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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, it should be noted that the language of the amendment to claims 1 and 11, specifically “power conversion modules configured to couple to one another”, is fairly broad and under broadest reasonable interpretation could simply mean that these converters are in communication and not that these converters share an electrical redundancy aspect.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: in the last line of each claim, it is stated “based at least in part the first load.” It is believed that this is meant to read “based at least in part on the first load.”
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, the first “first” is not lined out and the claim reads “first configurable first power conversion modules.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 11-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0291222 by Mitsunaga et al. (Mitsunaga hereinafter) in view of US 2005/0134239 by Harris et al. (Harris hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Mitsunaga discloses an electric power distribution (EPD) system comprising: a first power conversion system [see at least Figure 2, (52), (62) and (83)] electronically connected between a first voltage source [see at least Figure 2, (51), (61) and (82)] and a bus [see at least Figure 2, (4)]; and a second power conversion system [see at least Figure 2, (7)] electronically connected between the bus [see at least Figure 2, (4)] and a first load [see at least Figure 2, (L)]; wherein the first power conversion system is operable to, responsive to receiving power that originated from the first voltage source in a first modality [see at least paragraph 0031], generate a first voltage [see at least Figure 2, (Wre); paragraph 0031] and provide the first voltage to the bus [see at least paragraph 0033]; wherein the second power conversion system is operable to, responsive to receiving a bus-voltage of the bus [see at least Figure 2, (Vbus)], generate a second voltage [see at least Figure 2, (VL)] and provide the second voltage to the first load [see at least paragraph 0038]; and wherein the bus-voltage is greater than the second voltage [see at least paragraph 0039, “the converter 7 converts the internal bus voltage Vbus2 of DC 270 V into the load voltage VL of DC 24 V”].
Mitsunaga fails to disclose configurable power conversion modules configured to couple to one another and that the first power conversion module configuration is determined based at least in part on the first voltage source and wherein the second power conversion module configuration is determined based at least in part the first load. However, Harris discloses the concept of redundant power converters [see at least Abstract; Figure 4; paragraph 0038; paragraphs 0025, 0027 and 0045, “system requirements” and “common requirement for a DC power output”; the system is designed to handle the input and output required for operation].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to utilize redundant power converters on the input and the output which are determined by the input power and load requirements in order to prevent a failure of a power converter from disabling the system that supplies converted power to designated loads. Thus, allowing the system to maintain operation and operate as designed.
Regarding claim 2, Mitsunaga in view of Harris teaches the EPD system of claim 1.
Mitsunaga discloses wherein the first power conversion system is further electronically connected between a second voltage source and the bus [see at least Figure 2, (51), (61) and (82)].
Regarding claim 3, Mitsunaga in view of Harris teaches the EPD system of claim 2.
Mitsunaga discloses wherein the second power conversion system is further electronically connected between the bus and a second load [see at least Figure 2, (L)].
Regarding claim 4, Mitsunaga in view of Harris teaches the EPD system of claim 3.
Mitsunaga discloses wherein: the first power conversion system is further operable to, responsive to receiving power that originated from the second voltage source in a second modality [see at least paragraph 0035], generate a third voltage [see at least Figure 2, (Ws); paragraph 0035] and provide the third voltage to the bus [see at least paragraph 0036]; the second power conversion system is further operable to, responsive to receiving the bus-voltage of the bus [see at least Figure 2, (Vbus)], generate a fourth voltage [see at least Figure 2, (VL)] and provide the fourth voltage to the second load [see at least paragraph 0039]; and the bus-voltage is greater than the fourth voltage [see at least paragraph 0039, “the converter 7 converts the internal bus voltage Vbus2 of DC 270 V into the load voltage VL of DC 24 V”].
Regarding claim 5, Mitsunaga in view of Harris teaches the EPD system of claim 4.
Harris discloses wherein: the configurable first power conversion modules comprise a first power conversion module and a second power conversion module; the first power conversion module is operable to, responsive to receiving power that originated from the first voltage source in the first modality, generate a first instance of the first voltage and provide the first instance of the first voltage to the bus; and the second power conversion module is operable to, responsive to receiving power that originated from the first voltage source in the first modality, generate a second instance of the first voltage and provide the second instance of the first voltage to the bus [see at least paragraph 0044].
Regarding claim 8, Mitsunaga in view of Harris teaches the EPD system of claim 4.
Mitsunaga discloses wherein: the configurable first power conversion modules comprise a first power conversion module and a second power conversion module [see at least Figure 2, (52), (62) and (83)]; the first power conversion module is operable to, responsive to receiving power that originated from the first voltage source in the first modality, generate the first voltage and provide the first voltage to the bus [see at least Figure 2, (51) to (4)]; and the second power conversion module is operable to, responsive to receiving power that originated from the second voltage source in the second modality, generate the third voltage and provide the third voltage to the bus [see at least Figure 2, (61) to (4)].
Regarding claim 9, Mitsunaga in view of Harris teaches the EPD system of claim 8.
Mitsunaga discloses wherein: the second power conversion module comprises a third power conversion module and a fourth power conversion module [see at least Figure 2, (7)];
the third power conversion module is operable to, responsive to receiving the bus-voltage of the bus, generate the second voltage and provide the second voltage to the first load [see at least Figure 2, (4) to (L)]; and the second power conversion module is operable to, responsive to receiving the bus-voltage of the bus, generate the fourth voltage and provide the fourth voltage to the second load [see at least Figure 2, (4) to (L)].
Regarding claim 11, Mitsunaga discloses a method of forming an electric power distribution (EPD) system, the method comprising performing fabrication operations comprising: forming a first power conversion system [see at least Figure 2, (52), (62) and (83)] electronically connected between a first voltage source [see at least Figure 2, (51), (61) and (82)] and a bus [see at least Figure 2, (4)]; and forming a second power conversion system [see at least Figure 2, (52), (62) and (83)] electronically connected between the bus [see at least Figure 2, (4)] and a first load [see at least Figure 2, (L)]; wherein the first power conversion system is operable to, responsive to receiving power that originated from the first voltage source in a first modality [see at least paragraph 0031], generate a first voltage [see at least Figure 2, (Wre); paragraph 0031] and provide the first voltage to the bus [see at least paragraph 0033]; wherein the second power conversion system is operable to, responsive to receiving a bus-voltage of the bus [see at least Figure 2, (Vbus)], generate a second voltage [see at least Figure 2, (VL)] and provide the second voltage to the first load [see at least paragraph 0038]; and wherein the bus-voltage is greater than the second voltage [see at least paragraph 0039, “the converter 7 converts the internal bus voltage Vbus2 of DC 270 V into the load voltage VL of DC 24 V”].
Mitsunaga fails to disclose configurable power conversion modules configured to couple to one another and that the first power conversion module configuration is determined based at least in part on the first voltage source and wherein the second power conversion module configuration is determined based at least in part the first load. However, Harris discloses the concept of redundant power converters [see at least Abstract; Figure 4; paragraph 0038; paragraphs 0025, 0027 and 0045, “system requirements” and “common requirement for a DC power output”; the system is designed to handle the input and output required for operation].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to utilize redundant power converters on the input and the output which are determined by the input power and load requirements in order to prevent a failure of a power converter from disabling the system that supplies converted power to designated loads. Thus, allowing the system to maintain operation and operate as designed.
Regarding claim 12, Mitsunaga in view of Harris teaches the method of claim 11.
Mitsunaga discloses wherein the first power conversion system is further electronically connected between a second voltage source and the bus [see at least Figure 2, (51), (61) and (82)].
Regarding claim 13, Mitsunaga in view of Harris teaches the method of claim 12.
Mitsunaga discloses wherein the second power conversion system is further electronically connected between the bus and a second load [see at least Figure 2, (L)].
