Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/460,453

SELECTIVE EFFICIENCY TRACTION INVERTERS AND CHARGERS AS HEAT SOURCES FOR THERMAL CONDITIONING OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Non-Final OA §103§DP
Filed
Sep 01, 2023
Examiner
DUDA, RINA I
Art Unit
2846
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Rancho Del I P
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
808 granted / 1005 resolved
+12.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
1028
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
§103
35.5%
-4.5% vs TC avg
§102
33.4%
-6.6% vs TC avg
§112
18.9%
-21.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1005 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
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 . Drawings The drawings were received on 9/1/23. These drawings are approved. Double Patenting The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,766,920. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences merely involve broadening or omitting limitations of the already patented claims while remaining directed to the same multi-phase traction inverter. Broader claims can still be an obvious variation of a narrower patented claim if it omits limitations or generalizes features of the earlier patented claims. Therefore, allowing the instant claims would improperly extend the rights to exclude for the same invention. 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. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US Publication 2019/0092180) and Sharma (US Publication 2019/0181759). Claims 1, 8, and 14, Zhu teaches a method/apparatus for operating a traction system comprising: an inverter 106 including a plurality of semiconductor devices (see fig. 1, 106); main controller 302 for controlling the overall operation of system 100 provided onboard an electric vehicle (see paragraph 0026); and a controller 306 coupled to a plurality of phases of inverter 106 for controlling the operating state of the multiple semiconductor devices found in the inverter, wherein the inverter 106 is operated as a traction inverter for operating an electric motor 102 and as a boost converter (as described in paragraphs 0065-0066). Although controlling the state of each semiconductor device in inverter 106 is based on the operating mode of said inverter (traction or boost), Zhu does not describe the specific control algorithm for each of the semiconductor devices, wherein they can be configured to operate in a fully on state, a fully off state, and an intermediate state between the fully on state and the fully off state. However, Sharma teaches a controlling scheme for a plurality of semiconductor devices in a power converter 110 (200), the controlling scheme comprises: switching the plurality of semiconductor devices between at least three different states, the at least three states comprising a fully on state (Ton), a fully off state (Toff), and an intermediate state (COM1/COM2) between the fully on and the fully off states as described in paragraphs 0018 and 0031-0032, wherein the power converter can be operated as a buck or boost converter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to control a power converter (traction inverter) in a plurality of operating states to include semiconductor devices being on, off, or in between in order to decrease ripple in the power converter output signal and optimize the operation of the power converter as described by Sharma in paragraph 0050. Claims 2 and 15, Zhu teaches a plurality of switches (see inverter 106 in fig. 1) operated by a controller (controller 306 or main controller 302), wherein the controller connects an energy storage (capacitor) as an input device of the traction inverter 106 when the inverter is driving motor 102 and connects the energy storage as an output device when the inverter 106 is operating as a boost converter (see paragraph 0065). Claims 3, 9, and 16, Zhu teaches a traction inverter 106 having a plurality of phases connected to a plurality of phases of motor 102 (see fig. 1). Claims 4, 10, and 17, Sharma teaches a controller 105 for controlling a plurality of phases from converter 200 in order to control an output current IL (see paragraph 0050). Claims 5, 11, and 18, Zhu describes a traction inverter comprising a positive voltage terminal 106p, a negative terminal 106n, a DC capacitor, and a plurality of switches (see fig. 1), wherein controller 302 and 306 rearrange the connections of the plurality of switches among an energy storage system 108, the positive terminal 106p, the negative terminal 106n, and the DC capacitor. Claim 6, Zhu teaches operating the power converter 106 as a boost converter as described in the rejection of claim 1 above. Claims 7, 13, and 19-20, Zhu teaches a motor 102 comprising a plurality of windings connected to the plurality of inverter windings as described in fig. 1, wherein the configuration of the motor windings depends on the operating states of the plurality of switches. Claim 12, Sharma teaches controller 105 for operating power converter as a buck or boost converter, see fig. 1 and corresponding description. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents cited in the attached PTO-892 describe other power converters for controlling the operation of electric motors, wherein the power converter includes a traction inverter having a plurality of semiconductor devices that operate in various modes such as fully on mode or fully off mode. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM. 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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at (571) 272-2060. 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. /RINA I DUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2846
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 01, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603590
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR SYNCHRONIZING SYNCHRONOUS MOTORS WITH ELECTRIC GRID BASED ON DETECTED SHAFT POSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12592657
SYNCHRONOUS MACHINE CONTROL DEVICE, SYNCHRONOUS MACHINE CONTROL METHOD, AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583709
TAG DETECTION IN ELEVATOR SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584341
OPENING/CLOSING MEMBER CONTROL DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577082
DRIVE OF AN ELEVATOR SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+10.1%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1005 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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