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 .
Inventorship
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 in length. 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. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraphs [0019] indicates 204 is the DC side when it appears to be AC input terminals coupled to a full bridge switched rectifier and para [0019] also indicates 206 is the AC side when it appears to be a DC voltage across the capacitors at 206, 208 is a transformer producing AC which is then rectified by the full bridge rectifier coupled between 208 and 206. This is confusing and requires clarification. Paragraph [0019] seems explain exactly opposite as to what is illustrated in figure 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: capacitor 210. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 5, 6 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5 and 11 recite the limitation "an inductor" in lines 2 and 3 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant should label the inductors separately if claiming more than one (e.g. a first inductor and a second inductor).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "between between" [sic] in line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-13 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "two SiC or Si MOSFETS" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant repeatedly uses this phrase throughout the claim. It is unclear whether these are the same MOSFETS for all the limitations or whether the applicant is actually claiming different groups of switches. Please label each limitation separately and individually in order to avoid confusing limitations with each other.
Claims 3-6 inherit the same from claim 2.
Claims 4 and 10 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. As currently drafted, the meets and bounds of these claims are indeterminable.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the input side" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The input side of which of the plurality of blocks is the applicant referring to. Please label each limitation separately and individually so that there is no confusion as to which limitation the applicant is referencing.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the output side" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The output side of which of the plurality of blocks is the applicant referring to. Please label each limitation separately and individually so that there is no confusion as to which limitation the applicant is referencing.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the U-PEBB" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Exactly which one? Please label each limitation separately and individually so that there is no confusion as to which limitation the applicant is referencing.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "two SiC or Si MOSFETS" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant repeatedly uses this phrase throughout the claim. It is unclear whether these are the same MOSFETS for all the limitations or whether the applicant is actually claiming different groups of switches. Please label each limitation separately and individually in order to avoid confusing limitations with each other.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the input" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Exactly which input of which converter is the applicant referring to?
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the transformer" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which transformer? The same transformer or specific individual transformers?
Claims 9-13 inherit the same from claim 8.
The claims contain a plethora of antecedent basis errors due to improper labeling and vaguely referencing claim limitations. Elements are loosely claimed with vague referencing and thus knowing exactly which limitation the applicant is referencing is proving enigmatic. Find and correct all remaining claim errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (US 20210344293).
Claim 1; Zhou et al disclose an input side (170), an output side (155), and a transformer (120) connecting the input side to the output side, wherein a DC voltage (170) and current input to the input side is converted to an AC output (155) on the output side, and wherein the U-PEBB comprises a bi-directional and isolated (120) ac to dc converter module (103).
Claim 2; Zhou et al. disclose two SiC or Si MOSFETS connected to a positive side of an input (110.1);
two SiC or Si MOSFETS connected to a negative side of the input (110.1-1);
two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to a positive input of the transformer (110.1-2); and
two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to a negative input of the transformer (110.1-2),
wherein the two SiC or Si MOSFETS connected to the positive side of the input are connected in parallel to the two SiC or Si MOSFETS connected to the negative side of the input (i.e. full bridge 110),
the two SiC or Si MOSFETS connected to the negative side of the input are connected in parallel to the two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to the positive input of the transformer (110.1-2), and
the two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to the positive input of the transformer are connected in parallel to the two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to the negative input of the trans
PNG
media_image1.png
6
4
media_image1.png
Greyscale
former (i.e. another bridge 110.1-2),
and wherein an input side capacitor (170) is connected in parallel between the two SiC or Si MOSFETS connected to the negative side of the input and the two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to the positive input of the transformer.
Claim 3; Zhou et al. disclose two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to a positive output of the transformer;
two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to a negative output of the transformer; and
an output side capacitor connected in parallel to the two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to a negative output of the transformer, wherein
the two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to the positive output of the transformer are connected in parallel to the two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to the negative output of the transformer.
Claim 4; Zhou et al. do disclose the U-PEBB is designed for various voltages and currents by selecting desired MOSFET ratings, gate switching signals, and selection of ratings for the input side capacitor, the output side capacitor, and ratings of the transformer.
Claim 5; Zhou et al. disclose two inductors at 150.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. in view of Hirota (US 20220085641).