Regarding claim 14, Mitsunaga in view of Harris teaches the method of claim 13.
Mitsunaga discloses wherein: the first power conversion system is further operable to, responsive to receiving power that originated from the second voltage source in a second modality [see at least paragraph 0035], generate a third voltage [see at least Figure 2, (Ws); paragraph 0035] and provide the third voltage to the bus [see at least paragraph 0036]; the second power conversion system is further operable to, responsive to receiving the bus-voltage of the bus [see at least Figure 2, (Vbus)], generate a fourth voltage [see at least Figure 2, (VL)] and provide the fourth voltage to the second load [see at least paragraph 0038]; and the bus-voltage is greater than the fourth voltage [see at least paragraph 0039, “the converter 7 converts the internal bus voltage Vbus2 of DC 270 V into the load voltage VL of DC 24 V”].
Regarding claim 15, Mitsunaga in view of Harris teaches the method of claim 14.
Harris discloses wherein: the configurable first power conversion modules comprise a first power conversion module and a second power conversion module; the first power conversion module is operable to, responsive to receiving power that originated from the first voltage source in the first modality, generate a first instance of the first voltage and provide the first instance of the first voltage to the bus; and the second power conversion module is operable to, responsive to receiving power that originated from the first voltage source in the first modality, generate a second instance of the first voltage and provide the second instance of the first voltage to the bus [see at least paragraph 0044].
Regarding claim 18, Mitsunaga in view of Harris teaches the method of claim 14.
Mitsunaga discloses wherein: the first configurable first power conversion modules comprise a first power conversion module and a second power conversion module [see at least Figure 2, (52), (62) and (83)]; the first power conversion module is operable to, responsive to receiving power that originated from the first voltage source in the first modality, generate the first voltage and provide the first voltage to the bus [see at least Figure 2, (51) to (4)]; and the second power conversion module is operable to, responsive to receiving power that originated from the second voltage source in the second modality, generate the third voltage and provide the third voltage to the bus [see at least Figure 2, (61) to (4)].
Regarding claim 19, Mitsunaga in view of Harris teaches the method of claim 18.
Mitsunaga discloses wherein: the second power conversion module comprises a third power conversion module and a fourth power conversion module [see at least Figure 2, (7)]; the third power conversion module is operable to, responsive to receiving the bus-voltage of the bus, generate the second voltage and provide the second voltage to the first load [see at least Figure 2, (4) to (L)]; and the second power conversion module is operable to, responsive to receiving the bus-voltage of the bus, generate the fourth voltage and provide the fourth voltage to the second load [see at least Figure 2, (4) to (L)].
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0291222 by Mitsunaga et al. (Mitsunaga hereinafter) in view of US 2005/0134239 by Harris et al. (Harris hereinafter) in further view of US 2006/0273770 by Siri.
Regarding claim 6, Mitsunaga in view of Harris teaches the EPD system of claim 5.
Mitsunaga in view of Harris fails to explicitly teach wherein the first power conversion module has a first maximum voltage rating that is less than or substantially equal to the first instance of the first voltage. However, Siri discloses aspect of converter voltage rating [see at least paragraphs 0013, 0031 and 0034] and the maximum voltage rating less than or substantially equal to the first instance of the first voltage is merely an optimal range. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to utilize a maximum voltage rating that is less than or substantially equal to the first voltage to allow the use of more inexpensive components. Thus, reducing costs of the system.
Regarding claim 7, Mitsunaga in view of Harris in further view of Siri teaches the EPD system of claim 6.
Siri discloses aspect of converter voltage rating [see at least paragraphs 0013, 0031 and 0034], but Mitsunaga in view of Harris in further view of Siri fails to explicitly teach wherein the second power conversion module has a second maximum voltage rating that is less than or substantially equal to the second instance of the first voltage. However, this is merely an optimal range. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to utilize a maximum voltage rating that is less than or substantially equal to the first voltage to allow the use of more inexpensive components. Thus, reducing costs of the system.
Regarding claim 16, Mitsunaga in view of Siri teaches the method of claim 15.
Mitsunaga in view of Harris fails to explicitly teach wherein the first power conversion module has a first maximum voltage rating that is less than or substantially equal to the first instance of the first voltage. However, Siri discloses aspect of converter voltage rating [see at least paragraphs 0013, 0031 and 0034] and the maximum voltage rating less than or substantially equal to the first instance of the first voltage is merely an optimal range. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to utilize a maximum voltage rating that is less than or substantially equal to the first voltage to allow the use of more inexpensive components. Thus, reducing costs of the system.
Regarding claim 17, Mitsunaga in view of Harris in further view of Siri teaches the method of claim 16.
Siri discloses aspect of converter voltage rating [see at least paragraphs 0013, 0031 and 0034], but Mitsunaga in view of Harris in further view of Siri fails to explicitly teach wherein the second power conversion module has a second maximum voltage rating that is less than or substantially equal to the second instance of the first voltage. However, this is merely an optimal range. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to utilize a maximum voltage rating that is less than or substantially equal to the first voltage to allow the use of more inexpensive components. Thus, reducing costs of the system.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0291222 by Mitsunaga et al. (Mitsunaga hereinafter) in view of US 2005/0134239 by Harris et al. (Harris hereinafter) in further view of US 2020/0403457 by Nydell et al. (Nydell hereinafter) and US 2018/0145518 by Onizuka et al. (Onizuka hereinafter) and US 2018/0301998 by Fogel.
Regarding claim 10, Mitsunaga in view of Harris teaches the EPD system of claim 4.
Mitsunaga discloses wherein: the first load comprises a battery [see at least Figure 2, (81)], but fails to disclose the first power source comprises a laser; the second power source comprises a radio frequency (RF) transmitter; the first modality comprises a laser beam; the second modality comprises an RF signal; the bus comprises a direct current (DC) bus; some or all of the EDP system is radiation hardened; and the second load comprises a wireless power transmitter. However, Nydell discloses a laser beam transmitter and receiver system [see at least Abstract; Figures 1 and 3] and Onizuka discloses a wireless receiving system [see at least Figure 10, (115)] which has a load that is a wireless transmitting unit [see at least Figure 10, (2); all wireless transmitters transmit power] and Fogel discloses some or all of the EDP system is radiation hardened [see at least paragraph 0033].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to utilize laser wireless power and RF wireless power as energy sources in the system as these are known alternate energy sources that do not require wired attachment. Thus, providing some freedom of movement and simplifying installation. Further, it would have been obvious to utilize radiation hardened components in order to prevent damage from harsh radiation environments. Thus, allowing the system to operate in extreme environments such as space.
Regarding claim 20, Mitsunaga in view of Harris teaches the method of claim 14.
Mitsunaga discloses wherein: the first load comprises a battery [see at least Figure 2, (81)], but fails to disclose the first power source comprises a laser; the second power source comprises a radio frequency (RF) transmitter; the first modality comprises a laser beam; the second modality comprises an RF signal; the bus comprises a direct current (DC) bus; some or all of the EDP system is radiation hardened; and the second load comprises a wireless power transmitter. However, Nydell discloses a laser beam transmitter and receiver system [see at least Abstract; Figures 1 and 3] and Onizuka discloses a wireless receiving system [see at least Figure 10, (115)] which has a load that is a wireless transmitting unit [see at least Figure 10, (2); all wireless transmitters transmit power] and Fogel discloses some or all of the EDP system is radiation hardened [see at least paragraph 0033].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's invention to utilize laser wireless power and RF wireless power as energy sources in the system as these are known alternate energy sources that do not require wired attachment. Thus, providing some freedom of movement and simplifying installation. Further, it would have been obvious to utilize radiation hardened components in order to prevent damage from harsh radiation environments. Thus, allowing the system to operate in extreme environments such as space.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOEL BARNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/JOEL BARNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights