DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 01/03/2024. Claims 1-10 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawing
The drawing submitted on 01/03/2024 is acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/03/2024 and 10/06/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Du et al. (CN 112583248 B, hereinafter Du), in view of TORRICO-BASCOPÉ et al. (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20160365803, hereinafter ‘803).
Claim 1, Du teaches a method for controlling an energy conversion system at an overtemperature, wherein the energy conversion system comprises at least one power conversion circuit (e.g., 1# … 12#, see Fig. 1-9), and the method comprises: determining an overheated power module and an underheated power module among the at least two power modules based on their respective operating temperatures (e.g., Ti>Tr, i=1, …, 12, see [0069][0070][0080][0094][0095][0097], Fig. 3, 5-6); acquiring a decreased power and a power difference for the overheated power module, and determining an increased power for the underheated power module based on the power difference (e.g.,S320, S330, see [0065][0097][0098][0099] -[0103], Fig. 3, 5-6); determining, based on the increased power, whether to operate the energy conversion system in a constant power mode (e.g., “realizing the constant power of the whole … converter”, see [0099]); and driving the overheated power module to operate based on the decreased power and driving the underheated power module to operate based on the increased power (e.g., see [0097]-[0099], [0100] -[0103]), when determined to operate the energy conversion system in the constant power mode (e.g., “realizing the constant power of the whole … converter”, see [0099], Fig. 3, 5-6).
Du does not explicitly disclose that the energy conversion system comprises at least one power conversion circuit each comprising at least two power modules that are cascaded.
‘803 discloses an energy conversion system comprises at least one power conversion circuit each comprising at least two power modules that are cascaded (e.g., 107a,b,c and 109a,b,c respectively see Fig. 4, 9-10). ‘803 further discloses that with converters according to embodiments of the present invention very high variation of the input and output voltage, narrow frequency variation for voltage regulation, high efficiency, high power density and low cost can be achieved due the at least the following points. The present converter has simplified and more efficient layout due to the placement of the resonant tank on the high voltage side. This will also reduce the current stress and consequently the losses of the converter (e.g., see [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Du by including the power conversion circuit each comprising at least two power modules that are cascaded as taught by Kawano in order of being able to achieve the high efficiency, high power density and low cost with reduced the current stress and the losses of the converter (e.g., see [0019]).
Claim 2, the combination of Du and ‘803 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Du further teaches that wherein the acquiring the decreased power and the power difference for the overheated power module comprises: acquiring an operating overtemperature of the overheated power module and an operating power of the overheated power module corresponding to the operating overtemperature (e.g., S310-S330, see Fig. 3);
determining the decreased power based on the operating overtemperature (e.g., see [0099]); and determining the power difference based on the operating power operating overtemperature and the decreased power (e.g., see [0099][0103], [0105]-[0110]).
Claim 4, the combination of Du and ‘803 teaches the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Du further teaches that wherein the determining the decreased power based on the operating overtemperature comprises: outputting a target power (e.g., P0) instruction via a temperature regulator (e.g., the operating unit performing the control flow chart of Fig. 5-6) performing temperature regulation based on a difference between the operating overtemperature and a preset temperature threshold (e.g., Tr); and determining the decreased power based on the target power instruction (e.g., see Fig. 5-6).
Claim 5, the combination of Du and ‘803 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Du further teaches that wherein the determining the increased power for the underheated power module based on the power difference comprises: acquiring power distribution data about the underheated power module, wherein the power distribution data comprises the total number of the underheated (e.g., the numbers modules that the acquired temperature not higher than Tr), a real-time operating power (e.g., P1-P12) of the underheated power module before power distribution and a real-time operating temperature (e.g., T1-T12) of the underheated power module (e.g. the modules that the acquired temperature not higher than Tr); and distributing the power difference based on the power distribution data, to determine the increased power (e.g., the recalculated powers of each module see Fig. 5-6).
Claim 9, Du teaches a device for controlling an energy conversion system at an overtemperature, wherein the energy conversion system comprises at least one power conversion circuit (e.g., see Fig. 1-9), and the device comprises: an overtemperature detection unit (e.g., the temperature management module of 240, see [0036]) configured to determine an overheated power module and a underheated power module among the at least two power modules based on their respective operating temperatures (e.g., S320, S330, see [0069][0070][0080][0094] [0095][0097], Fig. 3, 5-6); a power distribution unit (e.g., 240) configured to acquire a decreased power and a power difference for the overheated power module, and determine an increased power for the underheated power module based on the power difference (e.g., S320, S330, see [0065][0097][0098][0099] -[0103], Fig. 3, 5-6); an operating mode determination unit configured to determine, based on the increased power, whether to operate the energy conversion system in a constant power mode (e.g., “realizing the constant power of the whole … converter”, see [0099], Fig. 3, 5-6); and a module driving unit (e.g., 240) configured to drive the overheated power module to operate based on the decreased power and drive the underheated power module to operate based on the increased power (e.g., see [0097]-[0099], [0100] -[0103]), when determined to operate the energy conversion system in the constant power mode (e.g., “realizing the constant power of the whole … converter”, see [0099], Fig. 3, 5-6).
Du does not explicitly disclose that the energy conversion system comprises at least one power conversion circuit each comprising at least two power modules that are cascaded.
‘803 discloses an energy conversion system comprises at least one power conversion circuit each comprising at least two power modules that are cascaded (e.g., 107a,b,c and 109a,b,c respectively see Fig. 4, 9-10). 803 further discloses that with converters according to embodiments of the present invention very high variation of the input and output voltage, narrow frequency variation for voltage regulation, high efficiency, high power density and low cost can be achieved due the at least the following points. The present converter has simplified and more efficient layout due to the placement of the resonant tank on the high voltage side. This will also reduce the current stress and consequently the losses of the converter (e.g., see [0019]).
‘803 reads the same obviousness as discussed in claim 1 rejection above.
Claim 10, the combination of Du and ‘803 teaches the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Du further teaches that wherein the device is configured to control the power modules at an overtemperature (e.g., for the temperature of the modules Ti > Tr, i = 1, … ,12, see Fig. 5-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matters:
For claim 3, the prior art does not disclose or suggest, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, primarily, … wherein the determining the decreased power based on the operating overtemperature comprises: establishing a preset temperature-power curve based on test data of the energy conversion system; and searching the preset temperature-power curve for the operating overtemperature, to determine the decreased power.
For claim 6, the prior art does not disclose or suggest, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, primarily,… wherein the increased power is negatively correlated with the real-time operating power of the underheated power module ; the increased power is negatively correlated with the real-time operating temperature of the underheated power module; respective increased powers for all underheated power modules are equal; or differences between respective increased powers and corresponding real-time operating powers of all underheated power module are equal.
For claim 7, the prior art does not disclose or suggest, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, primarily,… wherein the determining based on the increased power whether to operate the energy conversion system in a constant power mode comprises: acquiring a maximum increased power and a difference in the increased power; and determining, based on the maximum increased power and the difference in the increased power, whether to operate the energy conversion system in the constant power mode, wherein the maximum increased power does not exceed a preset power upper limit and the difference in the increased power does not exceed a preset power difference upper limit in the constant power mode.
For claim 8, the prior art does not disclose or suggest, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, primarily,… wherein the driving the overheated power module to operate based on the decreased power and driving the underheated power module to operate based on the increased power comprises: determining a buck modulation signal for the overheated power module based on the decreased power, wherein a voltage amplitude of the buck modulation signal is smaller than a voltage amplitude of an initial modulation signal for the overheated power module; determining a boost modulation signal for the underheated power module based on the increased power, wherein a voltage amplitude of the boost modulation signal is greater than a voltage amplitude of an initial modulation signal for the underheated power module; driving the overheated power module based on the buck modulation signal to output a first AC voltage; and driving the underheated power module based on the boost modulation signal to output a second AC voltage, wherein the first AC voltage is less than the second AC voltage in amplitude.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUE ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1263. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM-5:00PM
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Lewis can be reached on 571-272-2838. 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.
/JUE ZHANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838