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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This non-final Office action is responsive to Applicants’ application filed on 04/01/2024. Claims 1-11 are presented for examination and are rejected for the reasons indicated herein below.
Specification
2. 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. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. 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.
3. The title of the invention is not descriptive and “ARCP” should be spelled out. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1 and 7-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6, recites “a ARCP controller” it should be changed to “[[a]] an ARCP controller”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7, line 4, recites the limitation “the positive dc-link”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7, line 4, recites the limitation “the negative dc-link”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7, line 5, recites “the positive and negative dc-link potential” it should be changed to “the positive and negative dc-link potentials”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8, lines 1-2, recites “comprising a plurality of ARCP converter legs” it should be changed to “further comprising a plurality of the ARCP converter leg[[s]]”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9, line 6, recites “a ARCP controller” it should be changed to “[[a]] an ARCP controller”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10, line 6, recites “a ARCP controller” it should be changed to “[[a]] an ARCP controller”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-11 are 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. For instance;
In claim 1, and similarly in claims 9-10, the limitations “comprising an auxiliary resonant commutated pole (ARCP) converter leg, particularly an ARCP half-bridge” and “wherein the ARCP controller is responsive the detector to continue providing the auxiliary current and thereby a boost current for a predetermined boost period after the detected saturation instant of the saturable-core inductor so as to achieve a desired total boost current” are indefinite. These limitations are unclear and indefinite. Examiner was not able to determine the scope of each of these claims from these undefined limitations. Therefore, these limitations should be rewritten and clarified as specifically defined in the specification. For the purpose of examination, these limitations will be read broadly until specifically defined. Examiner’s note: As long as there is an ARCP converter leg and a controller then these limitations are taught.
In claim 2, the limitation “wherein the predetermined boost period is calculated based on an inductance of a resonant inductor connected in series with the saturable-core inductor, optionally taking into account a saturated inductance of the saturable-core inductor” is indefinite. The scope of this claim is not defined because the last part of the claim is not positively recited. Therefore, this limitation should be rewritten and clarified as specifically defined in the specification. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be read broadly until specifically defined. Examiner’s note: As long as the first part of the claim is shown in the prior art then this limitation is taught.
In claim 7, the limitation “a resonant capacitor associated with each of the at least two main switching devices” is unclear. The scope of this claim is undefined because it’s unclear if there is only one capacitor or if each of the at least two main switching devices is “associated” with a respective capacitor. It’s also unclear what Applicant means by “associated”. Therefore, this limitation should be rewritten and clarified as specifically defined in the specification. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be read broadly until specifically defined. Examiner’s note: As long as there is at least one capacitor then this limitation is taught.
7. Dependent claims 2-8 and 11 inherit the deficiency of independent claims 1 and 10, respectively, thus they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delgado et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,892,673).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood by the examiner, Delgado et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-6) discloses “A power converter system (e.g. see Figs. 1-6), comprising an auxiliary resonant commutated pole (ARCP) converter leg (e.g. Figs. 1-6, see 12. Implicit), particularly an ARCP half-bridge (e.g. Figs. 1-6, see 12. Implicit), having a series connection of a saturable-core inductor and at least one bi-directional auxiliary switch connected to a dc-link neutral point (e.g. Figs. 1-6, see 12, A1, A2 and Lr and their connections. Implicit), a ARCP controller (18) configured to control turn-on of the at least one bi-directional auxiliary switch to provide an auxiliary current flowing through the saturable-core inductor (e.g. Figs. 1-6, see 12, 18, A1, A2, Lr and Laux. Implicit), and a saturation instant detector configured to detect a saturation instant of the saturable-core inductor due to the auxiliary current exceeding a saturation current after turn-on of the at least one bidirectional auxiliary switch (e.g. Figs. 1-6, see 12, 16, 18, A1, A2, Lr and Laux, also see the abstract and col. 6, lines 30-65. Implicit), wherein the ARCP controller is responsive the detector to continue providing the auxiliary current and thereby a boost current for a predetermined boost period after the detected saturation instant of the saturable-core inductor so as to achieve a desired total boost current (e.g. Figs. 1-6, see 12, 16, 18, A1, A2, Lr and Laux, also see the abstract and col. 6, lines 1-29. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood by the examiner, Delgado et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-6) discloses “wherein the predetermined boost period is calculated based on an inductance of a resonant inductor connected in series with the saturable-core inductor, optionally taking into account a saturated inductance of the saturable-core inductor (e.g. Figs. 1-6, see 12, 16, 18, A1, A2, Lr, 33 and Laux, also see the abstract and col. 5, lines 14-31. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 3, Delgado et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-6) discloses “wherein the saturable-core inductor comprises a primary winding and a secondary winding, the auxiliary current flowing through the primary winding (e.g. Figs. 1-6, see 12, 16, 18, A1, A2, Lr, 33, 36 and Laux, also see the abstract and col. 3, lines 8-54. Implicit), and the saturation instant detector is connected to the secondary winding and configured to detect the saturation instant based on a voltage induced in the secondary winding (e.g. Figs. 1-6, see 12, 16, 18, A1, A2, Lr, Laux, 33, 36 and Vsense , also see the abstract and col. 3, lines 8-54. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 4, Delgado et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-6) discloses “wherein the saturation instant detector is connected to the dc-link neutral point and configured to detect the saturation instant based on a voltage of the dc-link neutral point (e.g. Figs. 1-6, see 12, 16, 18, A1, A2, Lr, Laux, 33, 36 and Vsense, also see the abstract and col. 3, lines 8-54. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 5, Delgado et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-6) discloses “wherein the saturation instant detector comprises an auxiliary current sensing unit to sense a rapid change in the auxiliary current (e.g. Figs. 1-6, see 12, 16, 18, A1, A2, Lr, Laux, 33, 36 and Vsense, also see the abstract and col. 3, lines 8-54. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 6, Delgado et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-6) discloses “wherein the auxiliary current sensing unit comprises a Hall sensor or a Rogowski coil (e.g. Figs. 1-6, see 12, 16, 18, A1, A2, Lr, Laux, 33, 36 and Vsense, also see the abstract and col. 4, lines 1-14. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood by the examiner, Delgado et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-6) discloses “wherein the ARCP converter leg further comprises: a series connection of at least two main switching devices between the positive dc-link potential and the negative dc-link potential to alternatively connect the positive and negative dc-link potential (e.g. Figs. 1-6, see 12, S1 and S2 and their connections. Implicit), and a resonant capacitor associated with each of the at least two main switching devices (e.g. Figs. 1-6, see 12, Cr/2, S1 and S2 and their connections. Implicit)”.
Regarding claim 8, Delgado et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-6) discloses “comprising a plurality of ARCP converter legs (e.g. Figs. 1-6, see 12, also see the abstract and col. 8, lines 28-44. Implicit),”.
Regarding claims 9-11; as best understood by the examiner, they all comprise substantially same subject matter as in the recited apparatus claims 1-8, therefore claims 9-11 are also rejected under the same ground of rejection as clearly discussed in the rejection to the apparatus claims 1-8. Therefore, the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUSEF A AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-6057. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 11AM-7PM.
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, Hammond, Crystal can be reached on 571-270-1682. 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.
/YUSEF A AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights