Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/457,676

Bidirectional Charge Pump for DC Link Charging and Discharging

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 29, 2023
Examiner
TARDIF, DAVID P
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Lear Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allowance Rate
380 granted / 528 resolved
+12.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
543
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
63.4%
+23.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
§112
4.7%
-35.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 528 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Election/Restrictions 1. Claims 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/28/2026. Information Disclosure Statement 2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 3. Claims 1-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1 recites the terminology “and the impedance”, “charging the impedance” and “discharging the impedance”, and additionally “between the battery and the impedance”. Impedance is a physical quantity of resistance to an alternating circuit. However, the expression of “impedance” in the claims is not a measured phenomenon, but instead implied to be an object in a specific location. The specification does not specify what “an impedance” might refer to if it were intended to be a specific object. Paragraph 0025 of the specification expresses: More generally, DC link 72 is part of an electrical impedance of devices (e.g., inverter, DC/DC conversion module, etc.) that are connected to the bus. In variations, the electrical impedance is comprised of separate power electronics devices, each having its own capacitance associated with it. (emphasis added) Applicant appears to understand this distinction, and additionally expresses the arguments examiner intends to make in declaratory form, which is that every different elements of an RC or RLC circuit has an impedance. As is such, examiner is unable to guess which specific element is being intended by the terminology, even when attempting to interpret the spirit of the claims instead of the wording of the claims. As is such, examiner is unclear which direction to take when searching for this element. Examiner understands that this truncates a round of prosecution, and in order to expedite prosecution, examiner invites applicant to contact examiner to this end if it would be deemed helpful. Claims 2-16 depend upon claim 1, and are therefore also rejected. Claim 20 bears the same terminology, and is therefore also rejected. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 4. Claims 1-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: “the impedance”, as expressed above, is indefinite as to the location of the implied physical element which is expressed in the claims. 5. Hussein (11,996,724) teaches a similar configuration as expressed in claims, which is a bus capacitor connected to a DC voltage source wherein an impedance meter interposes the elements, which could reasonably be interpreted to be “the impedance”. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TARDIF whose telephone number is (571)270-7810. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11AM-7:30PM. If the examiner cannot be reached by telephone, he can be reached through the following email address: david.tardif@uspto.gov If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571)272-3689. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. DAVID TARDIF Examiner Art Unit 2876 /DAVID TARDIF/ Examiner, Art Unit 2876 david.tardif@uspto.gov /THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 29, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12727964
GLASS TAG TRANSPONDER INSTALLATION/RETROFITTING FOR MOTOR CABLE
2y 8m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12722528
BI-CAPACITOR DESIGN FOR FAST STATE OF CHARGE EQUALIZATION
3y 1m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12725002
AN RFID TRANSPONDER, A POD AND A METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE POD
1y 10m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12718050
HARDWARE AND DEEP LEARNING BASED AUTHENTICATION THROUGH ENHANCED RF FINGERPRINTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12706370
RFID ANTENNA FOR REJECTING UNWANTED RF SIGNALS
1y 8m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+10.3%)
3y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 528 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month