Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Final rejection in response to communication filed on 6/10/26
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 6, 15, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taimela 20120025614 in view of Joseph 8498137 and further in view of Jungreis 639461.
With respect to claim 6, figure 12 of Taimela discloses a method for supplying power from operating an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) [fig. 12] for an electrical load [10] when an interruption in power occurs, the method comprising:
supplying a first DC voltage [output of 20’’ or 40] from a low voltage energy storage system to a DC-DC converter [230/260];
converting the first DC voltage into a second DC voltage [voltage of 215];
providing the second DC voltage to a inverter [220];
generating an AC voltage [output of inverter 220] from the second DC voltage, wherein the AC voltage is a medium voltage less than the second DC voltage; and
when a generator or utility supply [30, para. 0027] is supplying power to the electrical load, charging the low voltage energy storage system through the DC-DC converter by operating the DC-DC converter that converts a voltage from the generator or utility supply to a lower voltage for charging the low voltage energy storage system.
Taimela does not disclose providing the second DC voltage to a multi-level inverter or
charging the low voltage energy storage system through the DC-DC converter by operating a switch of the DC-DC converter as a buck converter that converts a voltage from the generator or utility supply to a lower voltage for charging the low voltage energy storage system.
However, figure 2 of Joseph discloses a multi-level inverter for outputting peak to peak voltage between 0V and 2Vbat based on the desired output voltage VO*.
Also, figure 2B of Jungreis discloses a DC-DC converter with buck/boost converting to charge and discharge a battery to power an inverter.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a multi-level inverter [16] of Joseph in the UPS of Taimela for added adjustability and a buck/boost DC/DC converter as seen in Jungreis to converter the DC voltage of the storage to power an inverter as it was a known technique in the art.
With respect to claim 15, the above combination discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the low voltage energy storage system includes a battery, an ultra capacitor, or the
battery and an ultra-capacitor coupled to one another. See Taimela fig. 12
With respect to claim 17, the above combination discloses the method of claim 6,
wherein the DC-DC converter operates bidirectionally to transfer power between the energy
storage system and the electrical load.
With respect to claim 18 the above combination discloses an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) for supplying a medium AC voltage to an electrical load, comprising:
an energy storage system [20’’ and 40];
a bidirectional DC-DC converter [230,260] coupled to the energy storage system and configured to
convert a first DC voltage [voltage of battery or Ultracapacitors] from the energy storage system into a second DC voltage [voltage 215] higher than the first DC voltage; and
a multi-level inverter [seen in Joseph] coupled to the bidirectional DC-DC converter and configured to convert the second DC voltage into the medium AC voltage,
wherein the bidirectional DC-DC converter is further configured to step down a voltage
from a power source to charge the energy storage system, and
wherein a negative terminal of the energy storage system, a negative terminal of the
bidirectional DC-DC converter, and a negative terminal of the multi-level inverter are
electrically coupled to a common negative bus. [see buck/boost converter and inverter in Jungreis all connected to ground.]
With respect to claim 20 the above combination discloses the UPS according to claim 18, but does not disclose wherein the medium AC voltage is between about 3.3 kV and about 35 kV.
However, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the application to produce an AC output voltage between 3.3kV and 35kV, since it has been held that where the general conditions of acclaim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Allen, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Taimela 20120025614 in view of Joseph 20110141779 and Jungreis 20120025614 and further in view of Fredette et al. 20100188869.
With respect to claim 10, the above combination discloses the method according to claim
6, but does not disclose the method further comprising filtering harmonics of the AC voltage.
However, figure 2 of Fredette et al. disclose a inductor-capacitor-inductor [LCL] AC
voltage filter.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was mad to
use a LCL filter on the AC outputs of Joseph since it was a known technique in the art.
With respect to claim 11, the above combination discloses the method according to claim
6, further comprising filtering harmonics of the AC voltage using an inductor-capacitor-inductor
(LCL) filter.
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 AJA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for .ocr_line, .ocr_header { display:block; }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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-L.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 9985473. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same subject matter with slightly different language.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 10873208. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same subject matter with slightly different language.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11539236. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same subject matter with slightly different language.
Claim 1-20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11923725. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same subject matter with slightly different language.
Conclusion
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 RYAN C JAGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7016. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 - 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taelor Kim can be reached on 571-270-7166. 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.
/Ryan Jager/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 8/13/26
Prosecution Insights