DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Non-final rejection in response to communication filed on 11/10/25.
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 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Joseph 8498137 in view of Tracy 20070210652.
With respect to claim 6, figure 2 of Joseph discloses a method for supplying power to an electrical load, the method comprising:
supplying a first DC voltage [battery voltage at M] from a low voltage energy storage system [12] to a DC-DC converter [14];
converting the first DC voltage into a second DC voltage [voltage at output of 14];
providing the second DC voltage to a multi-level inverter [16]; and
generating an AC voltage [M, A, B, C] from the second DC voltage, wherein the AC voltage is a medium voltage less than the second DC voltage. [figure 6, 7A and 7B disclose peak to peak output voltage less than 2VBAT; para 0026-0035]
Joseph does not disclose a method for supplying power from a uninterruptible power supply (UPS) to an electrical load when an interruption in power occurs.
However, figure 3 of Tracy discloses a UPS to supply power when an interruption in power occurs and bidirectional power transfer.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to use the inverter of Joseph to implement the inverter of Tracy since it was a known inverter in the art, able to produce an AC voltage as needed.
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.
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Joseph 20110141779 and Tracy 20070210652 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 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 1-17 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 1-17 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 1-17 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 1-17 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
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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached on 571-272-7016988. 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 2842 11/25/25