Zhou et al disclose the claimed subject matter in regards to claim 1 supra, except for a battery, connected in parallel between the MOSFETS connected to the negative side of the input and two MOSFETS connected to the positive input of the transformer.
Hirota teaches a battery 106 in parallel to an AC/DC converter 126 and a DC/AC converter coupled to a transformer (602). The circuit charges the battery for use in a power system for a plug in hybrid electric vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Zhou et al. to include a battery, connected in parallel between the MOSFETS connected to the negative side of the input and two MOSFETS connected to the positive input of the transformer in order to charge the battery for use in a power system for a plug in hybrid electric vehicle as taught by Hirota.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. in view of Akagi (US 20060233000).
Zhou et al disclose an input side (170), an output side (155), and a transformer (120) connecting the input side to the output side, wherein a DC voltage (170) and current input to the input side is converted to an AC output (155) on the output side, and wherein the U-PEBB comprises a bi-directional and isolated (120) ac to dc converter module (103).
However, Zhou et al. do not disclose whether the circuit is a delta-connected cascaded multilevel converter comprising a plurality of universal power electronics building blocks.
Akagi teaches (e.g. fig. 5) a delta connected bidirectional power converter system comprising plural converters 20-1 used to for controlling a motor with variable speed reduced EMI and suppressed harmonics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Zhou et al. to include a delta-connected cascaded multilevel converter comprising a plurality of universal power electronics building blocks for controlling a motor with variable speed reduced EMI and suppressed harmonics as taught by Akagi.
Claim 8; Zhou et al. disclose two SiC or Si MOSFETS connected to a positive side of an input (110.1);
two SiC or Si MOSFETS connected to a negative side of the input (110.1-1);
two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to a positive input of the transformer (110.1-2); and
two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to a negative input of the transformer (110.1-2),
wherein the two SiC or Si MOSFETS connected to the positive side of the input are connected in parallel to the two SiC or Si MOSFETS connected to the negative side of the input (i.e. full bridge 110),
the two SiC or Si MOSFETS connected to the negative side of the input are connected in parallel to the two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to the positive input of the transformer (110.1-2), and
the two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to the positive input of the transformer are connected in parallel to the two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to the negative input of the trans
PNG
media_image1.png
6
4
media_image1.png
Greyscale
former (i.e. another bridge 110.1-2),
and wherein an input side capacitor (170) is connected in parallel between the two SiC or Si MOSFETS connected to the negative side of the input and the two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to the positive input of the transformer.
Claim 9; Zhou et al. disclose two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to a positive output of the transformer;
two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to a negative output of the transformer; and
an output side capacitor connected in parallel to the two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to a negative output of the transformer, wherein
the two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to the positive output of the transformer are connected in parallel to the two Si or SiC MOSFETS connected to the negative output of the transformer.
Claim 10; Zhou et al. do disclose the U-PEBB is designed for various voltages and currents by selecting desired MOSFET ratings, gate switching signals, and selection of ratings for the input side capacitor, the output side capacitor, and ratings of the transformer.
Claim 11; Zhou et al. disclose two inductors at 150.
Claim 13; Zhou et al and Akagi disclose the claimed subject matter in regards to claim 7 supra, except for wherein the plurality is nine. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Zhou et al. and Akagi to include nine blocks since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPT 215 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Zhou et al. and Akagi to include nine blocks with three on each phase in order to provide power greater than a single converter block could provide.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. and Akagi in view of Hirota.
Zhou et al and Akagi disclose the claimed subject matter in regards to claim 7 supra, except for a battery, connected in parallel between the MOSFETS connected to the negative side of the input and two MOSFETS connected to the positive input of the transformer.
Hirota teaches a battery 106 in parallel to an AC/DC converter 126 and a DC/AC converter coupled to a transformer (602). The circuit charges the battery for use in a power system for a plug in hybrid electric vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Zhou et al. and Akagi to include a battery, connected in parallel between the MOSFETS connected to the negative side of the input and two MOSFETS connected to the positive input of the transformer in order to charge the battery for use in a power system for a plug in hybrid electric vehicle as taught by Hirota.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240097574 Kadam discloses a bidirectional power converter; US 20220102986 Sahoo et al, disclose a charger for high voltage batteries; US 20150333637 Izumi disclose a bidirectional converter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY L LAXTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2079. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 am-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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-272-1838. 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.
/GARY L LAXTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 12/11/2025