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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10-11 and 13 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.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because fig. 4, as disclosed in the specification, is a flow diagram. However, the flow diagram disclosed in fig. 4 is non-descriptive. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 0013 recites “Fig. 5”. However, there is only four figures. The recitation should be corrected to “Fig. 4”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 10, line 8 recites “to allow a current flows”. Line 8 should recite instead “to allow a current flow”.
Claims 11 and 13 depending from claim 10 are objected for the same reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US Pat. 8,891,261) in view of NISHIMURA (US PGPUB 2020/0336077).
Regarding claim 10, Jang et al. teaches a converter arrangement (as shown in fig. 2), comprising: a DC part comprising two capacitors (CO1 and CO2) arranged in parallel to the DC source (VO) or DC load and arranged in series to each other (as shown in fig. 2), having a neutral DC point between said capacitors (as shown in fig. 2), a converter unit (D1-D6) connected to the DC source (VO) or DC load and to an AC part (VA-VC), the AC part comprising at least one AC leg, each AC leg connected to a neutral AC point via an AC leg capacitor (C1-C3) (as shown in fig. 2), and a decoupling switch (S1-S4) arranged between the neutral DC point and the neutral AC point (as shown in fig. 2), wherein the decoupling switch (S1-S4) is configured to allow a current flow through the neutral DC point, the decoupling switch, and the neutral AC point (as shown in fig. 4-5(n)).
Jang et al. fails to specifically teach each AC leg connected to a respective leg of the AC terminal via an AC switch. However, NISHIMURA teaches each AC leg connected to a respective leg of the AC terminal via an AC switch (8).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have each AC leg connected to a respective leg of the AC terminal via an AC switch as taught by NISHIMURA with the invention of Jang et al. in order to control the entire AC power supply to conduct or cut off power.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jang et al. and NISHIMURA teaches the limitations of claim 10; in addition, NISHIMURA teaches a plurality of converter arrangements (1) arranged in parallel, further comprising a pre-charge unit (5) (as shown in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have a plurality of converter arrangements arranged in parallel, further comprising a pre-charge unit as taught by NISHIMURA with the invention of Jang et al. in order to have the ability to connect multiple similar devices and prevent inrush current.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US Pat. 8,891,261) and NISHIMURA (US PGPUB 2020/0336077) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Mouridsen et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0177020).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Jang et al. and NISHIMURA teaches the limitations of claim 10.
The combination of Jang et al. and NISHIMURA fails to specifically teach wherein the AC switch is arranged between the neutral AC point and the respective leg of the AC terminal. However, Mouridsen et al. teaches wherein the AC switch (on 113a, 113b and 113c) is arranged between the neutral AC point and the respective leg of the AC terminal (as shown in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the AC switch arranged between the neutral AC point and the respective leg of the AC terminal as taught by Mouridsen et al. with the invention of the combination of Jang et al. and NISHIMURA in order to protect the ac side from an overcurrent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter
Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to specifically teach a method for detecting a stuck AC switch in a converter, the method comprising the steps of: opening the second decoupling switch and all second AC switches of the second converter arrangement; loading the pre-charge unit; sequentially closing each second AC switch of the second converter arrangement; measuring, at each closing step, a voltage between each AC leg of the second converter arrangement; and determining the stuck AC switch of the second converter arrangement based on the measured voltage, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Claims 2-9 and 12 depending from claim 1 are allowed for the same reasons as mentioned above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights