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 .
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments with regard to the previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been persuasive. The rejection regarding the previous “enslavement means” has been withdrawn due to amendments made.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112 rejection regarding the “measurement means” and its claimed connection between the interfacing circuit and the control circuit, the Examiner finds that given the broadest reasonable interpretation the measurement means (150a and 150b) as seen in Figure 1 of the instant specification can be considered indirectly physically connected between the interfacing circuit (130) via transistor 110 and the control circuit (140) via bus 131 and that it is improper to issue the previous 35 USC 112 rejection. As such the previous interpretation used by the Examiner with regard to the “measurement means” is no longer valid. Due to this, the rejection remains non-final.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “measurement means” is considered to correspond to voltage measurement lines 150a and 150b as seen in Figure 1 and discussed in paragraph 44 of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aeloiza et al (2021/0028778) in view of Liquid Nitrogen Immersed and Noise Tolerant Gate Driver for Cryogenically Cooled Power Electronics Applications by Hassan et al.
In re Claims 1 and 10, Aeloiza teaches an electronic system as seen in Figure 3 with an electronic circuit comprising: a power transistor (310, paragraphs 23 and 38 teach it can be implemented as a GaN switch) comprising a gate connected to a control circuit (321, 323, 325, 327, and 345) of said gate, wherein said control circuit of said gate is configured to operate at a temperature called ambient temperature, non-cryogenic, wherein said power transistor, as well as an interfacing circuit (301) having one or more components connected between said gate and said control circuit, wherein each of the one or more components of said interfacing circuit being established at a maximum distance (L) from the power transistor (whatever distance the components of driver 301 are inherently placed is considered the distance L); measurement means (lines providing feedback of voltage across transistor 310, paragraph 25) configured to measure at least one measurement signal, representative of a junction temperature of the power transistor (paragraphs 10-14), the measurement means connected between the interfacing circuit and the control circuit operating at ambient temperature (the lines of the measurement means are considered physically connected between 301 and 321); and, the control circuit configured to control the power transistor to adjust an operation of the power transistor based on the at least one measurement signal (paragraphs 16 and 30).
Aeloiza fails to specifically teach that the switch and interfacing circuit are configured to operate at a cryogenic temperature.
Hassan teaches providing a GaN switch and its driver/interfacing circuit in a cryogenic environment as seen in Figure 1 in order to provide higher power efficiency (see highlighted text).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the switch and interfacing circuit of Aeloiza for a cryogenic environment since doing so would allow for a higher power efficiency during operation of the switch.
In re Claim 2, Hassan teaches the cryogenic temperature is 77K (-195 degrees Celsius).
In re Claim 3, Hassan teaches the interface circuit/driver should be as close as possible to the switch to obtain the best switching characteristics (Abstract), but does not specify an exact distance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to place the interface circuit of Aeloiza no further than 1cm from the switch in order to achieve the desired switching characteristics 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).
In re Claim 4, Hassan teaches the control circuit is position away from the interface/driver circuit to be outside the cryogenic environment as seen in Figure 1 but does not specify an exact distance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to place the control circuit at a distance greater than 10cm from the interface circuit and cryogenic environment in order to prevent the control circuit from being negatively affected by the cryogenic environment since it has been held that whenever the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In re Claim 6, Aeloiza teaches that the control circuit comprises at least one reconfigurable FPGA electronic circuit configured to deliver a control signal of said gate of said power transistor (paragraphs 26 and 35).
In re Claim 7, Aeloiza teaches said power transistor comprises a MOSFET power transistor or an IGBT power transistor or a SiC power transistor or a GaN power transistor (paragraph 8).
In re Claim 8, Aeloiza teaches the control circuit is configured to use a correspondence table established during a preliminary characterization and recorded in a memory of the control circuit (paragraphs 14 and 35-37).
In re Claim 9, Aeloiza teaches the measurement means are configured to measure multiple measurement signals, and wherein the control circuit is configured to control the power transistor to adjust the operation of the power transistor based on the measurement signals (paragraphs 10-16).
In re Claims 11-13, Hassan teaches that the transistor and driver/interfacing circuit are immersed in liquid nitrogen (see highlighted text).
In re Claim 14, Aeloiza does not specifically teach the electronic system is part of an aircraft.
Hassan teaches that cryogenically cooled switches are useful for transportation devices travelling in deep space.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the electronic system in an aircraft since Hassan teaches that it would be useful for deep space travel.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aeloiza et al (2021/0028778) in view of Liquid Nitrogen Immersed and Noise Tolerant Gate Driver for Cryogenically Cooled Power Electronics Applications by Hassan et al as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Asano et al (2024/0267039 w/ priority demonstrated by JP 2021-170406).
In re Claim 5, Aeloiza does not specifically teach the interfacing circuit/driver as claimed.
Asano teaches a concrete and functional example of a driver circuit 50 of a switch (SWL) as seen in Figure 2 that comprises an electronic circuit (SD) configured to protect the gate of the switch (SD can be activated to protect the gate from overvoltage), an electronic circuit (SC) configured to stabilize operating conditions of the gate (SC can be utilized to provide a steady voltage from supply 40), and a circuit (SS) configured to perform a soft shutdown of said power transistor (paragraphs 40-42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the driver/interfacing circuit of Aeloiza with the concrete driver structure as taught by Asano since Asano teaches a driver circuit that can also provide a soft shutdown feature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER JAY CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00am - 6:00pm EST.
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, Thienvu Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights