Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/689,945

POWER CONVERSION SYSTEM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 07, 2024
Examiner
AHMED, YUSEF A
Art Unit
2838
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Toshiba Mitsubishi-Electric Industrial Systems Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
464 granted / 556 resolved
+15.5% vs TC avg
Strong +41% interview lift
Without
With
+40.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
570
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
41.5%
+1.5% vs TC avg
§102
36.2%
-3.8% vs TC avg
§112
15.4%
-24.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 556 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION 1. This final Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/26/2026. Claims 1-5 are presented for examination and claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected for the reasons indicated herein below. Response to arguments 2. Applicant's arguments filed on 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and also the claims submitted on 02/26/2026 are moot and rejected in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tamida et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0377670 A1) in view of Satou et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0091083 A1). Regarding claim 1, Tamida et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-8) discloses “A power conversion system (e.g. see Figs. 1-8), comprising: a power converter (23) configured to convert direct-current power input from a direct-current power supply (41), into alternating-current power or direct-current power (e.g. Fig. 6, see 41, 23 and 24. Implicit); a capacitor (22) provided between a positive electrode direct-current line and a negative electrode direct-current line connected to input terminals of the power converter (e.g. Fig. 6, see 22 and 23 and their connections. Implicit); a ground line provided with a first ground resistor and configured to connect the negative electrode direct-current line and a ground potential (e.g. Fig. 6, see a first ground resistor connecting the negative electrode direct-current line and a ground potential. Implicit); a discharge line configured to connect the positive electrode direct-current line and the ground line between the first ground resistor and the ground switch (e.g. Fig. 6, see a discharge line connected from the positive electrode direct-current line to a ground line between the first ground resistor and ground. Implicit); and a discharge switch (32) provided in the discharge line and configured to be turned on to discharge residual charges of the capacitor (e.g. Fig. 6, see 32 and 22 and their connections. Implicit)”. Tamida et al. does not appear to explicitly disclose “a ground switch provided in the ground line on grounding potential side of the first ground resistor”. However, Satou et al. shows “a ground switch provided in the ground line on grounding potential side of the first ground resistor (Satou et al., e.g. Fig. 4, see 9 and 71-72. Implicit)”. Having a ground switch as taught by Satou et al. being provided in the ground line on grounding potential side of the first ground resistor of Tamida et al. would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a ground switch as taught by Satou et al. being provided in the ground line on grounding potential side of the first ground resistor of Tamida et al. for the purpose of protection via allowing current to be discharged to ground and enhancing the power efficiency of the power converter. Also for the purpose of making the device more widely usable. Regarding claims 2, the combination of Tamida et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-8) and Satou et al. (e.g. Fig. 4) discloses “wherein a second ground resistor is provided in the ground line on the ground potential side from a connection point with the discharge line (Satou et al., e.g. Fig. 4, see 71-72)”. Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tamida et al. (e.g. see Figs. 1-8) and Satou et al. (e.g. Fig. 4) discloses “wherein the ground switch is configured to be turned off when the discharge switch is turned on (Satou et al., e.g. Fig. 4, see 9, also see Tamida et al., e.g. Fig. 6, see 32. Implicit)”. Allowable Subject Matter 4. Claims 3-4 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. Regarding claim 3, none of the prior art, listed in the attached PTO-892 form, alone or in combination discloses “further comprising: a first disconnection switch provided in each of the positive electrode direct-current line and the negative electrode direct-current line, and configured to be turned off to disconnect the direct-current power supply from the power converter; a second disconnection switch provided in an output line from the power converter to a power system, and configured to be turned off to disconnect the power system from the power converter; and a control apparatus configured to control ON or OFF of each of the discharge switch, the first disconnection switches, and the second disconnection switch, the control apparatus being configured to turn on the discharge switch after turning off the first disconnection switches and the second disconnection switch”. As recited in claim 3. Regarding claim 4, none of the prior art, listed in the attached PTO-892 form, alone or in combination discloses “further comprising: a first disconnection switch provided in each of the positive electrode direct-current line and the negative electrode direct-current line, and configured to be turned off to disconnect the direct-current power supply from the power converter; a second disconnection switch provided in an output line from the power converter to a power system, and configured to be turned off to disconnect the power system from the power converter; and a control apparatus configured to control ON or OFF of each of the discharge switch, the first disconnection switches, and the second disconnection switch, the control apparatus being configured to turn on the discharge switch after turning off the first disconnection switches and the second disconnection switch”. As recited in claim 4. Conclusion 5. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUSEF A AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-6057. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 11AM-7PM. 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: Hammond, Crystal 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. /YUSEF A AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 07, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 26, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 08, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603569
POWER SUPPLY WITH DYNAMIC CONTROL OF RESONANT MODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597928
LEVEL SHIFTER FOR POWER ELECTRONICS CIRCUITS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597855
POWER SUPPLY DEVICE WITH HIGH OUTPUT STABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590823
SENSOR MODULE INCLUDING AN ENERGY SAVING OPERATION MODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12573959
POWER CONVERTER AND POWER CONVERSION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+40.7%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 556 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month