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 .
Drawings
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
n-phase rectifier of Claims 10 and 20
method steps of Claims 11-13
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.
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 14 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 15, and 16 of copending Application No. 18621355 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
14. A vehicle comprising:
a power system including a battery, an inverter, a rectifier, a transformer, an electric machine connected between the inverter and the rectifier, and a controller programmed to
during charge, operate the inverter to alter a power factor of power from a grid via the inverter, the rectifier, and windings of the electric machine, and
after the charge, close at least one contactor such that power between the battery and the inverter bypass the transformer.
1. A vehicle comprising: a traction battery; a power system having an electric machine including windings, transfer circuitry including a plurality of field effect transistors and a transformer, and an inverter system controller connected between the electric machine and the transfer circuitry; and a switch connected between the traction battery and the transfer circuitry, the power system and the switch configured such that, during a drive mode, the switch is open and power from the traction battery bypasses the field effect transistors and the transformer, and flows through the inverter system controller to the electric machine, and during a charge mode, the switch is closed and power from a charge source flows sequentially through the windings, the inverter system controller, the transformer, and the switch to the traction battery.
15. The vehicle of claim 14, wherein the controller is further programmed to, when preparing to charge, open the at least one contactor such that a power from the grid will pass through the transformer.
4. The vehicle of claim 1 further comprising a rectifier connected with the windings such that, during the charge mode, power from the charge source flows first through the rectifier then the windings.
5. The vehicle of claim 4, wherein the rectifier includes a plurality of diodes and wherein the windings share a node with cathodes of some of the diodes.
12, 15, and 16 sufficiently correspond to Claims 1, 4, and 5 of the reference application. The use of the rectifier, inverter, windings, and transformer would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the power factor. The relationship of the circuit elements in the instant application is met by the reference application’s claims. As for the contactor vs switch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a high current/voltage switch like a contactor for the vehicular application of the reference application for the reasons of higher durability of the switch. If the applicant believes a secondary reference is required, examiner points applicant to the Zhu reference in the 103 rejection below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al (USPGPN 20190061553).
Independent Claim 1, Yang discloses an automotive on-board charger (100, Figs. [1-10, esp. 3-8]) comprising:
a battery (110, 160);
an inverter (130);
a rectifier (170);
an electric machine (140, motor=electric machine), including windings (141-143), connected between the inverter and rectifier (see Figs. [3-7]); and
a controller (190) programmed (Fig. 11) to operate the inverter such that the inverter, windings, and rectifier together shift a phase between a voltage and current of power from a grid (ES defined in abstract & ¶[43] as an external AC power source; defined as “a network of conductors for distribution of electric power” on Marriam-Webster.com/dictionary/grid, where Fig. 7 shows it has at least two conductors, and is therefore a network of conductors, i.e. grid) to alter a power factor of the power (¶’s [75, 76]).
Independent Claim 11, Yang discloses a method (Fig. 11, ¶’s [75, 76], based on structures of Figs. [1-10, esp. 3-8]) comprising:
responsive to receiving input power from an AC grid (ES defined in abstract & ¶[43] as an external AC power source; defined as “a network of conductors for distribution of electric power” on Marriam-Webster.com/dictionary/grid, where Fig. 7 shows it has at least two conductors, and is therefore a network of conductors, i.e. grid),
operating a plurality of switches (131-136) of an inverter (130) such that the inverter, a rectifier (170), and windings (141-143) of an electric machine (140, motor=electric machine), that is connected between the rectifier and inverter, together shift a phase between a voltage and current of the input power to alter a power factor of the input power (¶’s [75, 76]).
Dependent Claim 5, Yang discloses the inverter includes a plurality of switches (131-136) and wherein the controller is programmed to operate the switches such that the inverter transforms DC power from the battery to AC power for the electric machine (¶’s [70, 71]).
Dependent Claim 6, Yang discloses the inverter is configured to transform AC power from the electric machine to DC power for the battery (¶’s [70, 71]).
Dependent Claim 7, Yang discloses the inverter is an n-phase inverter (¶’s [52, 54, esp. 54] describes the switches of the inverter 130 as being either a IGBT or MOSFET, where Fig. 7 at least shows the switches as n-Channel IGBT, i.e. it is a n-channel inverter).
Dependent Claim 8, Yang discloses the rectifier is a diode rectifier (Figs. [5, 7]).
Dependent Claim 10, Yang discloses the electric machine is a motor (¶[42]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (USPGPN 20190061553) in view of Zhu et al (USPGPN 20210408889)
Independent Claim 14, Yang discloses a vehicle (vehicle seen in whole in Figs. [1, 2], Figs. [3-10, esp. 3-8] shows the vehicle charging/power system in more detail, see ¶’s [17-21, 42, 43, 50, 67, 72, 83-88, 92] for information relating 100 to the vehicle as a whole) comprising:
a power system (100, see Figs. [3-10, esp. 3-8]) including a battery (110, 160), an inverter (130), a rectifier (170), a transformer (230), an electric machine (140, motor=electric machine) connected between the inverter and the rectifier, and a controller (190) programmed to (Fig. 11, ¶’s [67-69, 75, 76])
during charge, operate the inverter to alter a power factor of power from a grid via the inverter, the rectifier, and windings of the electric machine (¶’s [67-69, 75, 76,esp.68,75,76], and
after the charge, close at least one switch (192, 193) such that power between the battery and the inverter bypass the transformer (¶[68]).
Yang is silent to teaching the at least one switch is a contactor.
Zhu teaches the at least one switch is a contactor (see analogous circuits in Figs. [5A, 5B], contactors [Kc, K1, K2], ¶[88]). Official notice that contactors are more durable than normal switches due to their abilities to handle higher power levels.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang with Zhu to provide improved durability.
Dependent Claim 15, the combination of Yang and Zhu teaches the controller is further programmed to, when preparing to charge, open the at least one contactor (Zhu) such that a power from the grid will pass through the transformer (Yang ¶’s [67-69, 75, 76, esp. 68]).
Dependent Claim 17, the combination of Yang and Zhu teaches the inverter includes a plurality of switches (131-136 Yang) and wherein the controller is further programmed to operate the switches such that the inverter transforms DC power from the battery to AC power for the electric machine (¶’s [70, 71]).
Dependent Claim 18, Yang teaches the inverter is an n-phase inverter (¶’s [52, 54, esp. 54] describes the switches of the inverter 130 as being either a IGBT or MOSFET, where Fig. 7 at least shows the switches as n-Channel IGBT, i.e. it is a n-channel inverter).
Dependent Claim 19, Yang teaches the electric machine is a motor (¶[42])..
Dependent Claim 2, Yang teaches a transformer (230), including at least one switch (192, 193), connected between the battery and inverter (see Figs. [3-8, esp. 4, 6, 7])
Yang is silent to teaching the at least one switch is a contactor.
Zhu teaches the at least one switch is a contactor (see analogous circuits in Figs. [5A, 5B], contactors [Kc, K1, K2], ¶[88]). Official notice that contactors are more durable than normal switches due to their abilities to handle higher power levels.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang with Zhu to provide improved durability.
Dependent Claim 3, the combination of Yang and Zhu teaches the transformer is configured such that when the at least one contactor (in view of Zhu) is in a predefined state, the battery and inverter are connected (Yang ¶[68]).
Dependent Claims 4 and 16, the combination of Yang and Zhu teaches the transformer further includes a plurality of switches and wherein the controller is programmed to operate the switches in a predefined pattern to alter the voltage to charge the battery (Yang: 210 of transformer 230 including 150 which is shown in Figs. [6, 7] to include switches [211-214], see ¶[71] describing the alternating pattern for the switches, which the words “the low DC-DC switches 211 to 214 of the full bridge circuit 210 may be repeatedly turned on and off in an alternating pattern” would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the pattern was predetermined).
Dependent Claim 12, Yang teaches connected to the AC grid, opening at least one switch (192, 193) such that a power output from the inverter passes through a transformer (230) prior to delivery to a battery (¶’s [67-69, 75, 76, esp. 68]).
Yang is silent to teaching the at least one switch is a contactor.
Zhu teaches the at least one switch is a contactor (see analogous circuits in Figs. [5A, 5B], contactors [Kc, K1, K2], ¶[88]). Official notice that contactors are more durable than normal switches due to their abilities to handle higher power levels.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang with Zhu to provide improved durability.
Dependent Claim 13, Yang teaches while disconnected from the AC grid, closing at least one switch (192, 193) to connect a battery to the electric machine (¶’s [67-69, 75, 76, esp. 68]).
Yang is silent to teaching the at least one switch is a contactor.
Zhu teaches the at least one switch is a contactor (see analogous circuits in Figs. [5A, 5B], contactors [Kc, K1, K2], ¶[88]). Official notice that contactors are more durable than normal switches due to their abilities to handle higher power levels.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang with Zhu to provide improved durability.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (USPGPN 20190061553) in view of Dittmer et al (USPGPN 20140232301), as evidenced by Luke et al (USPGPN 20130033203)
Dependent Claim 9, Yang is silent to the rectifier is an n-phase rectifier.
Dittmer teaches the rectifier is an n-phase rectifier (see analogous circuitry in Figs. [1-6, esp. 3-6], where rectifier 15 ¶[39] is shown as a network of n-phase transistors, i.e. a n-phase rectifier). Dittmer’s rectifier is what is known as an active/synchronous rectifier, as opposed to the passive/diode of Yang. Luke provides evidence that active/synchronous rectifiers are more efficient than passive rectifiers (¶’s [60, 61])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang with Dittmer to provide improved efficiency.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (USPGPN 20190061553) in view of Zhu et al (USPGPN 20210408889), further in view of Dittmer et al (USPGPN 20140232301), as evidenced by Luke et al (USPGPN 20130033203)
Dependent Claim 20, Yang is silent to the rectifier is an n-phase rectifier.
Dittmer teaches the rectifier is an n-phase rectifier (see analogous circuitry in Figs. [1-6, esp. 3-6], where rectifier 15 ¶[39] is shown as a network of n-phase transistors, i.e. a n-phase rectifier). Dittmer’s rectifier is what is known as an active/synchronous rectifier, as opposed to the passive/diode of Yang. Luke provides evidence that active/synchronous rectifiers are more efficient than passive rectifiers (¶’s [60, 61])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang in view of Zhu with Dittmer to provide improved efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s publications are considered closest for their figures’:
US-20240424918-A1 OR US-20240424917-A1 OR US-20250088095-A1 OR US-20250296459-A1 OR US-20250303893-A1
US-12319156-B2 OR US-12665499-B2
The following references are believed to have the closest structure to the structure claimed via the figures:
US-20230202320-A1 OR US-20240157823-A1 OR US-20240424928-A1 OR US-20230011289-A1 OR US-20240416768-A1 OR US-20140232301-A1 OR US-20190061553-A1 OR US-20190184833-A1 OR US-20190296568-A1 OR US-20190296665-A1 OR US-20190296676-A1 OR US-20190296663-A1 OR US-20190296664-A1 OR US-20150069936-A1 OR US-20180254732-A1 OR US-20190184837-A1 OR US-20210408889-A1 OR US-20230421042-A1
US-12083912-B2 OR US-10562404-B1 OR US-11724612-B2 OR US-9252625-B2 OR US-10744898-B2 OR US-10513185-B2 OR US-10951041-B2 OR US-11056987-B2 OR US-11211889-B2 OR US-11114959-B2 OR US-11239771-B2 OR US-9616760-B2 OR US-10771001-B2 OR US-11801763-B2 OR US-11817769-B2 OR US-12261516-B2
The next closest references include:
US-20090067205-A1 OR US-20090121659-A1 OR US-20210197680-A1 OR US-20220194239-A1 OR US-20250083544-A1 OR US-20240348081-A1
US-7891451-B2 OR US-7859201-B2 OR US-10230254-B1 OR US-11407321-B2 OR US-12214684-B2 OR US-12233729-B1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights