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 .
This action is in response to the Response to Election / Restriction filed on 05/11/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/21/2024 and 11/14/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figures 27, 28, and 29 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy 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.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In [0033], [0034], [0046] all instances of “MOFFET” appears that they should read as “MOSFET”. Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species 1 (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that no serious search and examination burden exists because: (i) both species are classified within the same CPC subclass H02M; (ii) both species share an identical core auxiliary soft-switching topology that is recited in essentially verbatim language across the elected and non-elected claim sets; and (iii) the Office has not identified any 35 U.S.C. § 101 or § 112 issue arising in one species that would not also be present in the other. The traversal is not found persuasive for the reasons set forth below. Regarding ground (i), common membership in a single broad subclass does not establish the absence of a serious search burden. The proper inquiry is whether the inventions require a different field of search, which is established where the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of a different classification, or where one invention must be searched in classification areas, with search queries, or in sources where the other invention would not be found (see MPEP 808.02). Subclass H02M broadly encompasses essentially all static power conversion apparatus, and identity at that level is therefore not dispositive of burden. As applicant acknowledges, Species 2 is classified in H02M7/003, which is directed to the constructional details (e.g., physical layout, assembly, wiring, or busbar connections) of static conversion apparatus, whereas Species 1 is classified in H02M1/0058, which is directed to circuit arrangements for reducing losses. These are not merely “adjacent groups within a single classification family”; they reside in different main groups and are directed to different subject matter — namely, circuit topology for loss reduction (Species 1) versus the physical/constructional implementation of an inverter (Species 2). Species 2 (Figs. 7-22) further encompasses detailed physical-structure subject matter that applicant itself characterizes as “detailed physical structure” (e.g., the metal-plate divided-inductor arrangement of Fig. 20), as well as a transistor-level circuit implementation and comparator-based current-direction-detection control (e.g., Figs. 7-11, 21, and 22), none of which is claimed or disclosed as part of elected Species 1. Searching that subject matter requires classification areas and search queries not implicated by a search of Species 1.
Regarding ground (ii), the fact that the species share a common auxiliary soft-switching cell recited in common language does not render their respective searches coextensive. The claims of Species 2 (claims 9-21) recite numerous further limitations directed to the inverter implementation and its structural and control features — including, for example, the inverter physical structure (Fig. 20), the detailed circuit implementation (Figs. 7-11 and 19), and the comparator-based current-direction detection and associated switching control (Figs. 21 and 22) — none of which appears in elected Species 1 (claims 1-8). A serious burden exists because these non-common limitations of Species 2 must be separately searched and examined and are not reached by a search directed to the elected Species 1. The presence of some overlapping art directed to the common auxiliary cell does not negate the burden; a restriction requirement is proper where, as here, the non-elected invention requires searching and examining subject matter not required by the elected invention. The species are further mutually exclusive in scope, as Species 1 is directed to a switching circuit that drives a load by interrupting power supplied from a power source, whereas Species 2 is directed to an inverter circuit including its physical structure, such that a claim limited to one species would not read on the other.
Regarding ground (iii), a showing of distinct 35 U.S.C. § 101 or § 112 issues is not required to sustain a restriction requirement. A serious burden may be established by a separate field of search alone, including separate classification, a separate status in the art, or a different field of search (see MPEP 803 and 808.02). Because the requirement is supported by a different field of search as set forth above, the absence of any species-specific eligibility or written-description issue — even if accepted — does not overcome the requirement; that factor is but one of several independently sufficient bases for finding a serious burden, and the inapplicability of one factor does not negate the burden established by the others.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-21 remain withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b). The reply to this Office action must comply with the requirement. Applicant may petition the requirement under 37 CFR 1.144.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, in line 5-6, “the current flowing through the switching means” appears that it should read as “a current flowing through the switching means”.
Regarding claim 5, in line 2, “wherein,” appears that it should read as “wherein”.
Regarding claim 6, in line 5-6, “connected to a power source or ground” appears that it should read as “connected to the power source or ground”.
