DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to the application filed on 6/12/24.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1, 3, 10-11, are 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 14-15 recite “the resonant swing time by means” should be replaced with “the resonant swing time duration by means”.
Claim 3 recites “the control value” should be replaced with “the control values”.
Claims 10, 11, and 15 recite “same reference value” should be replaced with “a same reference value”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102()() as being anticipated by Hattori et al. (US 20100254172).
Regarding claim 1: Hattori et al. disclose a power converter system (i.e. figures 1 and 6), comprising an auxiliary resonant commutated pole (ARCP) converter leg (i.e. leg of 3), particularly an ARCP half-bridge (i.e. Tr1, Tr2), a resonant swing time controller (i.e. controller of 4 and figure 6) for the ARCP converter leg (i.e. leg of 3), the resonant swing time controller (i.e. controller of 4 and figure 6) being configured to control a resonant swing time duration (i.e. duration from 407, 406 and/or 401) of ARCP commutations to a reference value (i.e. value from 402) of the resonant swing time (i.e. duration from 407, 406 and/or 401) by means of a closed loop feedback (i.e. loop feedback circuit that provide signal to comparator 407) of an actual resonant swing time duration (i.e. duration from 409) (i.e. ¶ 133-139).
Regarding claim 2: (i.e. figures 1 and 6) wherein the resonant swing time controller (i.e. controller of 4 and figure 6) is, configured to provide, based on an error (i.e. output of 407) between the actual resonant swing time duration (i.e. duration from 409) and the reference value (i.e. value from 402), control values (i.e. value of 401 and/or 406) to adjust a turn-on instant (i.e. turn on by 406, 401) of at least one auxiliary switching device (i.e. Tr1, Tr2) of the ARCP converter leg (i.e. leg of 3) earlier or later in time so that resonant swing time duration (i.e. duration from 407, 406 and/or 401) of ARCP commutations is controlled towards the reference value (i.e. value from 402) (i.e. ¶ 133-139).
Regarding claim 3: (i.e. figures 1 and 6) wherein the resonant swing time controller (i.e. controller of 4 and figure 6) is configured to form an integral (i.e. by 406) of the error (i.e. output of 407) to provide the control value (i.e. value of 401 and/or 406) (i.e. ¶ 133-139).
Regarding claim 5: (i.e. figures 1 and 6) the resonant swing time controller (i.e. controller of 4 and figure 6) is configured to adjust a turn-on instant (i.e. from 401) of at least one auxiliary switching device (i.e. Tr1, Tr2) of the ARCP converter leg (i.e. leg of 3) earlier or later relative to a nominal turn-on instant (i.e. provided by 410 and/or 409) of the at least one auxiliary switching device (i.e. Tr1, Tr2) (i.e. ¶ 133-139).
Regarding claim 7: (i.e. figures 1 and 6) wherein the resonant swing time controller is configured to measure (i.e. by 412) the actual resonant swing time duration (i.e. duration from 409) from switching instants of main switching devices (i.e. Tr1, Tr2) of the ARCP converter leg (i.e. leg of 3) in ARCP Mode A commutations (i.e. any operation mode of figure 6), preferably from gating signals (i.e. PWM signals) of the main switching devices (i.e. ¶ 133-139).
Regarding claim 10: (i.e. figures 1 and 6) a plurality of ARCP converter legs (i.e. legs include TR1-TR4) and a plurality of resonant swing time controllers (i.e. 41, 42), one for each ARCP converter leg (i.e. legs includes TR1-TR4), and wherein the resonant swing time controllers (i.e. 41, 42) control the resonant swing time duration (i.e. duration from 407, 406 and/or 401) towards essentially same reference value (i.e. value from 402) in all ARCP converter legs (i.e. legs includes TR1-TR4) of the converter system (i.e. ¶ 133-139).
Regarding claim 11: (i.e. figures 1 and 6) comprising a plurality of ARCP converter legs (i.e. legs include TR1-TR4) connected in parallel between a common system and a common ac system or two common dc systems (i.e. VDC input or AC system output), wherein commutations of the parallel-connected ARCP converter legs (i.e. legs include TR1-TR4) are initiated by simultaneous commutation commands (i.e. commands from 4), a plurality of resonant swing time controllers (i.e. 41, 42), one for each parallel-connected ARCP converter leg (i.e. legs includes TR1-TR4), and wherein the resonant swing time controllers (i.e. 41, 42) control the resonant swing time duration (i.e. duration from 407, 406 and/or 401) towards essentially the same reference value (i.e. value from 402) in all parallel-connected ARCP converter legs (i.e. legs include TR1-TR4) of the converter system (i.e. ¶ 133-139).
