DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on 7/16/2026
Hereon, claims 1-4,6-9,11-20 are currently pending; claims 1-4,6-9,11-20 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4,6-9,11-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility. Claims lacks any recitation of structure, let alone a recitation which creates a substantial tie so as to impose meaningful limitations on the claim scope because is merely a set of instructions. There is nothing of record which clearly indicates that the method recited is not directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1-4,6-9,11-20 also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,6,15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimura et al, (Nishimura), (WO2019180784), hereon referring to USNO.2021/0098991 for translation.
As for claim 1, Nishimura discloses and shows in Figs. 1,3-6 a direct current/direct current (DC/DC) converter control method, comprising: receiving a required power value (via controller) from an inverter; receiving a reference voltage value calculating (via ref’s reference voltage generation) from the inverter; calculating (via controller) a slope of a droop control curve (via PWM control unit) according to the reference voltage value and the required power value; a threshold voltage (via ref’s chopper) which that determines a charging mode or a discharging mode according to the reference voltage value and the required power value; receiving a link voltage value from a direct current link capacitor; substituting (via ref’s chopper) a difference value between the link voltage value and the reference voltage value into the slope to calculate an output power value; and calculating a target current value according to the output power value; and outputting the target current value (via ref’s current control unit) (par.[0022,0025,0030,0043-0047,0068]).
As for claim 6, Nishimura discloses and shows in Figs. 1,3-6 a direct current/direct current (DC/DC) converter comprising: an input unit (via controller) configured to receive a required power value and a reference voltage (via ref’s reference voltage generation) value from an inverter and receive a link voltage value from a direct current link capacitor; and a control unit (via controller) configured to calculate a slope of a droop control curve according to the reference voltage value and the required power value, substitute (via ref’s chopper) a difference value between the link voltage value and the reference voltage value into the slope to calculate an output power value, and calculate a target current value according to the output power value and outputting the target current value (via ref’s current control unit) (par.[0022,0025,0030,0043-0047,0068]).
As for claim 15, Nishimura discloses and shows in Fig. 3 the calculating of the target current value includes generating a PWM signal that is a switching signal based on the target current value.
As for claim 20, Nishimura discloses and shows in Figs. 1,3-6 a direct current/direct current (DC/DC) converter comprising: an input unit (via controller) configured to receive a required power value and a reference voltage (via ref’s reference voltage generation) value from an inverter and receive a link voltage value from a direct current link capacitor; and a control unit (via controller) configured to calculate a slope of a droop control curve according to the reference voltage value and the required power value, substitute (via ref’s chopper) a difference value between the link voltage value and the reference voltage value into the slope to calculate an output power value, and calculate a target current value according to the output power value, wherein the control unit generates a PWM signal that is a switching signal based on the target current value (par.[0022,0025,0030,0043-0047,0068]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants’ argument that
Applicant does not necessarily agree with this rejection, in an effort solely to
expedite prosecution, independent claims 1 and 6 have been amended to incorporate the limitations previously presented in claims 5 and 10, respectively, to which this rejection was not applied. Claims 1 and 6 as currently presented recite not merely the calculation of a target current value, but the additional, concrete step of outputting that value so as to actually control operation of the
DC/DC converter. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. §§101 and 112(a).
Applicant further submits that Nishimura contains no disclosure of a droop control curve of any kind.
Nishimura mode determination is thus based on a power comparison and an AC-power status determination, not on any calculated threshold voltage, and involves fundamentally different logic than that recited in claims 1 and 6.
Nishimura does not disclose calculating an output power value by substituting a voltage difference into a slope of any kind.
The examiner respectfully disagree and submits,
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,[ concrete step of outputting that value so as to actually control operation of the DC/DC converter]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
II-IV. Nishimura discloses receiving a required power value (via controller) from an inverter; receiving a reference voltage value calculating (via ref’s reference voltage generation) from the inverter; calculating (via controller) a slope of a droop control curve (via PWM control unit) according to the reference voltage value and the required power value; a threshold voltage (via ref’s chopper) which that determines a charging mode or a discharging mode according to the reference voltage value and the required power value; receiving a link voltage value from a direct current link capacitor; substituting (via ref’s chopper) a difference value between the link voltage value and the reference voltage value into the slope to calculate an output power value; and calculating a target current value according to the output power value; and outputting the target current value (via ref’s current control unit) (par.[0022,0025,0030,0043-0047,0068])
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 ARUN C WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9765. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached on 571-272-2147. 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.
/ARUN C WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights