DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 10/24/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-20 reading on Embodiment II in the reply filed on 03/08/2007 is acknowledged.
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 .
Drawing
The drawing submitted on 06/23/2023is acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
(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 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by KOERNER et al. (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20220224250, hereinafter ‘250).
Claim 1, ‘250 teaches a system (e.g., see [0015], Fig. 1-5) comprising:
a bidirectional alternating current (AC) to direct current (DC) converter (AC-DC converter) connectable to a line voltage (e.g., L1-L3) and a battery (e.g., the battery between nodes 23 and 24, see Fig. 1-5), the AC-DC converter including: one or more leaves (e.g., the circuits comprising Q1-Q6) connectable to the line voltage and the battery, the one or more leaves configured to receive DC voltage from the battery and generate AC voltage for the line voltage (e.g., see Fig. 1-5), and a neutral leaf (e.g., the circuits comprising Q7, Q8, C1, C2, L4) connectable to the line voltage and the battery, the neutral leaf configured to provide a return path (e.g., N) for the generated AC voltage from the line voltage to the AC-DC converter (e.g., see [0015], Fig. 1-5); and
one or more controllers (e.g., the controller, see [0041]) configured to control an operation of the one or more leaves and the neutral leaf to control the AC voltage.
Claim 2, ‘250 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein the one or more controllers are configured to control the operation of the one or more leaves and the neutral leaf to control the AC voltage to be each of a single-phase AC voltage (e.g., when single-phase operation), a three phase AC voltage (e.g., when in three-phase operation), and a split phase AC voltage (e.g., when in two-phase operation respectively, see [0039][0048], Fig. 1-5).
Claim 3, ‘250 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein: the one or more leaves includes a first leaf (e.g., Q1, Q2) and a second leaf (e.g., Q3, Q4), the one or more controllers are configured to operate the first leaf to generate a first AC voltage at a first voltage level (e.g., the instant voltage of L1 at a given time), and the one or more controllers are configured to operate the second leaf to generate a second AC voltage at a second voltage level that is different from the first voltage level (e.g., the instant voltage of L2 or L3 at the same given time, see Fig. 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b).
Claim 4, ‘250 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein: the one or more leaves includes a first leaf (e.g., Q1, Q2) and a second leaf (e.g., Q3, Q4), the one or more controllers are configured to operate the first leaf to generate a first AC voltage at a first phase (e.g., L1), and the one or more controllers are configured to operate the second leaf to generate a second AC voltage at a second phase (e.g., L2) that is different from the first phase (e.g., see Fig. 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b).
Claim 6, ‘250 teaches the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein: the one or more leaves includes a third leaf (e.g., Q5, Q6), and the one or more controllers are configured to operate the third leaf to generate a third AC voltage (e.g., L3) at a third phase that is different from the first phase and the second phase (e.g., see Fig. 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b).
Claim 7, ‘250 teaches the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein: the AC voltage is a three-phase voltage, and the first phase, the second phase, and the third phase are 120 degrees from each other (e.g., the 120 degree phase difference between phases of the three-phase AC grid when operating under three phase operation of L1, L2, L3 is implicitly taught, see [0038], Fig. 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b).
Claim 8, ‘250 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. It further teaches that further comprising: one or more bypass relays (e.g., S1, and/or S2) connected to the one or more leaves, wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to operate the one or more bypass relays to control the AC voltage (e.g., see Fig. 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b).
Claim 10, ‘250 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein: each leaf of the one or more leaves includes an upper switch (e.g., Q1, Q3, Q5, Q7) and a lower switch (e.g., Q2, Q4, Q6, Q8), and the one or more controllers are further configured to operate the upper switch and the lower switch of each leaf to control the AC voltage (e.g., see Fig. 1-4).
Claim 12, ‘250 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. It further teaches that further comprising: a DC to DC converter (DC-DC converter) (e.g., the circuits comprising Q11-Q14) connected to the AC-DC converter, the DC-DC converter connectable to the battery to connect the AC-DC converter to the battery (e.g., see Fig. 1-4).
