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 .
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the gate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is believed that claim 9 was intended to depend from claim 6 as claim 6 provides proper antecedent basis for the limitation. For the purposes of the is office action, in will be assumed that Applicant intended claim 9 to depend from claim 6.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-6 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelly (US 5,923,513) in view of Dupraz (US 2018/0301295).
With regard to claim 1, Pelly, in Figs. 2 & 4, teaches an electrical arrangement for protection in a direct current electric system (column 3, lines 3-8 teaches that the device may be used in a DC power system), the arrangement comprising: an input connection with an input terminal (collector of IGBT 1); an output connection with a output terminal (emitter of IGBT 1); a main disconnection component (1) between the input terminal and the output terminal; and at least one clamping circuit (11) between the input terminal and the output terminal, wherein the at least one clamping circuit has a first connecting path (12 & 14 of Figs. 2 & 4 as well as 15 & 17 shown in Fig. 4) and a second connecting path (8 of Fig 2), arranged in parallel to each other; wherein the first connection path comprises: a storage coupling (15) for temporarily buffering an overvoltage present between the input terminal and the output terminal; and an activatable switch (12) for selectably connecting the storage coupling with the output terminal; and wherein the second connection path comprises: a supply coupling (comparator 8) for operating the activatable switch in dependency of the overvoltage (column 2, lines 33-42 & lines 50-58).
Pelly does not teach that the direct current electrical system is a DC high voltage electrical system. However, it is taught that the main power switch (10) is an IGBT power switch which is commonly used in a high voltage DC electrical system.
Dupraz, in Figure 1, teaches an IGBT (1010) coupled in parallel with a snubber circuit (102) for protection (paragraph 0049) similar to Pelly. It is further taught that the device is used in a DC high voltage electrical system (paragraph 0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pelly with Dupraz, by using the active snubber system of Pelly in a HVDC system as taught by Dupraz, for the purpose of providing a snubber circuit in a high voltage environment which does not require extremely large capacitors and resistors.
With regard to claims 2-6 & 15, Pelly in view of Dupraz discloses the device of claim 1, and further discloses that the main disconnection component comprises: i) a safety element configured to open an electrical circuit in the direct current high voltage electric system in order to protect at least a part of the electrical circuit; or ii) a fuse that opens the connection when exceeding a predetermined threshold current (IGBT is taught in column 2, lines 15-18, to be a device coupled to switch a load which when open would necessarily protect the load from any faults in the DC power system) (re claim 2), wherein the main disconnection component is provided as a semiconductor switch that provides a connection in a first state and that is blocked in a second state when exceeding a predetermined threshold current (an IGBT would necessarily perform this function) (re claim 3), wherein the storage coupling comprises a capacitor (Dupraz Fig. 3 A, CP) and a first resistor (Dupraz Fig. 3 A, R1) in a parallel connection; and wherein the storage coupling further comprises a second resistor (Dupraz Fig. 3 A, R2) in series with the parallel connection of the capacitor and the first resistor (re claim 4), wherein the activatable switch comprises a semiconductor switch that is blocked in a first state and that provides a connection to the output terminal in a second state (as seen in Figs, 1 & 4 of Pelly) (re claim 5), wherein the activatable switch comprises an enhancement field-effect-transistor, which is connected to the storage coupling with a drain connector, to the output terminal with a source connector and to the supply coupling with a gate (Pelly teaches that MOSFETs may be used as the switches in column 2 lines. 14 & 15 as well as lines 43-45) (re claim 6), a method for protected switching in a direct current high voltage electric system, the method comprising: providing the electrical arrangement of claim 1 in the direct current high voltage electric system; and activating the main disconnection component; wherein the at least one clamping circuit temporarily absorbs at least a part of an excess energy present as an overcurrent in the direct current high voltage electric system at the time of activating the main disconnection component (column 2, lines 33-42 & lines 50-58) (re claim 15).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelly in view of Dupraz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imai (US 2017/0373591).
With regard to claim 7, Pelly in view of Dupraz teaches the device of claim 1 and further teaches that the supply coupling comprises a trigger element (8) which is provided that comprises an input voltage terminal connected to a positive connector and to a reference voltage (REF) connection with a negative connector; and a supply voltage terminal connected to a supply source with a positive connector and to output terminal with a negative connector (as seen in Fig. 2 of Pelly, the comparator is powered via the input and output terminals); and wherein, when the voltage present at the input terminal exceeds a predetermined threshold, the trigger element is configured to provide a switch supply voltage to a gate of the activatable switch in order to close the activatable switch for activating the storage coupling.
Pelly in view of Dupraz does not teach that the supply coupling comprises a first coupling resistor and a second coupling resistor connected in series between the input terminal and the output terminal; wherein a trigger element is provided that comprises an input voltage terminal connected to a connection point between the first coupling resistor and the second coupling resistor with a positive connector.
Imai, in Figure 1, teaches a comparator circuit wherein a first terminal is coupled to a first coupling resistor and a second coupling resistor connected in series and wherein a trigger element is provided that comprises an input voltage terminal connected to a connection point between the first coupling resistor and the second coupling resistor and also shows that the comparator is powered via positive and negative terminals.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pelly in view of Dupraz with Imai, by using a voltage divider to provide the sensed voltage to the comparator of Pelly as taught by Imai, for the purpose of scaling down the voltage at the input of the comparator to protect it from high voltages.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelly in view of Dupraz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishii (US 2016/0273508).
With regard to claim 9, Pelly in view of Dupraz teaches the device of claim 1.
Pelly in view of Dupraz does not teach a pull down resistor is connected between the gate and the output terminal; and wherein an overvoltage protection diode is connected between a gate and the output terminal.
Ishii, in Figure 1, teaches a semiconductor switch (5) wherein a pull down resistor (R2) is connected between the gate and an output terminal (4); and wherein an overvoltage protection diode (14) is connected between a gate and the output terminal (paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pelly in view of Dupraz with Ishii, by providing a pull-down resistor and diode to the gate of Pelly as taught by Ishii, for the purpose of protecting the switch from surge voltages.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelly in view of Dupraz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vieillard (US 2013/0285615).
With regard to claim 11, Pelly in view of Dupraz teaches the device of claim 1 and further teaches an electric system with a direct current network, the system comprising: at least one source; at least one load; and the electrical arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the at least one source is connected to the at least one load via an electric connection; and wherein the electrical arrangement is provided within the electric connection such that the main disconnection component is configured to temporarily disconnect the least one load from the at least one source.
Pelly in view of Dupraz does not teach that the at least one source is selected from a group consisting of: batteries, super capacitors, fuel cells, solar cells, power network and combinations thereof (paragraph 0057); wherein the at least one load comprises at least one load selected from a group consisting of: electrical engines, electric drives, electric motors, and electric actuators (paragraphs 0002 & 0057).
Vieillard, in Figures 2 & 3, teaches an IGBT (K1) used in a HVDC system (paragraphs 0062-0064). It is further taught that the at least one source is selected from a group consisting of: batteries, super capacitors, fuel cells, solar cells, power network and combinations thereof; wherein the at least one load comprises at least one load selected from a group consisting of: electrical engines, electric drives, electric motors, and electric actuators; wherein the at least one source is connected to the at least one load via an electric connection; and wherein the electrical arrangement is provided within the electric connection such that the main disconnection component is configured to temporarily disconnect the least one load from the at least one source
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Pelly in view of Dupraz with Vieillard, by using the circuit of Pelly in view of Dupraz to protect the aircraft as taught by Vieillard, for the purpose of protecting the aircraft switches from damage.
With regard to claims 12 & 14, Pelly in view of Dupraz and Vieillard discloses the system of claim 11, and further discloses that the electric system is provided on board of a vehicle selected from a group consisting of: an aircraft and an automotive (paragraph 0001) (re claim 12), and a aircraft comprising: a fuselage structure comprising a use portion; a lift and propulsion structure connected to the fuselage structure; and the electric system according to claim 1; wherein the electric system is configured to be at least temporarily used for an operation of the aircraft (Vieillard, Abstract) (re claim 14).
With regard to claim 13, Pelly in view of Dupraz and Vieillard discloses the claimed invention except that the electrical arrangement is configured to handle voltages larger than 800 V and currents larger than 1000 A. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design the circuitry to handle a current and voltage of the HVDC system dependent on the specifications of the application, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 & 10 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest an electrical arrangement comprising all the features as recited in the claims and in combination with the supply coupling comprises a first transorber, a second transorber and a third transorber connected in series; wherein a supply resistor is connected to a connection point of the second transorber and the third transorber, and a supply diode connected between the supply resistor and the activatable switch; wherein the supply diode is connected to the supply resistor with an anode end; and wherein a supply filter capacitor is connected between a connection point of the supply resistor and the supply diode.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest an electrical arrangement comprising all the features as recited in the claims and in combination with the electrical arrangement being provided as a bi-directional electrical arrangement, wherein the input connection comprises a first input terminal and a second input terminal; wherein the main disconnection component comprises a first main disconnection element between the first input terminal and the output terminal; and a second main disconnection element between the second input terminal and the output terminal; wherein the at least one clamping circuit is provided as a first clamping circuit between the first input terminal and a midpoint terminal; and wherein a second clamping circuit is provided between the second input terminal and the midpoint terminal; wherein the first clamping circuit has the first connecting path and the second connecting path; and wherein the second clamping circuit has a third connecting path and a fourth connecting path, arranged in parallel to each other; wherein the third connection path comprises a second storage coupling for temporarily buffering an overvoltage present between the second input terminal and the midpoint terminal; and a second activatable switch for selectably connecting the second storage coupling with the output terminal; and wherein the fourth connection path comprises a second supply coupling for operating the second activatable switch in dependency of the overvoltage; wherein the second connection path and the fourth connection path are provided at least partly as a shared connection path.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. De Palma (US 5,233,495) and Song (US 11,973,493) both teach devices with switched snubber circuitry coupled in parallel with a power transistor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT BAUER whose telephone number is (571)272-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm EST.
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, THIENVU TRAN can be reached at (571)270-1276. 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.
/Scott Bauer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838