DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application filed 6 March 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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to for the following informalities:
The title is not descriptive. Examiner suggests emphasizing the claimed AC link in the switching cell.
The application claims priority to a WIPO application. The filing date and publication date (if available) should be included in the background. It is also ordinary and customary to include any other applications filed in other countries in the background if present.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Election
Applicants election of species 2 is acknowledged. As to the response regarding the traverse, since applicant has gone on record mentioning that these are obvious variants of each other, in particular the language “All disclosed embodiments identified by the Examiner, including those shown in FIGS. 1-13, share the same underlying structure and mode of operation. Each embodiment employs the same six-switch switching cell topology, with AC links connected to the switches, and operates according to the same switching-controlled AC energy transfer mechanism. The differences among the embodiments are limited solely to external connections and system-level application context, such as the particular load or power-conversion environment. Importantly, none of the disclosed embodiments introduces a structurally different switching cell.” As such, all figures are regarded as obvious variations of each other and the restriction requirement is rescinded.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority based on a WIPO application filed in Chile on 7 Sept 2021.
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 5-8, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As to claim 5, applicant claims a polyphase system, and then states that the polyphase system is a 9-phase system in the specification (¶82, Fig. 7). Though the wording is not indefinite by itself polyphase typically refers to a three phase system connected in detla or wye, and if applicant is using polyphase in a different manner a special definition is required. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
As to claim 15, there is a similar issue to claim 5.
Claims 6-8, 16-18 depend directly or indirectly from a rejected claim and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) , or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph for the reasons set above.
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, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Chen et al “Partial Power Processing Multiport DC-DC Converters” (IEEE NPL)
As to claim 1, Chen discloses (see image below) A switching cellcomprising:- a first switc
PNG
media_image1.png
547
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Chen discloses (see image above) comprising a third AC link
As to claim 9, Chen discloses (image above shows mosfets) wherein said switches omprise at least one of diodes, IGBT transistors, and MOSFET transistors,
As to claim 10, Chen discloses (image above shows transformers) wherein said first AC lincomprise at least one of capacitors, coils, andtransformers,
As to claim 11, Chen discloses A devicencluding a switching cell
As to claims 12, 19, and 20, these are similar to claims 2, 9, and 10 and are anticipated for similar reasons.
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.
Claims 3, 4 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (IEEE NPL) in view of Takagi (US 20160172984).
As to claims 3 , Chen discloses wherein said first AC lin
Chen does not explicitly teach wherein the switching cell
Takagi teaches (Fig. 1, L1, L2, C) herein the switching cell
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an additional AC link at its midpoint as taught by Takagi before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional output port.
As to claim 4, Chen teaches that the switching cell
Though he does teach an AC midpoint, He does not explicitly teach wherein said first AC lin
Takagi teaches (Fig. 1, L1, L2, C) herein the explicitly teach wherein said first AC lin
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an additional AC link at its midpoint as taught by Takagi before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional output port.
As to claims 13 and 14, these are similar to claims 3 and 4 are obvious for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 15-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
As to claim 5, the prior art fails to disclose: “wherein said first AC lincomprising the corresponding first switch and second switch comprising the corresponding third switch and fourth switch comprising the corresponding fifth switch and sixth switch (6a-7a; 6b-7b) are connected in parallel with each other;- wherein the corresponding phasecorresponding second switch
As to claim 15, the prior art fails to disclose: “wherein said first AC linwherein, for each phascomprising the corresponding first switch and second switch (2a-3a; 2b-3b) are connected in parallel to each other; - all assemblies comprising the corresponding third switch and fourth switch (4a-5a; 4b-5b) are connected in parallel with each other; and - all assemblies comprising the corresponding fifth switch and sixth switch (6a-7a; 6b-7b) are connected in parallel with each other;- wherein the corresponding phase.” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
Please note: while objected or allowed claims have been indicated, only the presented claims have been examined for compliance with form and 35 USC 112 consideration. As a reminder, claims that are dependent upon objected claims still require examination for form and 35 USC 112 issues even if they overcome 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections. Similarly, amendments incorporating allowable subject matter into independent claims requires reconsideration for dependent claim form and any possible 35 USC 112 issues that arise through amendments even if the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are overcome. As such, applicant is advised that while examiner can enter previously allowed claims or previously objected claims rewritten into independent form after final rejection, any other claims may not be entered.
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.
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached on 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 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