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 .
Acknowledgement is made of application #18/194,054 filed on 03/31/2023 in which claims 1-20 have been presented for prosecution in a first action on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 09/17/2024 has been considered and placed of record. An initialed copy is attached herewith.
Specification
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to due to minor informalities: Claim 10 recites the underlined limitations of: “The battery charger of claim 9, further comprising: a configurator comprising: a set of switches and/or relays capable of switching between a three-phase operation and a four-phase operation for charging said battery from the grid,…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this underlined limitations in the claims.
Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only--, and/or, --cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim12-15 depend directly from claim 11 and thus are also objected for the same reasons. Accordingly, the claims 11-15 have not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 3 and 13 are objected to due to minor informalities. By inspection of Fig. 5, the limitations of, “wherein 1/2t1=t2” should and would read for examination purpose “wherein 1/2t2=t1”.
Claim 11 is further objected to as being indefinite. Claim 11 recites the underlined limitations of: “A method for driving one of the bidirectional resonant DC/DC converter of claim 1, and the battery charger of claim 9, said bidirectional resonant DC/DC converter including a full-bridge coupled to an CLLLC resonant tank and a power transformer…”. All these underlined limitations had been previously recited in parent claim 1 and therefore it is unclear as to whether these limitations are referring to the same limitations of, “…including a full-bridge coupled to an CLLLC resonant tank and a power transformer…”, and if in the affirmative, these limitations should read --“…including the full-bridge coupled to the CLLLC resonant tank and the power transformer…--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-15 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.
Claim 10 recites the underlined limitations of: “The battery charger of claim 9, further comprising: a configurator comprising: a set of switches and/or relays capable of switching between a three-phase operation and a four-phase operation for charging said battery from the grid,…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this underlined limitations in the claims.
Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only--, and/or, --cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim12-15 depend directly from claim 11 and thus are also rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 11 is further rejected to as being indefinite. Claim 11 recites the underlined limitations of: “A method for driving one of the bidirectional resonant DC/DC converter of claim 1, and the battery charger of claim 9, said bidirectional resonant DC/DC converter including a full-bridge coupled to an CLLLC resonant tank and a power transformer…”. All these underlined limitations had been previously recited in parent claim 1 and therefore it is unclear as to whether these limitations are referring to the same limitations of, “…including a full-bridge coupled to an CLLLC resonant tank and a power transformer…”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-5,7-9,11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahid et al., (Zahid) “Design of Bidirectional DC–DC Resonant Converter for Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Applications” in view of Kim et al., (Kim) US 2015/0117061.
Regarding claim 1: Zahid at least discloses and shows in Fig. 1, page 233:A bidirectional resonant DC/DC converter(see Fig. 1)(page 233), comprising:
a full-bridge(QA,QB,QC,QD) coupled to an CLLLC resonant tank(C1,L1,Lm,L2,C2) and a power transformer(transformer n:1) and
rectifier stage(QE,QF,QG,QH), said full-bridge comprising two pairs of power switches S1/S2(QA/Q2) and S3/S4(QC/QD),
configured such that in a first mode of operation:
Zahid does not expressly teach the switches configuration in such way that:
“switches S1(QA) and S4(QD) are driven by the same two pulse pattern with a phase
shift ß₁, said two pulse pattern comprising a first pulse P1 of width t₁ and a second
pulse P2 of width t₂, P1 and P2 being separated by an off-time t3, and
switches S2 and S3 are driven by the same single pulse pattern comprising
pulse P4 of width t4 with a phase shift ß₂”.