Regarding claim 14: (i.e. figures 1 and 6) a power converter system, comprising
an auxiliary resonant commutated pole (ARCP) converter leg (i.e. leg of 3), particularly an ARCP half-bridge (i.e. Tr1, Tr2),
a resonant swing time controller (i.e. controller of 4 and figure 6) for the ARCP converter leg, the resonant swing time controller (i.e. controller of 4 and figure 6) being configured to control a resonant swing time duration (i.e. duration from 407, 406 and/or 401) of ARCP commutations to a reference value (i.e. value from 402) of the resonant swing time (i.e. duration from 407, 406 and/or 401) by means of a closed loop feedback (i.e. loop feedback circuit that provide signal to comparator 407) of an actual resonant swing time duration (i.e. duration from 409) (i.e. ¶ 133-139), and
wherein the resonant swing time controller (i.e. controller of 4 and figure 6) is, configured to provide, based on an error (i.e. output of 407) between the actual resonant swing time duration (i.e. duration from 409) and the reference value (i.e. value from 402), control values (i.e. value of 401 and/or 406) to adjust a turn-on instant (i.e. turn on by 406, 401) of at least one auxiliary switching device (i.e. Tr1, Tr2) of the ARCP converter leg (i.e. leg of 3) earlier or later in time so that resonant swing time duration (i.e. duration from 407, 406 and/or 401) of ARCP commutations is controlled towards the reference value (i.e. value from 402) (i.e. ¶ 133-139).
Regarding claim 15: (i.e. figures 1 and 6) a power converter system, comprising
a plurality of auxiliary resonant commutated pole (ARCP) converter legs (i.e. legs include TR1-TR4), particularly ARCP half-bridges (i.e. bridge TR1, TR2, and TR3, TR4),
a plurality of resonant swing time controllers (i.e. 41, 42), one for each of the plurality of the ARCP converter legs (i.e. legs include TR1-TR4), each resonant swing time controller (i.e. 41, 42) being configured to control a resonant swing time duration (i.e. duration from 407, 406 and/or 401) of ARCP commutations to a reference value (i.e. value from 402) of the resonant swing time (i.e. duration from 407, 406 and/or 401) by means of a closed loop feedback (i.e. loop feedback circuit that provide signal to comparator 407) of an actual resonant swing time duration (i.e. duration from 409) (i.e. ¶ 133-139) of the respective ARCP converter leg (i.e. legs include TR1-TR4), and
wherein the resonant swing time controllers (i.e. 41, 42) are configured to control the resonant swing time duration (i.e. duration from 407, 406 and/or 401) towards essentially same reference value (i.e. value from 402) in all of the plurality of ARCP converter legs (i.e. legs include TR1-TR4) (i.e. ¶ 133-139).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (US 20100254172) in view of Ali et al. (US 20190288595).
Regarding claim 12: Hattori et al. disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose the power converter system comprises two or more ARCP converters, each of the ARCP converters comprising one or more ARCP converter legs, wherein the parallel-connected ARCP converter legs are the corresponding ARPC converter legs of the two or more converters connected in parallel.
Ali et al. disclose the power converter system (i.e. figures 1-2) comprises two or more ARCP converters (i.e. 102, 104, 106, 108), each of the ARCP converters comprising one or more ARCP converter legs (i.e. legs of 102-108), wherein the parallel-connected ARCP converter legs (i.e. legs of 102-108) are the corresponding ARPC converter legs of the two or more converters (i.e. 102, 104, 106, 108) connected in parallel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Hattori et al.’s invention with the system as disclose by Ali et al. for reducing a high frequency circulating harmonic current flowing between a plurality of converters of the power system.
8. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (US 20100254172) in view of Tabrizi (Influence of DC supply voltage unbalances on the performance of ARCP inverters, cited in the IDS filed on 6/12/24).
Regarding claim 13: Hattori et al. disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose each of said ARCP converter legs comprises: a series connection of at least two main switching devices between a positive dc-link potential and a negative dc-link potential to alternatively connect the positive and negative dc-link potential to a converter leg output, and a series connection of a resonant inductance and at least one bi-directional auxiliary switch between said converter leg output and a dc-link neutral point.
Tabrizi discloses a conversion system comprising each of said ARCP converter legs comprises: a series connection of at least two main switching devices (i.e. T1, T2) between a positive dc-link potential (i.e. +) and a negative dc-link potential (i.e. -) to alternatively connect the positive (i.e. +) and negative dc-link potential (i.e. -) to a converter leg output (i.e. output of T1, T2), and a series connection of a resonant inductance (i.e. Lr) and at least one bi-directional auxiliary switch (i.e. Tr1, Tr2) between said converter leg output (i.e. output of T1, T2) and a dc-link neutral point (i.e. point between T1, T2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Hattori et al.’s invention with *** as disclose by Tabrizi to ensures soft switching with minimized losses over a wide DC input voltage range.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 4, 6, and 8-9 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.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1269. The examiner can normally be reached Flex: M-F 8-7.
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.
/Nguyen Tran/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838