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 statement (IDS) submitted on 06/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (the specification appears to refer to figures 1 and 2 as conventional PWM inverters to comparatively illustrate the features of the actual inventive embodiment figure 3). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: specification dated 8/29/2024 page 10 line 24 states: “i.e. they they” [sic].
Appropriate correction is required.
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 Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the leg current in each" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the respective converter leg" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the value" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sensed current of the respective converter leg" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "each individual autonomous leg-specific switching instant adjustment" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 1 and 2 do not specifically recite having more than one.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the size" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "individual shift in time" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. One was claimed in line 2 and one was claimed in line 3 and now another in line 6.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the increasing value" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the decreasing value" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "each ARCP mode B commutation sequency" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "each ARCP mode A commutation sequence" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the size" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the increasing value" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the decreasing value" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "leg current-" [sic] in line 8.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the ARCP commutation sequence" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the main switching device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the main switching device that has been conducting" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the turn-on instance" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the turn-off instant" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a reference the turn-off instant" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This was already claimed in line 4.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the sensed leg current sample" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "all converter legs with equal nominal leg current ratings" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What legs with equal current ratings is the applicant referring to?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "different nominal leg current ratings" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 said they were equal.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the nominal leg current IN" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the main switching device that has been conducting" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the increasing value" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the decreasing value" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the main switching device that will start conducting" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "all converter legs with equal nominal leg current ratings" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What legs with equal current ratings is the applicant referring to?
Claim 13 recites the limitation "optional" in line 4. This limitation is not proper claim construction since the limitation(s) following the phrase “wherein optionally” are not positively claimed as part of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "different nominal leg current ratings" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 said they were equal.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the parallel-connected connector legs" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the nominal leg current IN" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the switching instants" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the power inverter system" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the corresponding" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the respective converter" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Ad nauseam…
Given the number and nature of errors in practically every claim, 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.
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 4-14 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "particularly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 6-10 inherit the same from claim 5.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "particularly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 12-14 inherit the same from claim 11.
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) 1-4, 11 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Kraus et al. (US 7068525 – IDS).
As the claim language is best understood, Claims 1 and 15-17; Kraus et al. disclose a power converter system (Figure 1), comprising two converter legs (Figure 1 converter legs 1 and 2) connected in parallel between a common dc system (Figure 1, common dc system comprising the terminals UD+ and UD-) and a common ac system (Figure 1, "OUTPUT"), wherein each of the converter legs comprises a first controllable main switching device (Figure 1, first controllable main switching devices T11 and T21) with a first antiparallel diode (Figure 1, first antiparallel diodes D11 and D14) and a second controllable switching device (Figure 1, second controllable main switching devices T14 and T24) with a second antiparallel diode (Figure 1, second antiparallel diodes D21 and D24) connected in series between a first DC voltage rail and a second DC voltage rail to alternatively connect the first and second dc-link rails to a converter leg output or input (Figure 1), wherein each parallel-connected converter leg comprises a mode A (shown in figure 2) of commutation wherein a leg current commutates from the first or second antiparallel diode to the second or first controllable main switching device (Figure 1, commutation between D14 and T14 or commutation between D11 and T11 since both diodes are freewheeling diodes. The same applies for the second converter 2), and a mode B (shown in figure 2) of commutation wherein the leg current commutates from the first or second controllable main switching device to the second or first antiparallel diode (Figure 1, commutation between T11 and D14 or commutation between T21 and D11 since both diodes are freewheeling diodes. The same applies for the second converter 2), wherein commutations of the parallel-connected converter legs are initiated by essentially simultaneous commutation commands (Figure 2, original gate trigger pulses), a control arrangement configured to sense the leg current in each of the parallel- connected inverter legs (Column 3, lines 41-64 discloses that the control of the converters is based on the currents I11 and I21. It is therefore implicit to consider sensing these currents), and wherein the control arrangement is configured to balance a current sharing between the parallel-connected inverter legs (in D1, the total current is distributed among a number of parallel- connected pulse-controlled inverters of the same output) by means of having an individual autonomous leg-specific switching (Column 2, lines 1-2 mentions that each converter can be regulated separately) instant adjustment for the main switches of each of the parallel-connected converter legs to shift the mode A commutation of the respective converter leg later in time and to shift the mode B commutation of the respective converter leg earlier in time (Figure 2, Column 3, lines 41-64 and column 4, lines 23-32) by a variable timestep proportional to the value of the sensed leg current of the respective converter leg (Figure 2, column 4, lines 23-32).
Claim 2; fig. 2.
Claims 3, 4 and 11, col. 4 lines 23-32 and fig. 2.
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, 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 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) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraus et al. in view of Delgado et al. (US 5892673).
Kraus et al. disclose the claimed subject matter in regards to claim 1 supra, except for the auxiliary resonant commutated pole converter legs and the auxiliary switching device.
Delgado et al. teach a high-density control circuit for an auxiliary resonant commutation pole (ARCP) circuit and includes a state machine sequencer for providing control and timing signals to achieve high-efficiency and fault-tolerant switching converter operation including an auxiliary switching device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Kraus et al. to include an auxiliary resonant commutated pole converter legs and the auxiliary switching device in order to provide a high-density control circuit for an auxiliary resonant commutation pole (ARCP) circuit including a sequencer for providing control and timing signals to achieve high-efficiency and fault-tolerant switching converter operation as taught by Delgado et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200036298 Starzinger et al. disclose an inverter and method for operating; US 20170373609 Perreault discloses a high frequency variable load inverter; US 20160211771 Ichihara discloses a power conversion system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 7-10; prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest, inter alia, the control arrangement is configured to delay both the turn-on instance of the at least one auxiliary switching device and the turn-off instant of the main switching device in the mode A commutation by a first variable timestep which increases with the increasing value of the sensed leg current and decreases with the decreasing value of the sensed leg current of the respective converter leg, and wherein the control arrangement is configured to delay both the turn-on instance of the at least one auxiliary switching device and the turn-off instant of the main switching device in the mode B commutation by a second variable timestep which decreases with the increasing value of the sensed leg current and increases with the decreasing value of the sensed leg current of the respective converter leg, thereby advancing the turn-off instant of the main switching device proportionally to the value of the sensed leg current.
Claims 12 and 14. prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest, inter alia, the first variable timestep decreases with the increasing value of the sensed leg current according to koff*|Io|, where Io is the value of the sensed leg current of the respective converter leg and kB is a constant, kB being equal for all converter legs with equal nominal leg current ratings, and wherein the second variable timestep increases with the increasing value of the sensed leg current according to kon*|Io|, where Io is the value of the sensed leg current of the respective converter leg, and kon is a constant, kon being equal for all converter legs with equal nominal leg current ratings.
Claim 13; prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest, inter alia, the first variable timestep is td,off = tc - koff|Io|, where tc is a constant time defining an adjustment range, and wherein the second variable timestep is td,on = tD + kon|Io|, where, tD is a constant turn-on delay to avoid simultaneously conducting main switch devices.
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 1/29/2026