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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 (fig 2) in the reply filed on 12/31/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that claims 1 and 13 are generic. After further consideration, this is found to be persuasive. Examiner agrees that independent claims 1 and 13 are generic and will be examined as such. Applicant further traverses the restriction of species requirement stating, “The drawings illustrate mutually exclusive arrangements in certain figures to show alternative embodiments…they further permit either parallel or series connections of conversion modules, as optional arrangements”. Despite claims 11 and 12 requiring parallel and series connection, applicant submits that the connection can be parallel or series. Therefore the restriction is withdrawn and all claims examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 02/06/24, 07/21/25, 02/11/26, and 03/25/26. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02/06/24.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“converter controller” of claim 10 and 18 electronically coupled to the first converter circuit and the second converter circuit
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over She et al. (US 9520801 B1), hereinafter She and further in view of Mantov et al. (US 20230025144 A1), hereinafter Mantov.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, She discloses a method of producing an electric power distribution (EPD) system (fig 2, voltage source converter (VSC) HVDC transmission system 200 also detailed in fig 1 for a single AC/DC converter) comprising: a first conversion module electronically connected between a voltage source and a bus (fig 1, alternating current (AC) electrical source 102 connected to AC/DC converter 110 and bus system 128); wherein the first conversion module comprises a transformer system (fig 1, transformer 118 electrically connected to AC/DC converter 110 via line inductors 120) electronically connected to a first converter circuit (fig 1, H-bridge switching circuits 116 include a plurality of legs 123, each leg 123 includes at least one gas tube switching device 124) having a first maximum voltage rating (it is implicit and fundamental that every practical power converter has a first maximum voltage rating (and usually a second, for output) to ensure safe and reliable operation); wherein the voltage source provides a voltage source output (fig 1, see output of 102 onto AC bus 104 electrically coupled to a transformer 118).
She fails to disclose wherein the first maximum voltage rating is less than the voltage source output.
Mantov discloses a power distribution system with multiple converters connected in parallel where the converters maximum voltage rating is less than the voltage source output (par [0006] “This enables the use of power semiconductors with lower voltage rating compared to that supplied by the grid”; also see par [0066] and par [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of She and incorporate the use of power converters with lower maximum voltage ratings than the voltage source as taught by Mantov. The advantage of this design is to utilize multiple converters with lower switching ratings to step down the higher voltage AC source.
Regarding claim 2, She and Mantov disclose the EPD system of claim 1.
She and Mantov do not specifically disclose the transformer system connected to the voltage source is configured to step-down the voltage source output. She does teach a step down transformer (She fig 1, step-down transformer 136, see col 8 lines 8-15) on the output side (support for the ability and intent of alternate arrangement of components of She can be found in see col 9 lines 38+ - col 10 line 5).
Therefore, it is obvious to one obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the disclosure of She teaches the transformer system is configured to step the voltage source output down to a first stepped-down voltage source output (As described as an alternative arrangement of their already present components in She’s disclosure. It is fundamental and well understood in the art that transformers can be step-up or step-down therefore for the purpose of examination transformer 118 is considered to be a step-down transformer).
Regarding claim 3, She and Mantov disclose the EPD system of claim 2, wherein the first stepped-down voltage source output is provided as an input to the first converter circuit (She fig 1, see output of transformer 118 to input of AC/DC converter 110).
Regarding claim 4, She and Mantov disclose the EPD system of claim 3, wherein the first stepped-down voltage source output provided as the input to the first converter circuit is less than or equal to the first maximum voltage rating (Mantov par [0006] “This enables the use of power semiconductors with lower voltage rating compared to that supplied by the grid”; also see par [0066] and par [0073]).
Regarding claim 14, it is the method version claims 2-4 and therefore is rejected for the reasons above.
Regarding claim 5, She and Mantov disclose the EPD system of claim 4, wherein: the first stepped-down voltage source comprises a first voltage format (She, AC electrical source 102); the first converter circuit converts the first stepped-down voltage source to a first converter circuit output voltage having a second voltage format (She, AC/DC converter 110 converts the input AC to a DC voltage as its output); and the first converter circuit places the first converter circuit output voltage having the second voltage format on the bus (She fig 1, cable/bus 128, see col 7 lines 35-48).