Regarding claim 8, in line 4, “connected to a power source or ground” appears that it should read as “connected to the power source or ground”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the rectifier element” in lines 5-8 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Claim 8 depends from claim 7, which recites “a switching device for conducting a flywheel current”; a “rectifier element” is introduced only in claims 5 and 6, from which claim 8 does not depend. It is therefore unclear whether “the rectifier element” refers to the switching device of claim 7 or introduces a new element. For purposes of examination, “the rectifier element” is interpreted as referring to the switching device of claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinbara (US Patent 5,260,607). Regarding claim 1, Kinbara discloses (see Fig. 12) a switching circuit (voltage-dropping chopper circuitry comprising switching element 4, inductor 46, diode 5, and snubber circuit 62) that drives a load means (DC reactor 7 and load 8) by interrupting an electric power supplied from a power source (DC power supply 1), and that reduces switching losses by setting a time difference between a voltage applied to a switching means (4) built into the switching circuit and a current flowing through the switching means, which is a soft switching method (see col. 10, lines 56-66 “when the switching element 4 is turned ON at time 80, the current of the switching element 4 increases at an increase ratio substantially determined by the inductance of the inductor 46 ... the moment the switching element 4 is switched ON, its current is zero and its voltage falls rapidly”; see col. 11, lines 41-46 “the instant the switching element 4 is switched OFF, its voltage is zero and its current is rapidly zeroed”), comprising: an inductor (46) located between the load means and the switching means (see col. 12, lines 1-5 “the DC reactor 7 may be connected to the connection point 47 to produce an identical effect”; with the DC reactor 7 connected to the connection point 47, the inductor 46 is located between the switching element 4 and the load means 7, 8); a first rectifier means (diode 44) and a first capacitor (capacitor 43) arranged in series between the switching means and the power source or ground (see col. 10, lines 31-34 “the capacitor 43 as a first capacitor connected between the inductor 42 and diode 44 connection point 48 and the connection point 6”; the capacitor 43 and the diode 44 are arranged in series between the connection point 6 at the output side of the switching element 4 and the power supply terminal 3); a second rectifier means (diode 63) and a second capacitor (capacitor 65) connected in parallel through the inductor to the first rectifier means and the first capacitor arranged in series (see col. 10, lines 34-38 “a second capacitor connected between a diode 63 and diode 41 connection point 64 and the inductor 46 and first diode 5 connection point 47”; the capacitor 65 and the diode 63 are arranged in series between the connection point 47 at the load side of the inductor 46 and the power supply terminal 2, and are thereby connected, through the inductor 46 and the DC power supply 1, in parallel with the series arrangement of the capacitor 43 and the diode 44); and a third rectifier means (diode 41) arranged between a connection (48) of the first rectifier means and the first capacitor and a connection (64) of the second capacitor and the second rectifier means (see col. 10, lines 27-31 “a series circuit consisting of a diode 63 as a second diode connected between the power supply terminals 2 and 3, the third diode 41, the inductor 42 as a second inductor and the diode 44 as a fourth diode”; the diode 41 is arranged, in series with the inductor 42, between the connection point 64 and the connection point 48). Examiner’s Note: the recitation “arranged between” and the open transitional phrase “comprising” do not preclude the presence of the intervening inductor 42 in series with the diode 41 between the connection points 64 and 48.
Regarding claim 2, Kinbara discloses (see Fig. 12) wherein the first rectifier means prevents a charge of the first capacitor from short-circuiting to the switching means (see col. 6, lines 25-30 “when the switching element 4 is switched ON, the voltage of the connection point 48 rises to a sum of the capacitor 43 charging voltage and the DC power supply 1 voltage ... at this time, the diode 44 remains OFF”; see col. 10, lines 51-56 “the fundamental operation of the snubber circuit 62 ... is substantially identical to the operation of the snubber circuit 40”; the orientation of the diode 44 blocks discharge of the charged capacitor 43 through the turned-ON switching element 4); the third rectifier means prevents a short circuit in the inductor (see col. 11, lines 21-26 “the diode 63 is switched ON, the current flows, e.g. from the diode 44 to the inductor 42 to the diode 41 to the diode 63”; the diode 41 conducts only in the direction from the connection point 48 toward the connection point 64, thereby blocking a circulating short-circuit current path through the capacitors 65 and 43 around the inductor 46).
Regarding claim 3, Kinbara discloses (see Fig. 12) wherein the second rectifier means returns a charge of the second capacitor to the power source (see col. 11, lines 3-6 “when the diode 5 is switched OFF, the voltage of the connection point 47 rises and the current flows through the capacitor 65 and the diode 63”; see col. 11, lines 64-66 “since this current 205 is returned to the DC power supply 1, power loss is very small”).
Regarding claim 5, Kinbara discloses (see Fig. 12) wherein the load means is an inductive load (the series circuit of the DC reactor 7 and the load 8 constitutes an inductive load; see col. 10, lines 60-62 “the inductance of the DC reactor 7 is much larger than that of the inductor 46”); and the switching circuit further comprises a rectifier element (diode 5) for conducting a flywheel current (see col. 11, lines 57-60 “when the switching element 4 is switched OFF at 86, the diode 5 is switched ON to start a current”; see col. 1, lines 42-47 “a current which was flowing in a loop, consisting of the diode 5, the DC reactor 7 and the load 8”).
