DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed 05/15/2024, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it has two paragraphs and includes legal phrase “comprises”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that “the high-voltage AC power” (line 5) should be “the high-frequency AC power”. 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.
Claim 4 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Re claim 4, it is unclear what is meant by “changing its size in a structure easy to change the size”. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as simply changing its size.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/569,222 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite a submodule having a high-voltage unit, a transforming unit, and a low-voltage unit.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application 18/569,220
Conflicting Application 18/569,222
1. A submodule for a semiconductor transformer in single packaging with reduced partial discharge quantity and excellent insulation performance, comprising: a high voltage unit for converting high-voltage low-frequency AC power into high- frequency AC power; a transforming unit for converting the high-voltage AC power into low-voltage AC power; and a low voltage unit for converting the low-voltage AC power into low-voltage DC power.
1. A submodule for a semiconductor transformer in single packaging with excellent performance of insulation and prevention against induction heating, comprising: a high voltage unit for matching high-voltage low-frequency AC power and converting the power into high-voltage AC power; a transforming unit for converting the high-voltage AC power into low-voltage AC power; and a low voltage unit for converting the low-voltage AC power into low-voltage DC power.
2. The submodule of Claim 1, wherein the transforming unit has a partition wall for the high voltage unit and a partition wall for the low voltage unit removed.
2. The submodule of Claim 1, wherein the transforming unit has a partition wall of the high voltage unit and a partition wall of the low voltage unit removed.
3. The submodule of Claim 1, wherein the transforming unit is placed between the high voltage unit and the low voltage unit by changing its size depending on voltage used in the high voltage unit and the low voltage unit, or depending on voltage difference between the high voltage unit and the low voltage unit.
3. The submodule of Claim 1, wherein the transforming unit is placed between the high voltage unit and the low voltage unit by changing its size depending on voltage used in the high voltage unit and the low voltage unit or depending on potential difference between the high voltage unit and the low voltage unit.
4. The submodule of Claim 1, wherein the transforming unit is placed between the high voltage unit and the low voltage unit by changing its size in a structure easy to change the size depending on physical constraints such as size of a transformer used for the transforming unit.
4. The submodule of Claim 1, wherein the transforming unit is placed between the high voltage unit and the low voltage unit by changing its size in a structure easy to change the size depending on physical constraints such as size of a transformer used in the transforming unit.
5. The submodule of Claim 1, wherein the transforming unit is encompassed by an enclosure made of epoxy glass.
5. The submodule of Claim 1, wherein the transforming unit is encompassed by an enclosure made of epoxy glass.
6. The submodule of Claim 5, wherein a side cover of the transforming unit has vent holes.
6. The submodule of Claim 5, wherein a side cover of the transforming unit has vent holes.
7. The submodule of Claim 6, wherein a side cover of the transforming unit near a side of the high voltage unit does not have vent holes.
7. The submodule of Claim 5, wherein a side cover of the transforming unit near a side of the high voltage unit does not have vent holes.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ho et al. (“Ho”, US 2011/0149606).
Re claim 1, Ho teaches a submodule [Fig 5] for a semiconductor transformer in single packaging with reduced partial discharge quantity and excellent insulation performance, comprising: a high voltage unit [22, 23] for converting high-voltage low-frequency AC power into high- frequency AC power; a transforming unit [25] for converting the high-voltage AC power into low-voltage AC power; and a low voltage unit [26] for converting the low-voltage AC power into low-voltage DC power.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Kitamura et al. (“Kitamura”, EP 4354722).
Re claim 2, Ho teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but does not teach wherein the transforming unit has a partition wall for the high voltage unit and a partition wall for the low voltage unit removed.
Kitamura teaches s device [Fig 17] wherein the transforming unit has a partition wall [67] for the high voltage unit and a partition wall for the low voltage unit removed [paragraph 52]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to include the features of Kitamura because it is used to provide greater design flexibility for different voltage levels and polarities, thus improving the utility of the device, which increases efficiency.
Re claim 5, Ho teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but dies not teach wherein the transforming unit is encompassed by an enclosure made of epoxy glass.
Kitamura teaches wherein the transforming unit is encompassed by an enclosure made of epoxy glass [paragraph 46]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to include the features of Kitamura because it is used to provide superior electrical insulation, thus improving the utility of the device, which increases efficiency.
Claims 3, 4, and 8-10, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Fukumasu et al. (“Fukumasu”, US 2017/0005581).
Re claim 3, Ho teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but dies not teach wherein the transforming unit is placed between the high voltage unit and the low voltage unit by changing its size depending on voltage used in the high voltage unit and the low voltage unit, or depending on voltage difference between the high voltage unit and the low voltage unit.
Fukumasu teaches a device [Figs 2, 3] having a transforming unit is placed between the high voltage unit and the low voltage unit by changing its size depending on voltage used in the high voltage unit and the low voltage unit, or depending on voltage difference between the high voltage unit and the low voltage unit [paragraph 33]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to include the features of Fukumasu because it is used as an obvious design choice in powering varied loads, thus improving the utility of the device, which increases efficiency.
Re claim 4, Ho teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but dies not teach wherein the transforming unit is placed between the high voltage unit and the low voltage unit by changing its size in a structure easy to change the size depending on physical constraints such as size of a transformer used for the transforming unit.
Fukumasu teaches wherein the transforming unit is placed between the high voltage unit and the low voltage unit by changing its size in a structure easy to change the size depending on physical constraints such as size of a transformer used for the transforming unit [paragraph 33]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to include the features of Fukumasu because it is used as an obvious design choice in powering varied loads, thus improving the utility of the device, which increases efficiency.
Re claim 8, Ho teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but dies not teach wherein the high voltage unit makes a conductor in the high voltage unit electrically equipotential to a capacitor neutral point.
Fukumasu teaches wherein the high voltage unit makes a conductor in the high voltage unit electrically equipotential to a capacitor neutral point [Cin, Fig 2]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to include the features of Fukumasu because it is used to provide voltage stabilization while reducing harmonic distortions, thus improving the quality of the device, which increases efficiency.
Re claim 9, Ho teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but dies not teach wherein the transforming unit makes core of a transformer in the transforming unit electrically equipotential to a ground.
Fukumasu teaches the transforming unit makes core of a transformer in the transforming unit electrically equipotential to a ground [paragraph 29]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to include the features of Fukumasu because it is used to system stability and protection coordination, thus improving the utility of the device, which increases efficiency.
Re claim 10, Ho teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but dies not teach wherein the low voltage unit makes a conductor in the low voltage unit electrically equipotential to a ground.
Fukumasu teaches wherein the low voltage unit makes a conductor in the low voltage unit electrically equipotential to a ground [paragraph 29]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to include the features of Fukumasu because it is used to system stability and protection coordination, thus improving the utility of the device, which increases efficiency.
Claims 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Kitamura and Fan et al. (“Fan”, US 2015/0316968).
Re claim 6, Ho teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but dies not teach wherein a side cover of the transforming unit has vent holes.
Fan teaches a device [Fig 1] wherein a side cover of the transforming unit has vent holes [151, paragraph 14]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to include the features of Fan because it is used to protect systems from overheating, thus improving the utility of the device, which increases efficiency.
Re claim 7, Ho teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but dies not teach wherein a side cover of the transforming unit near a side of the high voltage unit does not have vent holes.
Fan teaches wherein a side cover [83] of the transforming unit near a side of the high voltage unit does not have vent holes [as shown in Fig 1]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ho to include the features of Fan because it is used as a design choice in functionality, thus improving the utility of the device, which increases efficiency.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAKAISHA JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3111. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MONICA LEWIS can be reached on 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 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.
/LaKaisha Jackson/
Examiner, Art Unit 2838