DETAILED ACTION
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 is a response to the amendment filed 11/4/2025. Claims 1-21 are pending and are under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Handy (US 2017/0054438).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 14, Handy’s figure 5 shows An aircraft solid state power controller for controlling electric power in an aircraft, wherein the electric power is provided by a symmetric electric power supply (310), which provides (i) a positive supply voltage with respect to a common ground at one of first and second power supply outputs of the symmetric electric power supply and (ii) a negative supply voltage with respect to the common ground at the other one of the first and second power supply outputs of the symmetric electric power supply, wherein the aircraft solid state power controller comprises: a first input terminal (top output from 338) configured to be electrically coupled to the first power supply output of the symmetric electric power supply; a first output terminal (top output from 312); a first electric power switching device (switch 224), which is switchable between (i) an on-state in which the first electric power switching device electrically couples the first output terminal with the first input terminal and (ii) an off-state in which the first electric power switching device electrically isolates the first output terminal from the first input terminal; a second input terminal (output from the bottom 238) configured to be electrically coupled to the second power supply output of the symmetric electric power supply; a second output terminal; a second electric power switching device (bottom 224), which is switchable between (i) an on-state in which the second electric power switching device electrically couples the second output terminal with the second input terminal and (ii) an off-state in which the second electric power switching device electrically isolates the second output terminal from the second input terminal; a switch controller (222) configured to control operation of the first and second electric power switching devices, wherein the switch controller is configured to synchronously switch the first and second electric power switching devices from their respective on-states into their respective off-states (synchronously switch construes to be there is a time difference between the switching the first and second electric power switching device on and off (see applicant’s specification paragraph 0065); Handy suggests there is a time difference between switching the first and second electric power switching devices is to prevent transient surges (see paragraphs 0029-0030)) ; and an energy dumping circuit (228, snubber circuit) coupled to the first and second input terminals and configured to dissipate inductive energy that is generated when the first and second electric power switching devices are switched from their respective on-states into their respective off-states (paragraph 0032, lines 15-18) as called for in claims 1, 11 and 14.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, wherein the first and second electric power switching devices (224) are solid state power switching devices.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, wherein the first and second electric power switching devices are capable of being configured to withstand transient voltage peaks of up to 900 V.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, wherein the first and second electric power switching devices are capable of being configured to withstand transient electric currents of up to 25 A.
Regarding claim 10, a freewheeling diode (350; figure 5), which is connected in blocking direction between the first and second output terminals.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Handy’s symmetric power supply is at 270V.
Regarding claim 13, Handy’s controller is used in aircraft.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handy (US 2017/0054438).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Handy reference discloses an aircraft solid state power controller comprising all the aspects of the present invention as noted above except the switch controller is configured to synchronously switch the first and second electric power switching devices such that a time difference between switching the first and second electric power switching devices is less than 10 is. Handy does not specify a time difference between switching the first and second electric power switching devices is less than 10 μs, however, in practice, it is preferable to have the switches on or off as close as possible to prevent transient surges (see paragraphs 0029-0030). Dependent upon a circuit specification, a desired of time difference in switching the switches would be needed. Therefore, outside of any non-obvious results, the obvious of having the switches on/off in a time difference less than 10 μs would have been a designer’s choice in order to prevent transient surges, thus, would not be patentable under 35USC 103.
Claim(s) 3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handy (US 2017/0054438) in view of Chin et al. (US 2021/0408779).
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Handy reference discloses an aircraft solid state power controller comprising all the aspects of the present invention as noted above except the energy dumping circuit comprises a transient voltage suppressor (TVS) diode as called for in claims 3 and 20.
Handy’s snubber circuit 228 is used to suppress/absorb voltage spike (see paragraph 0032). Chin et al. teaches that TVS diode/Zener can also be used to suppress/absorb voltage spike (see paragraph 0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to person skilled in the before the effective filing date of the invention to have Chin et al.’s TVS diode in Handy’s circuit arrangement for the purpose of suppressing/absorbing voltage spike.
Claim(s) 4 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handy (US 2017/0054438) in view of Miura et al. (US 2023/0064439).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Handy reference discloses an aircraft solid state power controller comprising all the aspects of the present invention as noted above except wherein the energy dumping circuit comprises a snubber circuit including a snubber capacitor, a snubber resistor, and a snubber diode as called for in claims 4 and 20.
Miura’s figure 2 shows a snubber circuit can also be comprising a snubber capacitor (14), a snubber resistor (13) and a snubber diode (15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to person skilled in the before the effective filing date of the invention to have Miura’s snubber circuit in Handy’s circuit arrangement as taught by Miura reference.
Regarding claim 5, Miura et al. reference does not specify the values of the snubber capacitor has an electric capacity in a range of 1μF to 100μF; or the snubber resistor has an electric resistance in a range of 1kΩ to 100kΩ. However, it is known in the art the specific value of the capacitor or the resistor is dictated by how noisy/level voltage spike/ringing caused by the circuit inductance. Thus, dependent upon a desired circuit specification, a corresponding values of the capacitor or resistor will be chosen accordingly in order eliminate noise/level voltage spike/ringing. Therefore, outside of any non-obvious results, the obviousness of having the snubber capacitor has an electric capacity in a range of 1μF to 100μF; or the snubber resistor has an electric resistance in a range of 1kΩ to 100kΩ for the purpose of eliminating noise/level voltage spike/ringing will not be patentable under 35USC 103.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handy (US 2017/0054438) in view of Ishida (US 2024/0120775).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 20, Handy reference discloses an aircraft solid state power controller comprising all the aspects of the present invention as noted above except wherein the energy dumping circuit comprises a snubber circuit including a snubber capacitor, a snubber resistor, and a snubber diode as called for in claims 4-5 and 20.
Ishida’s figure 5 shows a snubber circuit can also be comprising a snubber capacitor (1.1 μF), a snubber resistor (10 ohms) and a snubber diode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to person skilled in the before the effective filing date of the invention to have Ishida’s snubber circuit in Handy’s circuit arrangement as taught by Ishida reference.
Regarding claim 5, Ishida et al. reference shows the values of the snubber capacitor has an electric capacity in a range of 1μF to 100μF (1.1 μF).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handy (US 2017/0054438) in view of Chin et al. (US 2021/0408779).
Regarding claim 6, Handy reference discloses an aircraft solid state power controller comprising all the aspects of the present invention as noted above except first clamping circuit comprises a first clamping diode; and the second clamping circuit comprises a second clamping diode as called for in claim 6.
Chin et al.’s figure 2 teaches that TVS diode or Zener diode can be used to suppress/absorb excess voltage spike (paragraph 0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace Handy’s MOV 225 with TVS clamping diodes as taught by Chin et al. reference.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handy (US 2017/0054438) in view of Chin et al. (US 2021/0408779).
Regarding claim 21, Handy reference discloses an aircraft solid state power controller comprising all the aspects of the present invention as noted above except the energy dumping circuit is coupled between the first and second input terminals without being coupled to the common ground, i.e., the dumping circuit comprises a transient voltage suppressor (TVS) diode (see applicant’s figure 2; element 17) as called for in claim 21.
Handy’s snubber circuit 228 is used to suppress/absorb voltage spike (see paragraph 0032). Chin et al. teaches that TVS diode/Zener can also be used to suppress/absorb voltage spike (see paragraph 0023). Therefore, it would have been obvious to person skilled in the before the effective filing date of the invention to have Chin et al.’s TVS diode in Handy’s circuit arrangement for the purpose of suppressing/absorbing voltage spike.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the main solid state switch 224 shown in Figure 4 of Handy is configured to only couple or decouple the electrical loading component 226 to the bipolar high voltage DC source component 210. The alleged input and output terminals of Handy (allegedly the current limiting wire 238 and the output of the SSPC 212, respectively, of Handy) remain electrically coupled to each other regardless of the on or off state of the main solid switch 224. (Handy, par. [0032]). That is, the main solid switch state 224 of Handy cannot couple or decouple the input and output terminals to each other found not persuasive. The first electronic power switching device (224) couples (i.e., the switch is closed and it provides an electrically connected between its input and output) the electrical loading component 226 (the first output terminal) to the bipolar high voltage DC source component 210 (the first input terminal) when it is ON/CLOSED; when it is OFF/OPEN, the first electronic power switching device (224) decouples the electrical loading component 226 (the first output terminal) to the bipolar high voltage DC source component 210 (the first input terminal). The same is true for the second electric power switching device. Thus, the input and output terminals of Handy (allegedly the current limiting wire 238 and the output of the SSPC 212, respectively, of Handy) don’t remain electrically coupled to each other regardless of the on or off state of the main solid switch 224 as argued. The rejection is deemed proper. Claims 1-20 remains rejected.
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 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 TUAN THIEU LAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at 571-272-1988. 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.
/TUAN T LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 1/15/2026
Prosecution Insights