DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 22 May 2026.
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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in the applied reference Berton (US 2011/0164439), in FIG. 10, the outputs from the microcontroller 602 are either (i) to the main computer over serial bus 680 or (ii) PWM signals to the drive circuitry 648, whereas claim 1 recites that the controller transmits "a command to the driver circuit power supply to adjust an amount of power provided to the driver circuit." Remarks at p. 7. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The rejection of claim 1 in view of Berton cited to drive circuitry 148 shown in Fig. 3a as corresponding to the claimed driver circuit power supply. This is a reasonable correspondence because the drive circuitry 148 generates the “controlled supply voltage” to the high voltage transformer 202 in Fig. 3c and thus to the driver circuit comprising push-pull MOSFETs 152 in Fig. 3b. See Berton at [0035]. Therefore Berton discloses that the controller transmits a command to the driver circuit power supply to adjust an amount of power provided to the driver circuit as recited in claim 1.
Applicant also argues that Berton discloses a push-pull converter topology and thus doesn’t disclose the claimed resonant converter. Remarks at p. 8. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As demonstrated in Applicant’s disclosure and recited in dependent claim 2, the “resonant converter” of claim 1 is understood as a transformer; see resonant converter 108 of Fig. 1 shown as transformer 108 in Fig. 3. The rejection of claim 1 cited to transformer 202 in Fig. 3c of Berton as corresponding to the claimed resonant converter. Therefore, giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Applicant’s specification, Berton discloses a resonant converter.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berton et al. (US 2011/0164439; hereinafter “Berton”).
In re claims 1 and 13, Berton discloses a corona generator (Fig. 2; see also details shown in Figs. 3a-c, 4a-b, 5a, 6-11, 15a) and the corresponding method for its control1 comprising:
a resonant converter (Fig. 3c: transformer 202);
a voltage multiplier circuit (Fig. 3c: 204) connected to the resonant converter and configured to amplify a converter output voltage of the resonant converter ([0031]), thereby generating a corona generator output ([0026]: “The output of the high voltage generator 40 is coupled to one or more charging electrodes 50 (e.g., corona electrodes)”);
a driver circuit (Fig. 3b: Push-pull control 150, MOSFET switches 152) connected to the resonant converter (Figs. 3b-c: output from MOSFET switches 152 connect to transformer 202) and configured to provide a driver signal to the resonant converter ([0042]);
a driver circuit power supply (Fig. 3a: drive circuitry 148) configured to provide power to the driver circuit ([0035]: “drive circuitry 148 … drives the high voltage transformer via center tap 214”, and the driver circuit MOSFET switches 152 are connected to the other ends of the center-tapped primary winding, thus the circuit 148 is providing the power to the driver circuit MOSFETs in the conventional manner of a push-pull topology); and
a controller (Fig. 3a: 142, 144, 146 and related circuitry for sensing and control in Figs. 3a-b)) including an electronic processor (See [0008]), the controller connected to the driver circuit and the driver circuit power supply (as shown in Figs. 3a-b), the controller configured to:
receive voltage feedback indicative of a voltage of the corona generator output (Fig. 3b: voltage feedback circuit 224; see [0043]), compare the voltage feedback to a desired output voltage of the corona generator output (Fig. 4a: error amplifier 306 compares feedback voltage from 224 to desired value 322: [0049]), and transmit a command to the driver circuit power supply to adjust an amount of power provided to the driver circuit (Figs. 4a-b and [0048]).
In re claims 4 and 14, Berton discloses wherein the controller is configured to: receive the desired output voltage from an external controller of a vehicle (Fig. 3a: desired or selected voltage value 126 received via 136 from an external control via, for instance, CAN interface: [0008]).
In re claims 5 and 15, Berton discloses wherein the driver signal is a square wave having a magnitude approximately equal to the amount of power provided by the driver circuit power supply to the driver circuit (see [0051]-[0052]).
In re claims 6 and 16, Berton discloses wherein the driver circuit is configured to adjust a duty cycle of the square wave based on the amount of power provided by the driver circuit power supply to the driver circuit (see [0052]: “The push-pull control circuit 150 is fine tuned by adjusting the values of P12 (duty cycle) and P13 (frequency) for minimum current” and see [0066]: “The push-pull control circuit 651 is fine tuned for duty cycle and frequency by adjusting PWM output based [on] the actual load current 716”).
In re claim 7, Berton discloses the invention according to claim 1 as explained above, and further discloses that the voltage multiplier circuit is a 7-stage Villard multiplier (the circuit shown in Fig. 3c is understood to be of the Villard type, and as labeled, it is a 12-stage cascade, such that stages 1-7, for example, form a 7-stage Villard multiplier).
In re claims 8 and 17, Berton discloses wherein the controller is further configured to:
receive current feedback indicative of an output current of the voltage multiplier circuit (Fig. 3b: current feedback 242 received at circuit 246; see [0045]);
determine whether the output current is within an acceptable current range (via alarm circuitry 254 in Fig. 3b: see [0046]); and
provide, in response to the output current not being within the acceptable current range, a notification indicative of an error ([0046]: “In general, the output voltage and current are monitored and compared to maximum voltage and current threshold values. If a threshold is exceeded, an alarm signal is generated”).
In re claims 9 and 18, Berton discloses wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine whether the power provided by the driver circuit power supply is within an acceptable voltage range (Fig. 3b: alarm circuitry 254); and
provide, in response to the power provided by the driver circuit power supply not being within the acceptable voltage range, a notification indicative of an error ([0046]).
In re claims 12 and 19, Berton discloses wherein the controller is further configured to:
transmit a pulse width modulated (PWM) signal to the driver circuit, the PWM signal having a frequency ([0052]); and
adjust the frequency of the PWM signal based on the voltage feedback ([0052], [0066]).
In re claim 20, Berton discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by an electronic processor, cause the electronic processor to perform operations comprising the method of claim 13 (see [0078], [0079]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berton, as evidenced by Electric Power Distribution Handbook by T.A. Short, chapter 5, “Transformers” (hereinafter “Short”)2.
In re claim 2, Berton discloses wherein the resonant converter is a transformer (Fig. 3c: transformer 202), wherein the transformer is utilized as part of a resonant tank ([0052]: secondary winding of transformer forms an LC circuit having certain resonance frequency, which is understood to be an LC resonant tank circuit).
Berton does not explicitly disclose parasitic elements of the transformer being part of the resonant tank. However, it is basic knowledge in the field of electrical engineering that parasitic elements of a transformer are inherent features that arise from the structure of the device, including, e.g., its coils and core structure. These parasitic elements include, for example, leakage and magnetizing inductances (reactances) and parasitic impedances that are conventionally modelled as part of the transformer circuit. See Short at pp. 205-206 (Fig. 5.2, Transformer models, “The detailed model shows the series impedances, the resistance, and the reactances”).
Therefore, because parasitic elements are inherent features of the transformer in Berton, it is likewise an inherent feature of Berton’s disclosure that such parasitic elements are part of the resonant tank that is formed by the LC circuit including the secondary winding of the transformer.
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.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berton in view of Krause (US 2019/03673613; “Krause”).
In re claim 3, Berton discloses the invention according to claim 1 as explained above, but does not further disclose that the corona generator output creates a corona discharge for ozone generation. However, creating a corona discharge for ozone generation was a conventionally-known use of corona generators. For instance, Krause discloses that “Ozone generators are well known and typically used [for] taking impurities out of water or air” (Krause at [0006]). The ozone is generated by “a corona discharge cell … powered by high voltage” (id.).
Furthermore, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As cited above, Berton discloses a high voltage generator for corona discharge; thus it is clearly capable of being used for performing this same function for the claimed purpose of ozone generation.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the corona generator of Berton to create a corona discharge for ozone generation, since Berton’s corona generator was clearly capable of such use, and because this would represent the use of a known device in a conventional manner for its intended purpose, as shown by Krause.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berton in view of Raets (US Patent 5,742,470; “Raets”).
In re claim 10, Berton discloses the invention according to claim 1, and further discloses a voltage feedback circuit (Figs. 3b-c: 218, 224; also shown in Fig. 4a: 318; see also detail of Fig. 9) configured to provide the voltage feedback to the controller (as shown in Fig. 4a, voltage feedback provided to error amplifier 306), wherein the voltage feedback circuit is connected between the voltage multiplier circuit and the controller (see Figs. 3a-c, 4a). However, Berton does not disclose wherein the voltage feedback circuit includes a plurality of parallel circuits, and wherein each parallel circuit includes a resistor connected in parallel with a capacitor.
Whereas Raets discloses a voltage multiplier circuit (Fig. 1) comprising a voltage feedback circuit (5) that includes a plurality of parallel circuits, each parallel circuit including a resistor (7 and 9) connected in parallel with a capacitor (6 and 8, respectively), in order to obtain a feedback control voltage (Us) that is a frequency-independent, low voltage representation of the high voltage output of the multiplier (col. 3:35-45).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Berton such that the voltage feedback circuit includes plurality of parallel circuits, and wherein each parallel circuit includes a resistor connected in parallel with a capacitor, as shown by Raets, for the purpose of providing a feedback control voltage that is a frequency-independent, low voltage representation of the high voltage output of the multiplier.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berton in view of Hampton et al. (US 2016/0344166; “Hampton”).
In re claim 11, Berton discloses the invention according to claim 1, and further discloses a current feedback circuit (Figs. 3b-c: 220, 226; also shown as 316 in Fig. 4a) configured to provide current feedback to the controller (see Figs. 3a-c, 4a). However, Berton does not disclose wherein the current feedback circuit includes a resistor connected between the resonant converter and the voltage multiplier circuit.
Whereas Hampton discloses a power supply for a corona generator (Figs. 3, 4) including a current sensor (Fig. 3: R14, Fig. 4: F; see [0043]) that is disposed between of the resonant converter (transformer) secondary winding and a subsequent stage of the system (see Figs. 3, 4), as part of a low pass filter for providing a desired phase shift to the sensed current and removing undesired frequencies ([0037], [0043]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Berton such that the current feedback circuit includes a resistor connected between the resonant converter and the voltage multiplier circuit, as part of a low-pass filter according to the disclosure of Hampton, for the purpose of providing desired phase shift to, and removing undesired frequencies from, the current feedback signal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2011/0317452 discloses a conventional example of a resonant DC-DC converter utilizing a push-pull topology inverter and/or rectifier and exploiting one or more parasitic elements of the transformer as part of a resonant tank. It is cited to demonstrate that the push-pull inverter topology and transformer of Berton could plausibly be modified to perform resonant power conversion as the term is typically understood in the art.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED E FINCH III whose telephone number is (571)270-7883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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.
/FRED E FINCH III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
1 The control method recited in claims 13-20 corresponds to the functional limitations as set forth in the device claims 1-12. Thus the citations to Berton and accompanying explanations provided by the examiner are deemed to cover both device and method claims.
2 Short is cited only to demonstrate that a feature not expressly taught in the anticipatory disclosure of Berton is an inherent characteristic thereof. See MPEP 2131.01.
3 Cited by Applicant in the 17 June 2024 Information Disclosure Statement.
Prosecution Insights