DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a response to the application filed on 30 April 2024.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they contain blank boxes (element 165) lacking descriptive legends as required by 37 CFR 1.84(o). Therefore all of the boxes should be provided with legends. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pevere (US 20220181966 A1; hereinafter “Pevere”) in view of Tan et al. (US 8705254 B2; hereinafter “Tan”).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Pevere (annotated for Claim 1)
In re claim 1, Pevere discloses a power converter configured as a totem pole power factor correction power converter (Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7), the power converter comprising: a capacitor (COUT); a first leg (see annotated figure above), coupled in parallel with the capacitor, the first leg including a first switching element (Q1) coupled in series with a with a second switching element (D1); a second leg (see annotated figure above) coupled in parallel with the capacitor, the second leg including a third switching element (Q2) coupled in series with a fourth switching element (D2); a third leg (see annotated figure above) coupled in parallel with the capacitor, the third leg including a fifth switching element coupled in series with a sixth switching element (D2); a flyback transformer having a first inductor (L1) and a second inductor (L2); wherein a second terminal (N1) of the first inductor is coupled between the first and second switching elements, a first terminal of the second inductor is coupled between the second third and fourth switching elements and to a second terminal of the power source (IN2), and a second terminal (N2) of the second inductor is coupled between the fifth and sixth switching elements.
Pevere does not discloses a buck stage coupled in series between a first terminal of a power source and a first terminal of the first inductor, the buck stage including a seventh switching element coupled in series with an eighth switching element.
Whereas, Tan discloses a power factor correction power converter (Figs. 4, 5a; 5b) with a buck stage (Col 6 Lines 47-49: FIG. 5(b) shows an equivalent circuit of the single-phase dual buck-boost/buck circuit as shown in FIG. 4 while operating under a buck mode) coupled in series between a first terminal of a power source (Vin) and a first terminal of the first inductor (L21), the buck stage including a two switching elements coupled in series (D3 and S21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to have modified Pevere’s system by wherein a power conversion system, as taught by Pevere, to have a buck stage system in series between a first terminal of a power source and a first terminal of a first terminal of a first inductor, wherein the buck stage includes two switching elements couples in series, as taught by Tan, to have better control and protection of Pevere’s system.
In re claim 2, Pevere discloses a power converter (see above rejection) comprising a current sensor (CS3) configured to detect the current into the capacitor (COUT).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to have modified the Pevere’s system with the modifications, as taught by Tan, to include a current sensor, as taught by Pevere, to have better clarity and understanding of the circuit.
In re claim 3, Pevere discloses a power converter (see above rejections), wherein the power converter is configured to detect the current into the capacitor and to determine whether a current level detected by the current sensor is less than or greater than or equal to a predetermined current level (shown in Fig.3 and further explained in Col 2 Lines 30-32: FIG. 3 includes diagrams showing exemplary signal waveforms of inductor current and rectifier current for 50% and 100% of nominal load current.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to have modified the Pevere’s system with the modifications, as taught by Tan, to determine if a circuit component’s current level is less than or greater than or equal to a predetermined current level, as taught by Pevere, to have better understanding of the circuit.
In re claim 11, Pevere discloses method for a power converter configured as a totem pole power factor correction power converter (Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7), the power converter comprising: a capacitor (COUT); a first leg (see annotated figure above), coupled in parallel with the capacitor, the first leg including a first switching element (Q1) coupled in series with a with a second switching element (D1); a second leg (see annotated figure above) coupled in parallel with the capacitor, the second leg including a third switching element (Q2) coupled in series with a fourth switching element (D2); a third leg (see annotated figure above) coupled in parallel with the capacitor, the third leg including a fifth switching element coupled in series with a sixth switching element (D2); a flyback transformer having a first inductor (L1) and a second inductor (L2); wherein a second terminal (N1) of the first inductor is coupled between the first and second switching elements, a first terminal of the second inductor is coupled between the second third and fourth switching elements and to a second terminal of the power source (IN2), and a second terminal (N2) of the second inductor is coupled between the fifth and sixth switching elements.
Pevere does not discloses a method for a buck stage coupled in series between a first terminal of a power source and a first terminal of the first inductor, the buck stage including a seventh switching element coupled in series with an eighth switching element.
Whereas, Tan discloses a method for a power factor correction power converter (Figs. 4, 5a; 5b) with a buck stage (Col 6 Lines 47-49: FIG. 5(b) shows an equivalent circuit of the single-phase dual buck-boost/buck circuit as shown in FIG. 4 while operating under a buck mode) coupled in series between a first terminal of a power source (Vin) and a first terminal of the first inductor (L21), the buck stage including a two switching elements coupled in series (D3 and S21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to have modified Pevere’s method for a system by wherein a power conversion system, as taught by Pevere, to have a buck stage system in series between a first terminal of a power source and a first terminal of a first terminal of a first inductor, wherein the buck stage includes two switching elements couples in series, as taught by Tan, to have better control and protection of Pevere’s system.
In re claim 12, Pevere discloses a method for a power converter (see above rejection) comprising a current sensor (CS3) configured to detect the current into the capacitor (COUT).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to have modified the Pevere’s method for a system with the modifications, as taught by Tan, to include a current sensor, as taught by Pevere, to have better control and understanding of the system.
In re claim 13, Pevere discloses a method for a power converter (see above rejections), wherein the power converter is configured to detect the current into the capacitor and to determine whether a current level detected by the current sensor is less than or greater than or equal to a predetermined current level (shown in Fig.3 and further explained in Col 2 Lines 30-32: FIG. 3 includes diagrams showing exemplary signal waveforms of inductor current and rectifier current for 50% and 100% of nominal load current.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to have modified the Pevere’s method for a system with the modifications, as taught by Tan, to determine if a circuit component’s current level is less than or greater than or equal to a predetermined current level, as taught by Pevere, to have better understanding of the system.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pevere (US 20220181966 A1; hereinafter “Pevere”) in view of Tan et al. (US 8705254 B2; hereinafter “Tan”), and Afridi et al. (US 17176805 B2; hereinafter “Afridi”).
In re claim 20, Pevere discloses a power converter configured as a totem pole power factor correction power converter (Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7), the power converter comprising: a capacitor (COUT); a first leg (see annotated figure above), coupled in parallel with the capacitor, the first leg including a first switching element (Q1) coupled in series with a with a second switching element (D1); a second leg (see annotated figure above) coupled in parallel with the capacitor, the second leg including a third switching element (Q2) coupled in series with a fourth switching element (D2); a third leg (see annotated figure above) coupled in parallel with the capacitor, the third leg including a fifth switching element coupled in series with a sixth switching element (D2); a flyback transformer having a first inductor (L1) and a second inductor (L2); wherein a second terminal (N1) of the first inductor is coupled between the first and second switching elements, a first terminal of the second inductor is coupled between the second third and fourth switching elements and to a second terminal of the power source (IN2), and a second terminal (N2) of the second inductor is coupled between the fifth and sixth switching elements.
Pevere does not discloses a buck stage coupled in series between a first terminal of a power source and a first terminal of the first inductor, the buck stage including a seventh switching element coupled in series with an eighth switching element. Pevere does not disclose a power converter, wherein the first and second switching elements are one of a Gallium-Arsenide MOS FET or a Silicon-Carbide MOS FET.
Whereas, Tan discloses a power factor correction power converter (Figs. 4, 5a; 5b) with a buck stage (Col 6 Lines 47-49: FIG. 5(b) shows an equivalent circuit of the single-phase dual buck-boost/buck circuit as shown in FIG. 4 while operating under a buck mode) coupled in series between a first terminal of a power source (Vin) and a first terminal of the first inductor (L21), the buck stage including a two switching elements coupled in series (D3 and S21).
Tan does not disclose does not disclose a power converter, wherein the first and second switching elements are one of a Gallium-Arsenide MOS FET or a Silicon-Carbide MOS FET.
Whereas, Afridi discloses a power converter (Fig. 9) with a leg, coupled in parallel with the capacitor (Vdc), the first leg including a first switching element (q.overline.1) coupled in series with a with a second switching element (q.1), wherein the first and second switching elements are one of a Gallium-Arsenide MOS FET (Col 8 Lines 14: application utilizing silicon carbide MOSFETs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to have modified Pereve’s system by wherein a power conversion system, as taught by Pevere, to have a buck stage system in series between a first terminal of a power source and a first terminal of a first terminal of a first inductor, wherein the buck stage includes two switching elements couples in series, as taught by Tan, to also include a leg including a first switching element coupled in series with a second switching element, wherein the first and second switching elements are one of a Silicon-Carbide MOS FET to have better efficiency and increase safety of Pereve’s system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 and 14-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to the dependent claim 4, Pevere discloses a power converter (see above rejection) comprising a current sensor (CS3) configured to detect the current into the capacitor (COUT). Additionally, Tan discloses a similar switched converter.
Despite the similarity of the reference with the Applicant’s invention Pevere does not disclose switching the seventh and eight switches on. The other prior art on record does not provide the suggestion to modify Pevere or Tan.
Claims 5-10 each depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim 4 and therefore contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons explained above.
With respect to the dependent claim 14, Pevere discloses a method for a power converter (see above rejection) comprising a current sensor (CS3) configured to detect the current into the capacitor (COUT). Additionally, Tan discloses a similar switched converter.
Despite the similarity of the reference with the Applicant’s method Pevere does not disclose switching the seventh and eight switches on. The other prior art on record does not provide the suggestion to modify Pevere or Tan.
Claims 14-19 each depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim 14 and therefore contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons explained above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicolas A Chapa Mills whose telephone number is (571)272-3683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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.
/NICOLAS ALDEN CHAPA MILLS/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838