Regarding claim 7, Kinbara discloses (see Fig. 14 and Fig. 17) the switching circuit according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the load means is an inductive load (three-phase AC motor 96 of Fig. 17; see col. 14, lines 52-56 “half-bridge inverters 88, 89, 90 ... are connected with a three-phase AC motor 96 at respective connection points of inductors 74 and 75”); and the switching circuit further comprises a switching device (switching element 73) for conducting a flywheel current (see col. 13, lines 41-46 “when the switching element 72 is switched OFF at 86, and at the same time, the switching element 73 is switched ON ... its current increases at an increase ratio determined by the inductor 75”).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, Kinbara discloses (see Fig. 14 and Fig. 17) wherein the inductor is divided into two parts (inductors 74 and 75), one end of the inductive load is connected to a divided connection point (the load 8 is connected to the connection point 69 of the inductors 75 and 74; see col. 12, lines 34-39 “the load 8 is connected to a connection point 69 of the inductors 75 and 74”), and an other end of the inductive load is connected to a power source or ground (see col. 12, lines 39-43 “the other end of the load 8 is connected to a connection point 71 of a series circuit of capacitors 66 and 67 connected between the power supply terminals 2 and 3”; Examiner’s Note: the claim does not preclude connection to the power source through intervening elements such as the capacitors 66 and 67); one end of the rectifier element (i.e., the switching device 73) is connected in series to the inductor divided into two parts (the switching element 73 is connected at connection point 70 in series with the series circuit of the inductors 75 and 74), and an other end of the rectifier element is connected to the power source or ground (see col. 12, lines 32-35 “a switching element 73 as a second switching element is connected to the power supply terminal 3”).
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinbara in view of Seger (US Patent Application Publication US 2007/0194008 A1). Regarding claim 4, Kinbara discloses (see Fig. 12) wherein the switching means consists of a switching element (4) that is driven in one-sided switching mode only (the switching element 4 is the only driven switching element of the chopper circuitry of Fig. 12; see col. 12, lines 21-26 “the snubber circuit 62 provides a power converter allowing power control to be carried out by pulse width or other conventional control”).
Kinbara does not disclose wherein the load means is a resistive load.
However, Seger teaches (see Fig. 1) wherein the load means is a resistive load (resistive air heater 14) driven by a switching element in one-sided switching mode (see [0020] “heater control module 12 modulates power to a resistive air heater 14, the modulation can be a pulse width modulation ... power for air heater 14 can be provided by a battery 19”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the switching circuit of Kinbara such that the load means is a resistive load, as taught by Seger, because it can allow the switching circuit to modulate the electric power delivered to a resistive heating load to a desired amount of power dissipation (see [0009] of Seger “the control signal represents an amount of power that is desired to be dissipated by the resistive load”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinbara (the eleventh embodiment of Fig. 12) in view of Fig. 14 of Kinbara (the twelfth embodiment of Fig. 14). Regarding claim 6, Fig. 12 of Kinbara discloses (see Fig. 12) wherein one end of the rectifier element (5) is connected in series to the inductor (46) (the diode 5 is connected at the connection point 47 in series with the inductor 46; see col. 10, lines 23-25 “the inductor 46 as a first inductor connected between the switching element 4 and the diode 5”), an other end of the rectifier element is connected to the power source or ground (the diode 5 is connected to the power supply terminal 3; see Fig. 12), and an other end of the inductive load is connected to the power source or ground (the series circuit of the DC reactor 7 and the load 8 is connected to the power supply terminal 3; see Fig. 12).
Fig. 12 of Kinbara does not disclose wherein the inductor is divided into two parts, one end of the inductive load being connected to a divided connection point.
However, Fig. 14 of Kinbara teaches (see Fig. 14) wherein the inductor is divided into two parts (inductors 75 and 74), one end of the load being connected to a divided connection point (see col. 12, lines 34-39 “a series circuit of inductors 75 and 74 ... and the load 8 is connected to a connection point 69 of the inductors 75 and 74”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the switching circuit of Fig. 12 of Kinbara such that the inductor is divided into two parts with one end of the inductive load connected to the divided connection point, as taught by Fig. 14 of Kinbara, because it can suppress the current rise ratio in each current path by a respective part of the inductance and rapidly reduce the potential at switching (see col. 4, lines 25-31 of Kinbara “the first and the second inductors are inserted in series ... to suppress the current rise ratio of the first or second switching element and rapidly reduce the potential when one of said switching elements is switched ON”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US Patent 5,636,114 discloses a lossless snubber network for boost and buck power converters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYE-JUNE LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7726. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached on 5712721838. 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.
/JYE-JUNE LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/JEFFREY A GBLENDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights