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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3, 5, 8, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re Claims 3 and 13, each claim describes each arc suppressing device being “assigned to at least three power electronics devices of the plurality of power electronics devices, such as at least six, power electronics devices”. It is not clear whether the claim limits the number power electronics devices to at least three or at least six making the metes and bounds of the claims unclear. For the purpose of examination, the number of power electronics will be interpreted as at least three.
In re Claims 5 and 15, each cabinet is described as including “at least one power electronics device, preferably a plurality of electronics devices arranged physically adjacent to each other”. It is not clear whether the claim limits each cabinet to at least one power electronics device or a plurality of power electronics devices arranged physically adjacent to each other making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For the purpose of examination, the term “preferably” will be interpreted as --or--.
In re Claims 8 and 17, the total number of power electronics devices is described as amounting “to at least 10, such as at least 15, such as at least 20”. It is not clear whether the claim limits the number of power electronics to at least 10, 15, or 20, making the metes and bound of the claim unclear. For the purpose of examination the number of power electronics device will be interpreted as at least 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maibach et al (EP 3 621 189).
In re Claim 1, Maibach teaches a drive system as seen in Figure 1a comprising: a DC bus (117 and 118), a plurality of power electronics devices (110) each comprising a capacitor (110), each power electronics device 110 being connected to the DC bus in parallel with the other power electronics devices, and a plurality of arc suppressing devices (120), each being configured to short circuit the DC bus in case of an arcing fault on the DC bus (paragraphs 5 and 28).
In re Claim 2, Maibach teaches each arc suppressing device 120 is assigned to at least one power electronics device 100 as seen in Figure 1a.
In re Claims 4 and 14, Maibach teaches the power electronics devices 100 are consecutively connected to the DC bus as seen in Figure 1a.
In re Claims 6, 7, and 16, Maibach teaches the arc suppressing device 120 is a semiconductor switch in the form of a thyristor (paragraph 28).
In re Claim 12, Maibach teaches that all arc suppressing devices are configured to short circuit the DC bus essentially simultaneously (paragraph 41).
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) 3, 8, 13, and 17 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maibach et al (EP 3 621 189).
In re Claims 3 and 13, Maibach teaches an arc suppressing device 120 assigned to each capacitor 110, but does not specifically teach that each arc suppressing device is assigned to at least three capacitors. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement each capacitor 110 of Maibach as at least three capacitors in parallel since it was known in the art that a number of capacitors can be connected in parallel to create an equivalent capacitance to that of a single capacitor.
In re Claims 8 and 17, Maibach teaches a plurality of power electronics devices 110 connected to the DC bus but does not specifically teach that they amount to at least 10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least 10 capacitors 110 to meet the proper demand on the DC bus and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maibach et al (EP 3 621 189) in view of Utecht et al (2023/0144976).
In re Claim 9 and 18, Maibach teaches a controller 200 for activating the arc suppressing devices (paragraph 39), but does not specifically what feedback is relied on to do so.
Utecht teaches activating a switch module 111 of a crow bar system by way of an arc sense module 119 that utilizes current and voltage sensing of a DC bus (output of rectifier 103) [paragraph 27].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to activate the arc suppressing devices of Maibach based on the voltage and current of the DC bus since Utecht teaches it as a suitable means for determining when to activate an arc suppressing crowbar switch.
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maibach et al (EP 3 621 189) in view of Matsushita (20150222207).
In re Claims 10, 11, and 19, Maibach teaches providing protection by providing a switching element 120 in parallel with each capacitor 110 connected to a DC bus to protect against arcing events as discussed above, but does not teach an inverter or chopper (in re claims 10 and 19) or a plurality of motors (in re claim 11) as claimed.
Matsushita teaches as seen in Figure 6 a plurality of inverters (INV1 and INV2) with chopper circuits (4 and 9) connected in parallel to a DC bus (output of rectifier 1). Matsushita further teaches that each inverter comprises a respective capacitor (2 and 7) connected to the DC bus wherein each inverter supplies a respective motor (M1 and M2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a switching element in parallel with each capacitor of Matsushita since Maibach teaches it would protect against dangerous events on the DC bus such as those caused by arcing.
Upon modification, the inverters of Matsushita are considered the power electronics devices.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maibach et al (EP 3 621 189) in view of Matsushita (20150222207) and Wen et al (2015/0340961).
In re Claims 5 and 15, Maibach does not specifically teach a plurality of cabinets as claimed.
The rejection of claims 10, 11, and 19 as discussed above is applied. Furthermore, Wen teaches as seen in Figure 1B placing an inverter 14 in a cabinet 10 (paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cabinet for each inverter of Matsushita as taught by Wen in order to protect them from environmental conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER JAY CLARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00am - 6:00pm 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838