DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 7/10/2024 and 12/16/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-7 and 10-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites drawing parameters in paratheses. Recitation in paratheses are ignored. In addition, drawing schematics or drawing parameters are not proper claim limitations.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the switch element" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant claimed four, which one is the applicant trying to reference?
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the diode" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant claimed two diode in series, which one is the applicant trying to reference?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the switch elements" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant claimed four, which one is the applicant trying to reference?
Claim 6 recites drawing parameters in paratheses. Recitation in paratheses are ignored. In addition, drawing schematics or drawing parameters are not proper claim limitations.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the switch element" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant claimed four, which one is the applicant trying to reference?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites drawing parameters in paratheses. Recitation in paratheses are ignored. In addition, drawing schematics or drawing parameters are not proper claim limitations.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the switch element" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant claimed four, which one is the applicant trying to reference?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the switch elements" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant claimed four, which one is the applicant trying to reference?
All dependent claims inherit from the respective dependency.
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.
Claims 3-5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the half bridge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which half bridge the applicant is referring to? From claim 1 or claim 2?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the half bridge" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which half bridge the applicant is referring to? From claim 8 or claim 9?
The applicant would be well advised to thoroughly review each and every claim in order to find any and all remaining errors and to ensure compliance with U.S. standards of proper claim construction and antecedent basis.
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.
(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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Huber et al. (“Volume/Weight/Cost Comparison of a 1 MVA 10k/400 V Solid-State against a conventional Low-Frequency Distribution Transformer” – IDS).
Claim 1; Huber et al., figure 3, disclose a power semiconductor transformer module (see figure 24) comprising: an AC-DC active front end (AFE) rectifier (see the full bridge NPC AFE on the left side of the figure) configured to convert low-frequency and high- voltage AC into DC; and a dual active bridge (DAB) converter (see the DAM converter connected to the AFE) connected to the AFE rectifier to perform DC-to-DC conversion, wherein the AFE rectifier includes: a half bridge (see the NPC inverter on the primary side of the DAB) which has three levels and converts the DC converted by the AFE rectifier into high-frequency AC; a transformation portion (see the voltage transformer) in which a primary side receives the converted high-frequency AC, and a secondary side transforms the received high-frequency AC into low-voltage AC; and a bridge which has two levels and converts the low-voltage AC into DC; a full bridge which has two levels (see the two level full bridge on the secondary side of the DAB) and converts the low-voltage AC into DC.
Claim 2; the DAB converter includes: a half bridge (connected to the primary) which has three levels and converts the DC converted by the AFE rectifier into high-frequency AC; a transformation portion (MF transformer) in which a primary side receives the converted high-frequency AC, and a secondary side transforms the received high-frequency AC into low-voltage AC; and a full bridge (AC to DC output bridge on the secondary) which has two levels and converts the low-voltage AC into DC.
Claim 3 is clearly illustrated in figure 3.
Claim 4 is conventional operation of a multilevel half bridge inverter.
Claim 5; the half bridge is repeatedly controlled as claimed in conventional operation to produce the desired voltages.
Claim 6 the full bridge is connected as claimed; see figure 3.
Claim 7; conventional operation of a multilevel full bridge inverter.
Claim 8; Huber et al. disclose, figure 1, a power semiconductor transformer comprising a plurality of semiconductor transformer modules connected in series with each other with respect to an AC power source, wherein each semiconductor transformer module includes: an AC-DC active front end (AFE) rectifier (see the full bridge NPC AFE on the left side of the figure) configured to convert low-frequency and high- voltage AC into DC; and a dual active bridge (DAB) converter (see the DAM converter connected to the AFE) connected to the AFE rectifier to perform DC-to-DC conversion, wherein the AFE rectifier includes: a half bridge (see the NPC inverter on the primary side of the DAB) which has three levels and converts the DC converted by the AFE rectifier into high-frequency AC; a transformation portion (see the voltage transformer) in which a primary side receives the converted high-frequency AC, and a secondary side transforms the received high-frequency AC into low-voltage AC; and a bridge which has two levels, a full bridge which has two levels (see the two level full bridge on the secondary side of the DAB) and converts the low-voltage AC into DC.
Claim 9; the DAB converter includes: a half bridge (connected to the primary) which has three levels and converts the DC converted by the AFE rectifier into high-frequency AC; a transformation portion (MF transformer) in which a primary side receives the converted high-frequency AC, and a secondary side transforms the received high-frequency AC into low-voltage AC; and a full bridge (AC to DC output bridge on the secondary) which has two levels and converts the low-voltage AC into DC.
Claim 10 is clearly illustrated in figure 3.
Claim 11 is conventional operation of a multilevel half bridge inverter.
Claim 12; the half bridge is repeatedly controlled as claimed in conventional operation to produce the desired voltages.
Claim 13 the full bridge is connected as claimed; see figure 3.
Claim 14; conventional operation of a multilevel full bridge inverter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230006540 Wang et al. disclose a power conversion device; US 20220311330 discloses a power factor correction and a power conversion device; US 10673343 Tong et al. disclose a three level dual active full bridge converter and control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY L LAXTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2079. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 am-4 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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 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 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.
/GARY L LAXTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 2/19/2026