [0001-0003]; and the housing is configured to accommodate the first direct current to direct current conversion module, the second direct current to direct current conversion module, and the fault isolation module (refer to [0001-0003]).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches a vehicle (“The preamble recites ‘a vehicle comprising: a first power supply; at least two loads; and an electric power conversion system,’ which merely states the intended use or purpose of the claimed invention. The body of claim 11 fully describes the structural components of the invention (the first DC-DC conversion module, second DC-DC conversion module, fault isolation module, and their interconnections) without reference to or dependence on the preamble language. Under MPEP § 2111.02, where a claim body defines a structurally complete invention and the preamble only states a purpose or intended use, the preamble is not a claim limitation. Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620-21 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Therefore, the preamble is given no patentable weight in this rejection.”) comprising: a first power supply; at least two load modules; and an electric power conversion system; the electric power conversion system is configured to: receive electric energy provided by the first power supply and supply power to the at least one two load modules; and the electric power conversion system comprises a first direct current to direct current conversion module and a second direct current to direct current conversion module; the first direct current to direct current conversion module is coupled to the first power supply and the at least two load modules, and is configured to: perform voltage conversion processing on the electric energy, and provide the electric energy to the at least two load modules; and the second direct current to direct current conversion module is coupled to the first power supply and the at least two load modules and is configured to: perform voltage conversion processing on the electric energy and provide the electric energy to the at least two load module; a fault isolation module; wherein the at least two load modules comprise a first load module and a second load module; and an input side of the first direct current to direct current conversion module is coupled to the first power supply, an output side of the first direct current to direct current conversion module is coupled to the first load module, and the output side of the first direct current to direct current conversion module is further coupled to the second load module by using the fault isolation module (refer to the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claims 12-13, 15-18, 20, they are rejected for the same reason as claim 2, 3, 5-8, and 10 above.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US Pub. 2024/0332968).
Regarding claims 9, 19, Zhang teaches the first direct current to direct current conversion module, the second direct current to direct current conversion module, and the fault isolation module, but does not explicitly disclose their integration into a single integrated circuit.
The Examiner takes official notice that integrating multiple electronic components into a single integrated circuit is well known in the art as a conventional design practice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the components taught by Zhang into a single integrated circuit. The motivation to do so is to achieve the well-known benefits of integrated circuit design, including reduced size, reduced interconnection complexity, and improved reliability.
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 Thienvu Tran, whose telephone number is (571) 270-1276. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights