DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 27 Feb 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 .
Response to Arguments
The specification objections have been withdrawn.
The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks on the merits have been considered but are moot for not considering the present references.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority based on a WIPO application filed in Japan on 9 November 2021.
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 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.
For method claims, note that under MPEP 2112.02, the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated. (The claims have been condensed.)
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11, 14, 16 are (as best understood) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Huo (CN 113067483).
As to claim 1, Huo discloses A power conversion device comprising (see image below): a converter comprising an input end and an output end and rectifying a first alternating- current power supplied from an alternating-current power supply and boosting a voltage of the first alternating-current power rectified, the alternating-current power supply being a commercial power supply and the input end being connected to the alternating-current power supply; a smoothing unit connected to as the output end of the converter; an inverter connected across the smoothing unit and converting power output from the converter and the smoothing unit into second AC power and outputting the second AC power to a motor, and a control unit configured to perform vibration reduction control for reducing vibrations caused by the motor by controlling the inverter such that output torque of the motor changes in accordance with variations in a load torque of the motor (This is described in the abstract, and in somewhat greater detail in the specification. Huo generates a capacitor bus injection amount based on the torque in claim 1), and control the converter to cause an input current to the converter to change in accordance with a first frequency (abstract “Signal and inverter bridge unit control signal to realize the adjustment of the torque current waveform and reduce the ripple current of the bus capacitor. The invention can realize the miniaturization of the busbar capacitance.”) , to reduce a current flowing to the smoothing unit, the first frequency being a frequency of pulsation of input power to the inverter and the pulsation being due to the vibration reduction control.
PNG
media_image1.png
745
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Huo discloses the control unit controls the converter to cause the input current to the converter to pulsate in accordance with a rotational speed of the motor (frequency and torque are related in motors).
As to claim 3, Huo discloses wherein the control unit controls the converter to cause the input current to the converter to include a component that pulsates at a frequency same as the rotational speed of the motor (the PFC and inverter should do this)
As to claim 4, Huo discloses wherein the control unit controls the converter to cause the input current to the converter to include a component that pulsates at a frequency same as the rotational speed of the motor (any real system will have harmonics).
As to claim 11, Huo discloses wherein the converter includes:a rectifier circuit including a plurality of diodes; and a booster circuit including another diode and a switching element whose on and off states are controlled by the control unit, and the rectifier circuit and the booster circuit are connected in series or in parallel with each other (see image above).
As to claim 14, Huo discloses A motor drive device comprising the power conversion device according to claim 1 (abstract, motor).
As to claim 16, Huo teaches wherein the control unit controls the converter to cause the input current to the converter to change in accordance with the first frequency and a second frequency that is a frequency of pulsation of input power to the converter due to a frequency of the alternating-current power supply (the ripple should be both a function of the AC utility and the inverter signal).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huo (CN 113067483).
As to claim 5, Huo discloses the current sensor. He does not expliciltly disclose the current sensor capable of observing a current having a lower limit frequency less than a lower limit rotational speed of the motor. This however is obvious. The current sensor can only have limits equal to, greater than, or less than the motor frequency. It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to claim 12, Huo discloses a plurality of switching elements whose on and offs tates are controlled by the control unit. He does not explicitly teach a plurality of diodes each connected in parallel with the corresponding switching elements. Having switches in parallel with diodes is old and well known in the art, and therefore not patentable. See MPEP 2144.03 and US 4833584 Fig. 1, US 5493487 Fig. 1, US 7646186 Fig. 4).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huo (CN 11307483) view of Suzuki (US 20060044848).
As to claim 6, Huo discloses wherein the control unit controls the converter to cause the input current to the converter to be changed so as to reduce a pulsation component due to the frequency of the alternating-current power supply.
Though heavily implied, the pulsation component being included in the input power to the converter is not explicitly taught.
As to claim 6, Suzuki teaches wherein the control unit controls the converter to cause the input current to the converter to be changed so as to reduce a pulsation component due to the frequency of the alternating-current power supply, the pulsation component being included in the input power to the converter (¶51, the system controls ripple current).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use a ripple control as disclosed in Suzuki to further reduce the ripple.
As to claim 7, Huo in view of Suzuki teaches teaches wherein the control unit controls the converter to cause a component of the input current to the converter having a frequency same as the frequency of the alternating-current power supply to be changed (this would be taught by the switching actions generating harmonics).
As to claim 8, Huo in view of Suzuki teaches teaches wherein the control unit controls the converter to cause a component of the input current to the converter having a frequency being an integral multiple of the frequency of the alternating- current power supply to be also changed (this would be taught by the switching actions generating harmonics).
As to claim 9, Huo in view of Suzuki teaches teaches wherein the control unit controls an inverter included in the load unit to cause an input current to the load unit to pulsate in accordance with a change in the input current to the converter (If the input current drops and the voltage stays the same, the inverter current must drop as well since the motor requires a particular voltage/frequency since power is conserved in the steady state).
As to claim 10, Huo in view of Suzuki teaches wherein the control unit controls the converter to cause an interval of time to occur during which a current flowing to a reactor included in the converter is zero (the rectified AC signal has zeros, which should also go through the boost circuit).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huo (CN 11307483) view of Solodovnik (US 10063077).
As to claim 13 Huo wherein the converter includes: a first series circuit in which two rectifiers are connected in series with each other (any two switches with parallel didoes reads on this limitation).
Huo does not disclose and a second series circuit including four switching elements connected in series with each other and four rectifiers each connected in parallel with a corresponding one of the four switching elements, the second series circuit being connected in parallel with the first series circuit.
Solodonik teaches wherein the converter includes: a first series circuit in which two rectifiers are connected in series with each other (Fig. 2, diodes 44); and a second series circuit including four switching elements (60A-60D) connected in series with each other and the second series circuit being connected in parallel with the first series circuit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use a rectifier as disclosed in Solodonik to provide a larger step up ratio.
As to the limitation four rectifiers each connected in parallel with a corresponding one of the four switching elements, this would be taught by the combination one of ordinary skill would do this in order to prevent voltage spikes from the inductive load.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huo (CN 11307483) in view of Tsumura (US 20160380575).
As to claim 15, Huo teaches claim 1. He does not teach A refrigeration-cycle application apparatus. Tsumura teaches a refrigeration cycle application apparatus (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use a compressor as disclosed by Tsumura to provide cold air.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular column, paragraph, and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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 PETER M NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1375. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM,Monday through Thursday, 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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/PETER M NOVAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2839