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 Status
Claims 12-22 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of French Republic patent application FR2011983, filed 11/23/2020 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a-d) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/19/2023 was filed before the filing of a first office action on the merits. As such, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Objections
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the specified sections (where applicable) in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading, including . . .
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
. . .
(f) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Technical Field
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 (or “Background Art”)
(g) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(h) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(i) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
Id. (emphasis added). If the disclosure is amenable to this segmentation, please insert the section headings per the above. No new matter may be added.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to, for inclusion of reference labels. Please remove the reference labels from the Abstract. The language should be clear. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the labels, internal to objects and boxes, are shown without underlining (see, e.g. FIG. 1 and 7). 37 CFR 1.84(q).
The drawings are objected to for failure to show structural limitations recited by the claims (e.g., a motor vehicle), under 37 CFR 1.83(a). See also MPEP 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 12-18, and 21 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over the APA, in view of US 5,798,630 to Sugimori et al.
With respect to Claim 12, the APA (FIGS. 1,2) teach a battery charger for a motor vehicle, comprising a primary electrical power converter (3) and a secondary electrical power converter (4) that are connected by a transformer (5), the primary power converter and the secondary power converter being configured to transfer a maximum instantaneous power delivered by an electrical power supply network or a battery, respectively, to the battery or to the electrical power supply network (FIGS. 1, 2), the charger comprising: at least one primary compensation electrical power converter (FIGS. 1, 2) comprising a high-frequency switching stage connected at output to the transformer (FIGS. 1, 2); a filter capacitor (8) connected between two input terminals of the high-frequency switching stage (18) of the primary compensation converter (FIG. 2); at least one secondary compensation electrical power converter connected to the primary compensation converter via a transformer (FIGS. 1, 2).
The APA fails to expressly teach, but Sugimori teaches a switchable storage capacitor (1, 2) connected between the two input terminals of the high-frequency switching stage of the primary compensation converter (FIGS. 1-3; col 4, ln 51-61), the secondary compensation electrical power converter and the high-frequency switching stage of the primary compensation converter being configured to charge or discharge the storage capacitor based on an instantaneous power setpoint (col 2, ln 15-24; col 6, ln 38-44; FIG. 4, 6). Sugimori discusses the desire for a compact and low cost power circuit (col 1, ln 26-29). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the APA to include these limitations as taught by Sugimori.
With respect to Claim 13, the combination of the APA and Sugimori teaches a second switchable storage capacitor connected between the two input terminals of a second high-frequency switching stage of a second primary compensation electrical power converter; and a second secondary compensation electrical power converter connected to the second primary compensation converter via a transformer, the second secondary compensation converter and the second high-frequency switching stage of the second primary compensation converter being configured to charge or discharge the second storage capacitor based on the instantaneous power setpoint equal to a constant first power threshold (col 2, ln 15-24; col 6, ln 38-44; FIG. 4, 6). Under the same rationale as Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the APA to include this limitation taught by Sugimori. Moreover, it is noted that mere redundancy, duplicity, or repetition of existing structure or steps has been deemed obvious under § 103 analysis. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See also, MPEP § 2144.05 which states: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
With respect to Claim 14, the combination of the APA and Sugimori teaches wherein the primary electrical power converter comprises a third high-frequency switching stage, the transformer to which the primary electrical power converter is connected is of three-phase type and comprises three power pads (APA: three-phase power converter is known at the time; Sugimori: col 7, ln 9-15; “Triac or a thyristor”), a free flux pad, three primary coils each wound around a different power pad (FIG. 2) and connected to a different high-frequency switching stage, and three secondary coils each wound around a different power pad, each secondary coil being connected to the secondary electrical power converter or to one of the secondary compensation converters, the power pads being arranged in the transformer such that mutual inductances between the primary coils are the same, this condition being satisfied by an equal distance between the power pads, and such that the free flux pad is equidistant from each of the power pads (Sugimori: col 2, ln 15-24; col 6, ln 38-44; FIG. 4, 6). Under the same rationale as Claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the APA to include this limitation taught by Sugimori. Moreover, it is noted that mere redundancy, duplicity, or repetition of existing structure or steps has been deemed obvious under § 103 analysis. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See also, MPEP § 2144.05 which states: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to Claim 15, the combination of the APA and Sugimori teaches a motor vehicle comprising: a battery; and the charger as claimed in claim 12, the battery being connected to the secondary circuit (Sugimori: Title). Under the same rationale as Claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the APA to include this limitation taught by Sugimori.
With respect to Claim 16, the APA teaches a method for exchanging electrical energy between a battery for a motor vehicle and a single-phase electrical power supply network both connected to a battery charger, comprising controlling a primary electrical power converter and a secondary electrical power converter so as to transfer a maximum instantaneous power delivered by an electrical power supply network or a battery, respectively, to the battery or to the electrical power supply network (FIGS. 1,2), the method comprising: switching a switchable storage capacitor arranged in parallel (FIGS. 1,2) with a filter capacitor between two input terminals of a high-frequency switching stage of at least one primary compensation electrical power converter of the charger such that the storage capacitor is connected to the two input terminals, and controlling at least one secondary compensation electrical power converter of the charger connected to the primary compensation power converter via a transformer of the charger and controlling the high-frequency switching stage of the primary compensation converter so as to charge or discharge the storage and filter capacitors based on an instantaneous power setpoint (col 2, ln 15-24; col 6, ln 38-44; FIG. 4, 6). Sugimori discusses the desire for a compact and low cost power circuit (col 1, ln 26-29). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the APA to include these limitations as taught by Sugimori.
With respect to Claim 17, the combination of the APA and Sugimori teaches switching a second switchable storage capacitor of a second primary compensation electrical power converter such that the second storage capacitor is connected to two input terminals of a second high-frequency switching stage of the second primary compensation electrical power converter (FIGS. 1,2); and controlling a second secondary compensation electrical power converter connected to the primary compensation electrical power converter via the transformer and controlling the second high-frequency switching stage of the second primary compensation converter so as to charge or discharge the second storage capacitor based on the instantaneous power setpoint (Sugimori: col 2, ln 15-24; col 6, ln 38-44; FIG. 4, 6). Under the same rationale as Claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the APA to include this limitation taught by Sugimori. Moreover, it is noted that mere redundancy, duplicity, or repetition of existing structure or steps has been deemed obvious under § 103 analysis. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See also, MPEP § 2144.05 which states: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to Claim 18, the combination of the APA and Sugimori teaches wherein the primary electrical power converter comprises a third high-frequency switching stage, wherein the transformer is of three-phase type and comprises three power pads (APA: three-phase power converter is known at the time; Sugimori: col 7, ln 9-15; “Triac or a thyristor”), a free flux pad, three primary coils each wound around a different power pad and connected to a different high-frequency switching stage, and three secondary coils each wound around a different power pad, each secondary coil being connected to the secondary electrical power converter or to one of the secondary compensation converters, the power pads being arranged in the transformer such that mutual inductances between the primary coils are the same, this condition being satisfied by an equal distance between the power pads, and such that the free flux pad is equidistant from each of the power pads (APA: FIG. 1; Sugimori: col 2, ln 15-24; col 6, ln 38-44; FIG. 4, 6). Under the same rationale as Claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the APA to include this limitation taught by Sugimori. Moreover, it is noted that mere redundancy, duplicity, or repetition of existing structure or steps has been deemed obvious under § 103 analysis. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See also, MPEP § 2144.05 which states: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to Claim 21, the APA and Sugimori teach wherein, when the instantaneous power delivered by the battery is greater than the instantaneous power setpoint equal to a first power threshold (FIGS. 4, 5; col 6, ln 38-43), each secondary compensation electrical power converter and the high-frequency switching stage of each primary compensation electrical power converter are controlled so as to charge each switchable storage capacitor and each filter capacitor such that the instantaneous electrical power received by the single-phase electrical network is equal to the second power threshold (Sugimori: col 2, ln 15-24; col 6, ln 38-44; FIG. 4, 6). Under the same rationale as Claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the APA to include this limitation taught by Sugimori. Moreover, it is noted that mere redundancy, duplicity, or repetition of existing structure or steps has been deemed obvious under § 103 analysis. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See also, MPEP § 2144.05 which states: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)..
Claim 19, 20, and 22 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over the APA, in view of Sugimori, and further in view of US 2021/0188106 to Asa et al.
With respect to Claim 19, the combination of the APA and Sumigori fails to teach, but Asa teaches wherein, when the instantaneous power delivered by the single-phase electrical power supply network is greater than the instantaneous power setpoint equal to a first power threshold, each secondary compensation electrical power converter and the high-frequency switching stage of each primary compensation converter are controlled so as to charge each switchable storage capacitor and each filter capacitor ([0026];[0032];[0262-63];[0394]). Asa fully discusses charging and discharging in the context of conventional single and three-phase matrix converter topologies; and that conventional topologies often cause poor power qualities. [0004] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the APA to include the instantaneous power delivery as recited, based on the teachings of Asa, in order to improve conventional poor power qualities.
With respect to Claim 20, the APA and Sugimori fail to teach, but Asa teaches wherein, when the instantaneous power delivered by the single-phase electrical power supply network ([0011], see “grid” throughout) is less than the instantaneous power setpoint equal to a first power threshold, each secondary compensation electrical power converter and the high-frequency switching stage of each primary compensation electrical power converter are controlled so as to discharge each switchable storage capacitor and each filter capacitor ([0209-11];[0251-54]). Under the same rationale as Claim 19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the APA to include this limitation taught by Asa.
With respect to Claim 22, the APA and Sugimori fails to expressly teach, but ASA teaches wherein, when the instantaneous power delivered by the battery is less than the power threshold equal to a first power threshold, each secondary compensation electrical power converter and the high-frequency switching stage of each primary compensation electrical power converter are controlled so as to discharge each switchable storage capacitor and each filter capacitor ([0209-11];[0251-54]). Under the same rationale as Claim 19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the APA to include this limitation taught by Asa.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. 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.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/ Examiner, Art Unit 3696