However, Kim teaches factual evidence and shows in Figs. 2A-2B and 3A-3B: switches S1(Q1) and S4(Q3) are driven by the same two pulse pattern with a phase
shift ß₁(see Fig. 3A), said two pulse pattern comprising a first pulse P1(as represented by Q1, see Fig. 3A) of width t₁(see width of pulse Q1 in Fig. 3A) and a second
pulse P2 of width t₂(see width of pulse Q3, Fig. 3A), P1 and P2 being separated by an off-time t3(0.5TS – width of Q1), and switches S2(corresponding to Q2) and S3(corresponding to Q4) are driven by the same single pulse pattern comprising pulse P4(Q2,Q4) of width t4(0.5TS – width of Q2) with a phase shift ß₂(0.5-DeffTS)(see [0015],[0047],[0053],[0054])(see Fig. 2B)
Zahid and Kim are power supply analogous art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to avail of the teachings of Kim into the bidirectional converter of Zahid by having configured the switches such that:
“switches S1and S4 are driven by the same two pulse pattern with a phase
shift ß₁, said two pulse pattern comprising a first pulse P1 of width t₁ and a second
pulse P2 of width t₂, P1 and P2 being separated by an off-time t3, and
switches S2 and S3 are driven by the same single pulse pattern comprising
pulse P4 of width t4 with a phase shift ß₂, as recited, in order improve the power conversion efficiency(see Kim; [0055],[0056] and [0058]).
Claim 11(assuming proper dependency format) recites the method claim which runs in parallel to the structure/device recited in claim 1 and thus is also obvious for the same reasons.
Accordingly claims 1 and 11 would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Zahid in view of Kim discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Kim further teaches, wherein the phase shift ß1= ß2 (see Kim; [0055] and Figs. 2A and 3A).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Zahid in view of Kim discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Kim further teaches, wherein t2=t3 (see [0055]-[0056]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Zahid in view of Kim discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Kim further teaches, wherein t4=t3 (see [0055]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 7, Zahid in view of Kim discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. Kim further discloses, wherein in a second mode of operation, said bidirectional resonant DC/DC converter is frequency controlled(see Kim;[0053]).
Regarding claim 8, Zahid in view of Kim discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 7. Kim further discloses, wherein said first mode of operation is used at low load conditions (see Kim; [0054],[0056]).
Regarding claim 9, Zahid in view of Kim discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 7. Zahid further discloses, a battery charger(bidirectional battery charger; see Zahid, Fig. 15, page 239) for charging a battery of an electric vehicle(Vbatt; see Fig. 1), said battery charger comprising:
A bidirectional resonant DC/DC converter of claim 1(see Fig. 1); and an AC/DC converter(represented by high-frequency full-bridge inverter in BCM (battery charge mode) as represented by switches QA-QD; see col. 1, page 240) configured to operate under light load conditions such that a phase shift is applied to a second group of switches(lagging legs QC,QD) with respect to a first group of switches(QA,QB).
Claim(s) 3,6,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zahid et al., (Zahid) “Design of Bidirectional DC–DC Resonant Converter for Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Applications” in view of Kim et al., (Kim) US 2015/0117061
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Zahid in view of Kim discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1. The combination of Zahid and Kim does not expressly teach, the limitations of, wherein t2=2t1
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have had, wherein t2=2t1, as recited, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 6, Zahid in view of Kim discloses all the claimed invention as set forth and discussed above in claim 1 except for the limitations of, wherein an off-time toff between two subsequent pulse patterns that drive S1 and S4 is in a range of between about 0.014 msec and about 1 msec.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have had, wherein an off-time toff between two subsequent pulse patterns that drive S1 and S4 is in a range of between about 0.014 msec and about 1 msec, as recited, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 10 is objected to but are otherwise allowable over the current prior art of record. The prior art of record either taken alone or in combination thereof fails to teach or reasonably suggest, among other patentable features, further comprising: a configurator comprising: a set of switches and/or relays capable of switching between a three-phase operation and a four-phase operation for charging said battery… a detection system configured to detect a grid configuration in order to identify a three-phase grid configuration and a four-phase grid configuration, and a system to configure said set of switches according to the grid configuration detected by said detection system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP.
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 571-270-7166. 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.
M'BAYE DIAO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 January 21, 2026