Regarding claim 6, She and Mantov disclose the EPD system of claim 5, wherein the first converter circuit comprises one or more first radiation-hardened switching elements (She fig 1, gas tube switching devices 124 are well known in the art to be radiation hardened, Gas discharge tubes (GDTs) can withstand high-energy neutron/gamma radiation fields that would destroy sensitive semiconductors, because they do not rely on a silicon lattice structure, they are inherently superior in nuclear or deep-space environments; see col 6 lines 51 to col 7 line 40).
Regarding claim 15, it is the method version claims 5-6 and therefore is rejected for the reasons above.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, She and Mantov disclose a method of producing an electric power distribution (EPD) system of claims 6 and 15 further comprising a second conversion module electronically connected between the voltage source and the bus (She fig 2, any one of the plurality of parallel connected power converter channels 108).
Regarding claim 8, She and Mantov disclose the EPD system of claim 7, wherein: the second conversion module comprises the transformer system electronically (She fig 2, transformer symbol (see fig 1, transformer 118 position) on input side of converter modules 108) connected to a second converter circuit having a second maximum voltage rating (it is implicit and fundamental that every practical power converter has a first maximum voltage rating (and usually a second, for output) to ensure safe and reliable operation); and the second maximum voltage rating is less than the voltage source output (Mantov par [0006] “This enables the use of power semiconductors with lower voltage rating compared to that supplied by the grid”; also see par [0066] and par [0073]).
Regarding claim 9, She and Mantov disclose the EPD system of claim 8, wherein: the transformer system is further configured to step the voltage source output down to a second stepped-down voltage source output (She modified transformer 118); the second stepped-down voltage source output is provided as an input to the second converter circuit (She fig 2, see transformer connected to converter modules); the second stepped-down voltage source output provided as the input to the second converter circuit is less than or equal to the second maximum voltage rating (Mantov par [0006], par [0066] and par [0073]); the second stepped-down voltage source comprises the first voltage format (She, AC electrical source 102); the second converter circuit converts the second stepped-down voltage source to a second converter circuit output voltage having the second voltage format (She, AC/DC converter modules 108 converts the input AC to a DC voltage as its output); the second converter circuit places the second converter circuit output voltage having the second voltage format on the bus (She fig 2, see output of converter modules 108 to cable/bus 128); and the second converter circuit comprises one or more second radiation-hardened switching elements (She fig 1, gas tube switching devices 124 are well known in the art to be radiation hardened, Gas discharge tubes (GDTs) can withstand high-energy neutron/gamma radiation fields that would destroy sensitive semiconductors, because they do not rely on a silicon lattice structure, they are inherently superior in nuclear or deep-space environments; see col 6 lines 51 to col 7 line 40).
Regarding claim 17, it is the method version claims 8-9 and therefore is rejected for the reasons above.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, She and Mantov disclose the method of producing an EPD system of claim 9 and 17, wherein: the first voltage format comprises alternating current (AC) (She figs 1-2 AC electrical source 102); the second voltage format comprises direct current (DC) (She figs 1-2, AC/DC converter modules 110/108 converts the input AC to a DC voltage as its output); the bus comprises a DC bus (She figs 1-2, cable/bus 128); the EPD system further comprises a converter controller electronically coupled to the first converter circuit and the second converter circuit (She figs 1-2, Commutating circuit 114 see connection in fig 1 and description in col 7 line 49 to col 8 line 7); the converter controller controls how the first converter circuit places the first converter circuit output voltage having the second voltage format on the bus; and the converter controller further controls how the second converter circuit places the second converter circuit output voltage having the second voltage format on the bus (She col 8 lines 33-51 describe how the commutating circuit 114 controls the H-bridge switching circuits to control the output of the converts).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, She and Mantov disclose the method of producing an EPD system of claim 9 and 18, wherein the first conversion module is electronically connected in parallel with the second conversion module (She fig 2, see connection of modules 108; col 8 lines 33-51 “VSC channels 108 coupled in electrical parallel”).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, She and Mantov disclose the method of producing an EPD system of claim 9 and 18, wherein the first conversion module is electronically connected in series with the second conversion module (Applicant’s reply to restriction requirement on 12/31/25 submits that the disclosed embodiments are interchangeable variants within one MPCU architecture, differing only in alternative inter-module connection topologies, parallel versus series connections are expressly presented as alternative implementations of the same MPCU system; She’s disclosure col 9 line 55 – col 10 line 5 suggest alternate connections or combinations are possible and one skilled in the art would recognize the converters in series would result in the same outcome).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren A Shaw whose telephone number is (571)272-3074. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-5 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.
/LAUREN ASHLEY SHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights