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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This final Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/02/2026. Claims 1-17 are presented for examination and are still rejected for the reasons indicated herein below.
Response to arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed on 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and also the claims submitted on 02/02/2026 are moot and rejected in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Drawings
3. The drawings (Figs. 1-20) were received on 02/02/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
4. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. For instance, the term “comprising” in the abstract should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ammanamanchi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0378795 A1) in view of Ge et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,607,968 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Ammanamanchi et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-11) discloses “A dual-active bridge (DAB) converter (e.g. see Figs. 1-9), comprising: a primary sub-circuit coupled to a direct-current (DC) input voltage (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 210 and 120. Implicit); a first secondary sub-circuit and a second secondary sub-circuit (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 220 and 230. Implicit); a transformer (240) isolating the primary sub-circuit from the first and the second secondary sub-circuits, and comprising a predetermined number of turns (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 210, 240, 220 and 230. Implicit); each of the first and second secondary sub-circuits comprising a corresponding inductor (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 220, Lr2 and 230 with Lr2. Implicit); the first and the second secondary sub-circuits being configurable in a series mode and a parallel mode by switching configurations of a first, second and third transition switch (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 220, 200 and 230, also see the abstract and para. 0062-0065. Implicit); and the first and the second secondary sub-circuits providing an output charging voltage and an output charging current for charging an external device (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 220, 200 and 230, also see the abstract, para. 0039, para. 0045-0049, para. 0058 and para. 0062-0065. Implicit)”. Ammanamanchi et al. does not appear to explicitly disclose “the primary sub-circuit excluding a resonant element” and “the transformer comprising a shared magnetic core”. However, Ge et al. shows “the primary sub-circuit excluding a resonant element (Ge et al., e.g. Fig. 2, see the primary sub-circuit 32 excluding a resonant element)” and “the transformer comprising a shared magnetic core (Ge et al., e.g. Fig. 2, see transformer 38 comprising a shared magnetic core 66)”. Having a primary sub-circuit excluding a resonant element and a transformer comprising a shared magnetic core as taught by Ge et al. in the DAB converter module of Ammanamanchi et al. would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a primary sub-circuit excluding a resonant element and a transformer comprising a shared magnetic core as taught by Ge et al. in the DAB converter module of Ammanamanchi et al. for the purpose of enhancing the power efficiency of the DAB converter module via having less circuit elements. Also for the purpose of making the DAB converter module more widely usable.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ammanamanchi et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-11) and Ge et al. (e.g. see Fig. 2) discloses “wherein the primary sub-circuit consists of four bridge switches, and a primary winding having a corresponding primary winding voltage and primary current (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 210, 211-214 and primary winding of 240. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ammanamanchi et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-11) and Ge et al. (e.g. see Fig. 2) discloses “further comprising a capacitor bank in parallel to a combination of the four bridge switches (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 210 and the capacitor bank in parallel to 211-214. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ammanamanchi et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-11) and Ge et al. (e.g. see Fig. 2) discloses “wherein each of the first and second secondary sub-circuits comprise four bridge switches, a corresponding secondary winding having a corresponding secondary winding voltage and secondary current (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 220, 221-224 and a corresponding secondary winding of 240, also see 230, 231-234 and a corresponding secondary winding of 240. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ammanamanchi et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-11) and Ge et al. (e.g. see Fig. 2) discloses “wherein each of the first and second secondary sub-circuits further comprise a capacitor bank in parallel to a combination of the corresponding four bridge switches (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 220 and the capacitor bank (C01) in parallel to 221-224, also see 230 and the capacitor bank (C02) in parallel to 231-234. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ammanamanchi et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-11) and Ge et al. (e.g. see Fig. 2) discloses “wherein in the series mode, the first and the second secondary sub-circuits are connected in series and generate a higher output charging voltage than the parallel mode configuration (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 220, 200 and 230 in Fig. 6, also see the abstract and para. 0062-0065, and see Fig. 8. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ammanamanchi et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-11) and Ge et al. (e.g. see Fig. 2) discloses “wherein in the parallel mode, the first and the second secondary sub-circuits are connected in parallel and generate a lower output charging voltage than the series mode configuration (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 220, 200 and 230 in Fig. 5, also see the abstract and para. 0062-0065, and see Fig. 8. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ammanamanchi et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-11) and Ge et al. (e.g. see Fig. 2) discloses “wherein the output charging voltage ranges from about 200V to 1000V (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see at least Figs. 8-9, also see the abstract, para. 0062-0065 and para. 0088-0093. Implicit)”.
Claims 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ammanamanchi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0378795 A1) in view of Ge et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,607,968 B1)
Regarding claim 9, Ammanamanchi et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-11) discloses “at least one dual-active bridge (DAB) converter module (e.g. see Figs. 1-11), each DAB converter module comprising: a primary sub-circuit coupled to a direct-current (DC) input voltage (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 210 and 120. Implicit); a first secondary sub-circuit and a second secondary sub-circuit (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 220 and 230. Implicit); a transformer (240) isolating the primary sub-circuit from the first and the second secondary sub-circuits, and comprising a predetermined number of turns (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 210, 240, 220 and 230. Implicit); each of the first and second secondary sub-circuits comprising a corresponding inductor (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 220, Lr2 and 230 with Lr2. Implicit); the first and the second secondary sub-circuits being configurable in a series mode and a parallel mode by switching configurations of a first, second and third transition switch (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 220, 200 and 230, also see the abstract and para. 0062-0065. Implicit); and the first and the second secondary sub-circuits providing an output charging voltage and an output charging current for charging an external device (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 220, 200 and 230, also see the abstract, para. 0039, para. 0045-0049, para. 0058 and para. 0062-0065. Implicit); wherein one or more electric vehicles are charged based on the output charging voltage of the corresponding DAB converter (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 220, 200 and 230, also see the abstract, para. 0039, para. 0045-0049, para. 0058 and para. 0062-0065. Implicit)”. Ammanamanchi et al. does not appear to explicitly disclose “the primary sub-circuit excluding a resonant element” and “the transformer comprising a shared magnetic core”. However, Ge et al. shows “the primary sub-circuit excluding a resonant element (Ge et al., e.g. Fig. 2, see the primary sub-circuit 32 excluding a resonant element)” and “the transformer comprising a shared magnetic core (Ge et al., e.g. Fig. 2, see transformer 38 comprising a shared magnetic core 66)”. Having a primary sub-circuit excluding a resonant element and a transformer comprising a shared magnetic core as taught by Ge et al. in the DAB converter module of Ammanamanchi et al. would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a primary sub-circuit excluding a resonant element and a transformer comprising a shared magnetic core as taught by Ge et al. in the DAB converter module of Ammanamanchi et al. for the purpose of enhancing the power efficiency of the DAB converter module via having less circuit elements. Also for the purpose of making the DAB converter module more widely usable. The combination of Ammanamanchi et al. and Ge et al. does not appear to explicitly disclose “A charging station comprising: at least one charging pole; each charging pole comprising at least one dual-active bridge (DAB) converter module”. However, having a charging station comprising: at least one charging pole; each charging pole comprising the at least one dual-active bridge (DAB) converter module of Ammanamanchi et al. and Ge et al. would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the charging station comprising: at least one charging pole; each charging pole comprising the at least one dual-active bridge (DAB) converter module of Ammanamanchi et al. and Ge et al. for the purpose enabling the dual-active bridge (DAB) converter module to be used in charging stations for charging purposes and providing power to different devices/vehicles. Also, for the purpose of making the power supply more widely usable. Moreover, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ammanamanchi et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-11), Ge et al. (e.g. see Fig. 2) and the official notice discloses “wherein one or more DAB converters of each charging pole are arranged in parallel to provide fast charging power to the one or more electric vehicles (e.g. Figs. 1-10, see 100, 110, 120, 130 and 140, and Fig. 5, also see the abstract, para. 0039, para. 0045-0049, para. 0058 and para. 0062-0065, and see Figs. 8-11. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Ammanamanchi et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-11) and Ge et al. (e.g. see Fig. 2) discloses “wherein the primary sub-circuit of each DAB converter module consists of four bridge switches, and a primary winding having a corresponding primary winding voltage and primary current (e.g. Figs. 4-11, see 210, 211-214 and primary winding of 240. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ammanamanchi et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-11) and Ge et al. (e.g. see Fig. 2) discloses “wherein each DAB converter module further comprises a capacitor bank in parallel to a combination of the four bridge switches (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 210 and the capacitor bank in parallel to 211-214. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ammanamanchi et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-11) and Ge et al. (e.g. see Fig. 2) discloses “wherein each of the first and second secondary sub-circuits of each DAB converter module comprise four bridge switches, a corresponding secondary winding having a corresponding secondary winding voltage and secondary current (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 220, 221-224 and a corresponding secondary winding of 240, also see 230, 231-234 and a corresponding secondary winding of 240. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ammanamanchi et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-11) and Ge et al. (e.g. see Fig. 2) discloses “wherein each of the first and second secondary sub-circuits of each DAB converter module further comprise a capacitor bank in parallel to a combination of the corresponding four bridge switches (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 220 and the capacitor bank (C01) in parallel to 221-224, also see 230 and the capacitor bank (C02) in parallel to 231-234. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Ammanamanchi et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-11) and Ge et al. (e.g. see Fig. 2) discloses “wherein in the series mode, the first and the second secondary sub-circuits of each DAB converter module are connected in series and generate a higher output charging voltage than the parallel mode configuration (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 220, 200 and 230 in Fig. 6, also see the abstract and para. 0062-0065, and see Fig. 8. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Ammanamanchi et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-11) and Ge et al. (e.g. see Fig. 2) discloses “wherein in the parallel mode, the first and the second secondary sub-circuits of each DAB converter module are connected in parallel and generate a lower output charging voltage than the series mode configuration (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see 220, 200 and 230 in Fig. 5, also see the abstract and para. 0062-0065, and see Fig. 8. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Ammanamanchi et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-11) and Ge et al. (e.g. see Fig. 2) discloses “wherein the output charging voltage ranges from about 200V to 1000V (e.g. Figs. 4-10, see at least Figs. 8-9, also see the abstract, para. 0062-0065 and para. 0088-0093. Implicit)”.
Conclusion
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUSEF A AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-6057. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 11AM-7PM.
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: Hammond, Crystal can be reached on 571-270-1682. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUSEF A AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838