DETAIL 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 Office Action is in response to Applicant filing on 04/11/2024.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant claims, “ repetitions, at a repetition frequency, of two sequences of switching operations between a plurality of states are respectively applied to the two bridges; one of the states of a first one of the two sequences corresponds to a given direction of application of a voltage to the transformer by the bridge having the first one of the two sequences applied thereto; in a first control mode, switching operations to enter and leave said one of the states of the first one of the two sequences occur in different states of the second one of the two sequences; in a second control mode, switching operations to enter and leave said one of the states of the first one of the two sequences occur in a same state of a second one of the two sequences; and each transition between the first mode at a nominal value of the repetition frequency and the second mode at the nominal value of the repetition frequency comprises an adaptation of the repetition frequency determined by a first duration equal to a switching dead time duration or to the product of the switching dead time duration and of a zero-voltage switching margin” is vague, ambiguous, confusing and indefinite. The meets and bounds of the claims are unascertainable. Where do the sequences start and stop? Which part of the sequence is a first one of the sequences? Which part of the sequence is a second one of the sequences? How does the sequence vary? What is a same state of a second one of the sequences? What is or how the first mode at a nominal value of the repetition frequency is determined? What is or how the second mode at a nominal value of the repetition frequency is determined? What is a first-time duration and how is it any different than a switching dead time duration, since it is not defined? Claim 1 makes very little sense in its current form.
Claims 2-12 are depending from claim 1, inheriting same deficiencies, and thus rejected.
Regarding claim 2, in L 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15, Applicant claimed limitation, “the calculation”, lacks antecedent basis; wherein claims 3-12 are depending from claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant claims “wherein: each transition from the first mode to the second mode comprises a jump from the first value to the second value of the repetition frequency; and each transition from the second mode to the first mode comprises a jump from the second value to the first value of the repetition frequency” is vague, ambiguous, confusing and indefinite. The meets and bounds of the claims are unascertainable. What or how a jump is determined? This claim makes very little sense in its current form.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant claims, “wherein: the two sequences each comprise two respective switching cycles of two branches of the bridge having the sequence applied thereto; and the switching operations of the sequences occur at times resulting from calculations based on an equality between: a set point power to be transferred between the bridges by the converter; and a transferable power calculated based on the converter model and based on values of the voltages across the bridges” is vague, ambiguous, confusing and indefinite. The meets and bounds of the claims are unascertainable. What is/are the two respective switching cycles and its relationship to the two sequences? What is the converter model, as the claimed limitation also lacks antecedent basis? What are values of the voltages across the bridges, as the claimed limitation also lacks antecedent basis? When claiming said calculation(s) in claim 5, it is not clear which calculations of claim 2, Applicant is referring to (i.e., is it the calculation of a first power? is it the calculation of a second power? is it the calculation of a third power? is it the calculation of a first value of the repetition frequency? is it the calculation of a third power? is it the calculation of a second value of the repetition frequency?). This claim makes very little sense in its current form.
Claims 6-10 are depending from claim 5, inheriting same deficiencies, and thus rejected.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant claims, “wherein the set point is calculated as a function of a voltage value received by one of the bridges and/or of a voltage value to be delivered by the other of the bridges” is vague, ambiguous, confusing and indefinite. The meets and bounds of the claims are unascertainable. It is not clear if Applicant means to claim “and” or if Applicant means to claim “or”. What is the set point, as the claimed limitations lacks antecedent basis? How is claim6’s claimed “the set point” being calculated “as a function of a voltage value” is different from or as same as “a set point power” of claim 5’s L7? This claim makes very little sense in its current form.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant claims, “wherein the set point is calculated so that the converter has a PFC-type operation” is vague, ambiguous, confusing and indefinite. The meets and bounds of the claims are unascertainable. What is the set point, as the claimed limitations lacks antecedent basis? This claim makes very little sense in its current form.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant claims, “wherein said calculations are further based on a desired equality between values of a current in the transformer at one of the switching times of one of the two sequences and at one of the switching times of the other one of the two sequences” is vague, ambiguous, confusing and indefinite. The meets and bounds of the claims are unascertainable. When claiming said calculations in claim 8, it is not clear which calculations of claim 5 or claim 2, Applicant is referring to (i.e., is it the calculation of a first power, as claimed in claim 2? is it the calculation of a second power, as claimed in claim 2? is it the calculation of a third power, as claimed in claim 2? is it the calculation of a first value of the repetition frequency, as claimed in claim 2? is it the calculation of a third power, as claimed in claim 2? is it the calculation of a second value of the repetition frequency? And/or calculated transferable power?) This claim makes very little sense in its current form.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant claims, “ the model comprises a first parameter representative of a second duration between switching times of the two sequences in the first mode and of a third duration between switching times of the two sequences in the second mode; the first transferable power in the first mode is calculated based on the model by using a first value of the first parameter corresponding to an equality of the first and second durations; the third transferable power in the first and second modes is calculated based on the model by using a zero value of the first parameter; and the second transferable power in the second mode is calculated based on the model by using the first value of the first parameter corresponding to an equality of the first and third durations.” is vague, ambiguous, confusing and indefinite. The meets and bounds of the claims are unascertainable. What is a second-time duration and its relationship to the switching times of the two sequences in the first mode, since it is not defined? What is a third-time duration and its relationship to the switching times of the two sequences in the second mode, since it is not defined? What is the model, as the claimed limitation lacks antecedent basis, when claiming the first transferable power in the first mode is calculated? What is the model, as the claimed limitation lacks antecedent basis, when claiming the third transferable power in the first and second modes is calculated? What is the model, as the claimed limitation lacks antecedent basis, when claiming the second transferable power in the second mode is calculated? This claim makes very little sense in its current form.
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)(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.
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaushik Rajashekara et al. (“Ref 581”, US Pub 2021/0135581) [NOTE: The meets and bounds of the claims are undeterminable based on the current condition of the claims. Therefore, the following rejection is based on the best understanding of the claim language].
Regarding independent claim 1, Ref 581 teaches (Fig. 1-9; Para 6-30) method of controlling a converter (Fig. 1; a dual active bridge (DAB) converter repeating switching states of a plural states for the plurality of switches for each bridge. DAB: primary side bridge ‘M1ab-M4ab; and secondary side bridge ‘M5-M8’. Transformer T) comprising two H bridges (DAB: primary side bridge ‘M1ab-M4ab; and secondary side bridge ‘M5-M8’) coupled by a transformer (T), wherein:
repetitions, at a repetition frequency (Fig. 2-9; switching frequency being repeating of various switching states of a plural states for the plurality of switches for each bridge), of two sequences (two sequences being on vs. off states at a repetition frequency for the plurality of switches for each bridge in DAB) of switching operations between a plurality of states (a plural states for the plurality of switches for each bridge) are respectively applied to the two bridges (DAB: primary side bridge ‘M1ab-M4ab; and secondary side bridge ‘M5-M8’);
one of the states (on vs. off) of a first one (Fig. 2-9; i.e., first one vs. second one being upper/high-side switches vs. low-side switches control using on vs. off states operation, for specific power flow direction in DAB) of the two sequences (two sequences being on vs. off states at a repetition frequency for the plurality of switches for each bridge in DAB) corresponds to a given direction of application of a voltage (specific power flow direction in DAB) to the transformer (T) by the bridge having the first one of the two sequences (two sequences being on vs. off states at a repetition frequency for the plurality of switches for each bridge in DAB) applied thereto;
in a first control mode (Fig. 2-9; various Mode(s) 1-4 and 9-12; Para 9-16), switching operations to enter and leave said one of the states (on vs. off) of the first one (Fig. 2-9; i.e., first one vs. second one being upper/high-side switches vs. low-side switches control using on vs. off states operation, for specific power flow direction in DAB) of the two sequences (two sequences being on vs. off states at a repetition frequency for the plurality of switches for each bridge in DAB) occur in different states (Fig. 2-9; when upper/high-side switches vs. low-side switches having different on vs. off states operation for specific power flow, for example Fig. 4 among others) of the second one (Fig. 2-9; i.e., first one vs. second one being upper/high-side switches vs. low-side switches control using on vs. off states operation, for specific power flow direction in DAB) of the two sequences (two sequences being on vs. off states at a repetition frequency for the plurality of switches for each bridge in DAB);
in a second control mode (Fig. 2-9; various Mode(s) 1-4 and 9-12; Para 9-16), switching operations to enter and leave said one of the states (on vs. off) of the first one (Fig. 2-9; i.e., first one vs. second one being upper/high-side switches vs. low-side switches control using on vs. off states operation, for specific power flow direction in DAB) of the two sequences (two sequences being on vs. off states at a repetition frequency for the plurality of switches for each bridge in DAB) occur in a same state (Fig. 2-9; when upper/high-side switches vs. low-side switches having same on vs. off states operation for specific power flow, for example Fig. 3 among others) of a second one (Fig. 2-9; i.e., first one vs. second one being upper/high-side switches vs. low-side switches control using on vs. off states operation, for specific power flow direction in DAB) of the two sequences (two sequences being on vs. off states at a repetition frequency for the plurality of switches for each bridge in DAB); and
each transition between the first mode (Fig. 2-9; various Mode(s) 1-4 and 9-12; Para 9-16) at a nominal value (i.e., initial value) of the repetition frequency (Fig. 2-9; switching frequency being repeating of various switching states of a plural states for the plurality of switches for each bridge) and the second mode (Fig. 2-9; various Mode(s) 1-4 and 9-12; Para 9-16) at the nominal value (initial value) of the repetition frequency (Fig. 2-9; switching frequency being repeating of various switching states of a plural states for the plurality of switches for each bridge)
comprises an adaptation of the repetition frequency (Fig. 2-9; switching frequency being repeating of various switching states of a plural states for the plurality of switches for each bridge) determined by a first duration (i.e., period of time when each switch being on or off) equal to a switching dead time duration (i.e., period of time when each switch being off) or to the product of the switching dead time duration (i.e., period of time when each switch being off) and of a zero-voltage switching margin (ZVS (para 43) vs. ZCS).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, cited art(s) failed to teach,
“Wherein each transition comprises, based on a model of the converter:
the calculation of a first power transferable between the two bridges with the first mode and the nominal value of the repetition frequency, the first power being determined by the first duration;
the calculation of a second power transferable between the two bridges with the second mode and the nominal value of the repetition frequency, the second power being determined by the first duration;
the calculation of a third power transferable between the two bridges in the first and second modes at the nominal value of the repetition frequency and without taking into account the first duration;
the calculation of a first value of the repetition frequency in the first mode,
the first value of the repetition frequency being
determined by the third transferable power and the first duration; and
the calculation of a second value of the repetition frequency in the second mode,
the second value of the repetition frequency being
determined by the third transferable power and the first duration”.
Claims 3-12 are depending from claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUSRAT QUDDUS whose telephone number is (571)270-7921. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-4pm 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, CRYSTAL L. HAMMOND can be reached at (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 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.
/NUSRAT QUDDUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2838