DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Application filed on 05/30/2024.
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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/30/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 13, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by AU2020103761 A4; (hereinafter Satyanarayana), cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 13, Satyanarayana [e.g. Fig. 1] discloses a common power converter comprising a plurality of power converters, the plurality of power converters including a plurality of power converters of a first type [e.g. SRC3 Submodule 1 – SRC3 Submodule NSRC] and a plurality of power converters of a second type [e.g. DAB3 Submodule 1 – DAB3 Submodule NDAB], wherein: the plurality of power converters is divided into power converter groups [e.g. SRC3 Submodule NSRC, DAB3 Submodule 1 and SRC3 Submodule 1, DAB3 Submodule NDAB], each of the power converter groups include at least one power converter of the first type and at least one second power converters of the second type [e.g. SRC3 Submodule NSRC, DAB3 Submodule 1], the at least one power converter of the first type of a power converter group has an input terminal and an output terminal being respectively coupled to an input terminal and an output terminal of the at least one power converter of the second type of said power converter group in series [e.g. output of SRC3 Submodule NSRC to input of DAB3 Submodule 1 are connected in series directly], and the power converter groups have input terminals being coupled to each other in series, and have output terminals being coupled to each other in parallel [e.g. as shown in Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 15, Satyanarayana [e.g. Fig. 1] discloses wherein the at least one power converter of the first type or the second type comprises or is any one of a dual active bridge converter (DAB) [e.g. DAB3], a half bridge converter, a full bridge converter, a matrix converter, a neutral point clamped converter, a flying capacitor converter, a cascaded H-bridge converter, a modular multilevel converter, or an LLC resonant converter.
Regarding claim 18, Satyanarayana [e.g. Fig. 1] discloses wherein the at least one power converter of the first type is configured to output a power different from the at least one power converter of the second type [e.g. In page 7, second bullet states “A dominant part of the total power can be transferred by the SRC3 sub modules which are in majority, in an efficient and unregulated way”].
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.
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(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satyanarayanain view of US Pub. No. 2023/0361571; (hereinafter Freijedo).
Regarding claim 14, Satyanarayana fails to disclose wherein the common power converter comprises or is a solid-state transformer (SST).
Freijedo [e.g. Figs. 1 - 2] teaches wherein the common power converter [e.g. Fig. 1; 1] comprises or is a solid-state transformer (SST) [e.g. claim 16 recites “wherein the plurality of cells comprises a solid-state transformer (SST)”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Satyanarayana by wherein the common power converter comprises or is a solid-state transformer (SST) as taught by Freijedo in order of being able for use in application of data centers, paragraph 02.
Claim(s) 16 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satyanarayanain view of CN110266191 A; (hereinafter Xu), see English translation.
Regarding claim 16, Satyanarayana fails to disclose wherein the at least one power converter of the first type is configured to be operated at a constant gain.
Xu teaches wherein the at least one power converter of the first type is configured to be operated at a constant gain [e.g. paragraph 026 recites “The soft-switching bidirectional series resonant converter topology and its constant gain control method disclosed in this invention, under the control mode of the constant gain control method of this invention, the input-output voltage ratio of the converter is directly the transformer turns ratio, exhibiting a constant voltage gain characteristic that does not change with the load”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Satyanarayana by wherein the at least one power converter of the first type is configured to be operated at a constant gain as taught by Xu in order of being able to improve transmission efficiency and reliability of the converter.
Regarding claim 17, Satyanarayana fails to disclose wherein the constant gain is a constant voltage gain.
Xu teaches wherein the constant gain is a constant voltage gain [e.g. paragraph 026 recites “The soft-switching bidirectional series resonant converter topology and its constant gain control method disclosed in this invention, under the control mode of the constant gain control method of this invention, the input-output voltage ratio of the converter is directly the transformer turns ratio, exhibiting a constant voltage gain characteristic that does not change with the load”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Satyanarayana by wherein the constant gain is a constant voltage gain as taught by Xu in order of being able to improve transmission efficiency and reliability of the converter.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alex Torres-Rivera whose telephone number is (571)272-5261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 ET.
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 at (571) 272-1838. 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.
/ALEX TORRES-RIVERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838