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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 10-11 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sekimoto et al., US7633249 (hereinafter referred to as Sekimoto).
In regards to claim 10, Sekimoto teaches a method performed by a vehicle controller (a driving apparatus; [Col. 5, Ln. 13-16]), the method comprising: monitoring (on the basis; [Col. 1, Ln. 26-31]) a plurality of devices (x7 of transistors in inverter 13 and motor 24; [Col. 1, Ln. 26-31]) in a vehicle; and controlling (signal CNS1; [Fig. 1 & 8]) a relay switch (switch S1; [Fig. 1 & 8]) based on a magnitude of an output voltage (rectified voltage Vdc; [Fig. 1 & 8]) of a component (capacitor C; [Fig. 1 & 8]) in the vehicle and the plurality of devices, wherein the relay switch is opened or closed (shorted; [Col. 4, Ln. 14-18]) based on the magnitude of the output voltage of the component (after the steady state; [Col. 4, Ln. 14-18]), and wherein the component and the relay switch are connected in parallel (implicit; [Fig. 1]).
In regards to claim 11, Sekimoto teaches wherein controlling the relay switch (open the switch S1; [Col. 8, Ln. 57-64]) comprises opening the relay switch (open; [Col. 8, Ln. 57-64]) in response to a determination that the output voltage of the component (rectified voltage Vdc; [Col. 8, Ln. 6-8]) is greater (a voltage greater; [Col. 8, Ln. 57-64]) than a first target voltage (steady state, such as 420V; [Col. 8, Ln. 57-64]) and is in an overvoltage peak section (initial state, inrush current, peak value of the rectified voltage Vdc; [Col. 8, Ln. 6-8 & 57-64]).
In regards to claim 18, Sekimoto teaches wherein the component comprises a high voltage component (as low as 400V; [Col. 9, Ln. 30-31]) (Examiner’s Note; A capacitor capable of handling 400V across it would be a high voltage component.).
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekimoto et al., US7633249 (hereinafter referred to as Sekimoto) and in view of Murakami, US9632374 (hereinafter referred to as Murakami.
In regards to claim 17, Sekimoto does not teach wherein the relay switch is open or closed based on an area in consideration of a time and the magnitude of the output voltage of the component.
Murakami teaches wherein the relay switch (transistor Y1; [Fig. 5]) is open or closed (discharged; [Col. 16, Ln. 11-16]) based on an area in consideration of a time (area under discharge slope of capacitance value of the capacitor C1 and the resistance value of the resistor Y6; [Col. 16, Ln. 11-16]) and the magnitude of the output voltage of the component (monitor voltage Va; [Fig. 5]) (rectified voltage Vdc, Sekimoto).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sekimoto in order to incorporate wherein the relay switch is open or closed based on an area in consideration of a time and the magnitude of the output voltage of the component as taught by Murakami. Murakami's discharge circuit Y uses the monitor voltage Va which is derived from the voltage across the component C1, AVDD. Therefore, one could still use the voltage across the component as taught by Sekimoto. The motivation for doing so would be to have a controlled discharge of the output voltage in order to prevent output voltage instability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
The claimed combination found within independent claim 1 is/are considered novel and unobvious in view of the prior art of record. The closest prior arts are considered to be Marchand et al., US8324846B2 (hereinafter referred to as Marchand) and Sekimoto et al., US7633249B2 (hereinafter referred to as Sekimoto).
Marchand teaches a circuit comprising: a load circuit (contact switches 216 and the circuit inbetween them; [Fig. 1]) comprising a first insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT) (top contact switch 216; [Fig. 1]), a second IGBT (bottom contact switch 216; [Fig. 1]), and a component (first resistor grid 214; [Fig. 1]), a first end of the component being connected to the first IGBT and a second end of the component being connected to the second IGBT (implicit; [Fig. 1]); and a second circuit (parallel branch of resistors 321 and capacitors 320; [Fig. 1]) comprising a second capacitor (top capacitor 320; [Fig. 1]) and a third capacitor (bottom capacitor 320; [Fig. 1]), wherein the second capacitor and the third capacitor are connected in series (implicit; [Fig. 1]), wherein the load circuit and the second circuit are connected in parallel (implicit; [Fig. 1]).
Sekimoto teaches a circuit comprising: a load circuit (inverter 13; [Fig. 1]); a first circuit (circuit 15 without the capacitor C; [Fig. 1]) comprising a first capacitor (capacitor Cs; [Fig. 1]) and a relay switch (switch S1; [Fig. 1]) which are connected in series (implicit; [Fig. 1]); and a second circuit (capacitor C; [Fig. 1]) comprising a second capacitor (subset 1 of capacitor C; [Fig. 1]) and a third capacitor (subset 2 of capacitor C; [Fig. 1]), wherein the second capacitor and the third capacitor are connected in series (Examiner’s Note: It would be engineering design choice to separate capacitor C with 2 capacitors in series.), wherein the load circuit and the second circuit are connected in parallel (implicit; [Fig. 1]).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 1, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination or limitations including “a load circuit comprising a first insulated gate bipolar transistor (IGBT), a second IGBT, and a component, a first end of the component being connected to the first IGBT and a second end of the component being connected to the second IGBT; a first circuit comprising a first capacitor and a relay switch which are connected in series” and “wherein the relay switch is open or closed based on a magnitude of an output voltage of the component.” Marchand teaches of opening and closing the switches 216 based on the DC link 312 voltage. The DC link voltage is different than the voltage across the resistor 214. Sekimoto fails to teach of the component as claimed.
Claims 2-9 are allowed due to dependence on claim 1.
Claim 12 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.
Claim 13 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.
Claim 14 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.
Claims 15-16 are allowed due to dependence on claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA L FAUBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1311. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 5PM.
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 5712701682. 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.
/SAMANTHA L FAUBERT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838