Claim 13, ‘250 teaches the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. It further teaches that further comprising: the battery connected to the DC-DC converter, wherein the system is provided as a bidirectional battery charger configured to: receive input AC power from the line voltage through the AC-DC converter, convert the AC power to DC power, and supply the DC power to the battery to charge the battery in a grid-to-battery operation (e.g., when operating in direction from the grid L1, L2,L3 to the battery, see [0038], Fig. 1-4), and receive DC power from the battery through the DC-DC converter, convert the DC power to AC power, and supply the AC power to a load of the line voltage as output AC power in a battery-to-grid operation (e.g., when operating in direction from the battery to grid L1, L2,L3, see [0038], Fig. 1-4).
Claim 14, ‘250 teaches the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. It further teaches that further comprising: an electric vehicle (e.g., the electric vehicle, see [0005][0006][0012]) including the battery connected to the DC-DC converter, wherein the battery-to-grid operation is operable to supply electric power from the battery to an AC outlet of the electric vehicle as the load of the line voltage.
Claim 20, ‘250 teaches a system (e.g., see [0015], Fig. 1-5) comprising: one or more controllers (e.g., the controller, see [0041]) configured to control an operation of one or more leaves (e.g., the circuits comprising Q1, Q6) and a neutral leaf (e.g., the circuits comprising Q7, Q8, C1, C2, L4) of a bidirectional alternating current (AC) to direct current (DC) converter (AC-DC converter) to control an AC voltage output (e.g., the output voltages of Q1-Q6 to L1, L2, L3 respectively when operating under respective inverting mode) of the AC-DC converter (e.g., see [0041], Fig. 1-5).
For method claims 15-19, note that under MPEP 2112.02, the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated.
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, 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(a) 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 under 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 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KOERNER et al. (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20220224250, hereinafter ‘250), in view of Gurkaynak et al. (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20180278193, hereinafter ‘193).
Claim 5, ‘250 teaches the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above. Further teaches that wherein: the AC voltage is a split phase voltage (e.g., during two-phase operation, see [0039], Fig. 2, 3a), ‘250 does not explicitly disclose that the first phase and the second phase are 180 degrees from each other.
‘193 discloses a power converter operating in inverting mode outputting a split phase voltage under two-phase operation (e.g., see [0077]; Fig. 7, 8). It further discloses that the first phase and the second phase are 180 degrees from each other (e.g., the 180 degree phase difference, see [0077]; Fig. 7, 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify ‘250 by including the 180 degree phase difference of the split-phase voltage as taught by Kawano ‘193 in order of being able to drive split phase induction motor properly (e.g., see [00[0077], Fig. 7-8).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KOERNER et al. (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20220224250, hereinafter ‘250), in view of Esmoris Bertoa et al. (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20220021293, hereinafter ‘293).
Claim 9, ‘250 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. ‘250 further teaches that wherein: wherein: the one or more leaves includes a first leaf and a second leaf (e.g., the respective Q1/Q2, Q3/Q4, Q5/Q6, see Fig. 2, 3a), ‘250 does not explicitly disclose that the one or more controllers are configured to operate the first leaf and the second leaf to increase a current output of the AC-DC converter to the line voltage.
‘293 discloses a bidirectional converter (e.g., the On-Board-Charger OBC, see Fig. 2-5). It further discloses that the OBC having one or more leaves includes a first leaf and a second leaf (e.g., the respective legs of 220, see Fig. 2, 3a), and one or more controllers (e.g., a control device that generates the control signals of 220 and SW1, SW2, SW3 is implicitly taught) are configured to operate the first leaf and the second leaf to increase a current output (e.g., the parallel connected phase current) of the AC-DC converter to the line voltage (e.g., when SW1 SW2 SW3 closed, see Fig. 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify ‘250 by operate the first leaf and the second leaf in parallel as taught by ‘293 in order of being able to increase the parallel connected phase current (e.g., see Fig. 3-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 matters:
For claim 11, the prior art does not disclose or suggest, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, primarily,… wherein: … the one or more controllers … to operate the upper switch and the lower switch of the neutral leaf at a higher switching frequency than the upper switch and the lower switch of each leaf.
Examiner's Note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUE ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1263. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM-5:00PM
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Lewis can be reached on 571-272-2838. 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.
/JUE ZHANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838