DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed on June 24, 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.
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 06/24/2024 and 11/05/2025 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were filed on June 24, 2024. These drawings are accepted 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.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murai et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7, 148, 442).
In re claim 1, Murai discloses a circuit (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first bus reference voltage node (node connected to the upper terminal of voltage source E);
a second bus reference voltage node (node connected to the lower/reference terminal of voltage source E);
a switching element (switch SW1) coupled between the first bus reference voltage node and a third node (node connected to the emitter of switch SW1);
a first diode (D1) coupled between the third node and the second bus reference voltage node to enable current from the second bus reference voltage node to the third node;
at least one capacitive element (capacitor C) coupled between a fourth node (node connected to the upper termina of capacitor C) and the second bus reference voltage node;
an inductive element (inductor L) coupled between the third node and the fourth node; and
a second diode (D2) coupled between the fourth node and the first bus reference voltage node to enable current from the fourth node to the first bus reference voltage node.
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.
Claims 4-9, 11, 13 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murai et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7, 148, 442) in view of Magara (U.S. Pat. No. 5, 580, 469).
In re claim 4, Murai fails to disclose control circuitry coupled to the switching element to toggle activation of the switching element based at least in part on a sensed current through the inductive element.
Magara teaches (Fig. 8) a converter (100), wherein control circuitry (106) coupled to the switching element (101) to toggle activation of the switching element based at least in part on a sensed current through the inductive element (control circuitry 106 uses the inductor current sensed using current sensor 105 to turn on/off switch 101, Col. 7, lines 14-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Murai to include control circuitry coupled to the switching element to toggle activation of the switching element based at least in part on a sensed current through the inductive element as disclosed in Magara to provide an electrical discharge machine which consistently ensures optimum finishing in response to the changes in electrode area and machining conditions (Col. 3, lines 8-11).
In re claim 5, Murai fails to disclose wherein the control circuitry toggles activation of the switching element at a variable switching frequency that is less than a maximum frequency of the switching element.
Magara teaches (Fig. 8) a converter (100), wherein the control circuitry (106) toggles activation of the switching element (101) at a variable switching frequency that is less than a maximum frequency of the switching element (Col. 7, lines 14-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Murai wherein the control circuitry toggles activation of the switching element at a variable switching frequency that is less than a maximum frequency of the switching element as disclosed in Magara to provide an electrical discharge machine which consistently ensures optimum finishing in response to the changes in electrode area and machining conditions (Col. 3, lines 8-11).
In re claim 6, Murai fails to disclose wherein the control circuitry dynamically increases a duty cycle associated with the activation of the switching element based at least in part on the sensed current through the inductive element.
Magara teaches (Fig. 8) a converter (100), wherein the control circuitry (106) dynamically increases a duty cycle associated with the activation of the switching element based at least in part on the sensed current through the inductive element (Col. 7, lines 14-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Murai wherein the control circuitry dynamically increases a duty cycle associated with the activation of the switching element based at least in part on the sensed current through the inductive element as disclosed in Magara to provide an electrical discharge machine which consistently ensures optimum finishing in response to the changes in electrode area and machining conditions (Col. 3, lines 8-11).
In re claim 7, Murai fails to disclose wherein the control circuitry deactivates the switching element when the sensed current through the inductive element is greater than a threshold.
Magara teaches (Fig. 8) a converter (100), wherein the control circuitry deactivates the switching element when the sensed current through the inductive element is greater than a threshold (Col. 7, lines 14-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Murai wherein the control circuitry deactivates the switching element when the sensed current through the inductive element is greater than a threshold as disclosed in Magara to provide an electrical discharge machine which consistently ensures optimum finishing in response to the changes in electrode area and machining conditions (Col. 3, lines 8-11).
In re claim 8, Murai fails to disclose wherein the threshold is less than a saturation current of the inductive element.
Magara teaches (Fig. 8) a converter (100), wherein the threshold is less than a saturation current of the inductive element (Col. 7, lines 14-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Murai wherein the threshold is less than a saturation current of the inductive element as disclosed in Magara to provide an electrical discharge machine which consistently ensures optimum finishing in response to the changes in electrode area and machining conditions (Col. 3, lines 8-11).
In re claim 9, Murai fails to disclose wherein the control circuitry reactivates the switching element when the sensed current through the inductive element is less than a second threshold.
Magara teaches (Fig. 8) a converter (100), wherein the control circuitry reactivates the switching element when the sensed current through the inductive element is less than a second threshold (Col. 7, lines 14-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Murai wherein the control circuitry reactivates the switching element when the sensed current through the inductive element is less than a second threshold as disclosed in Magara to provide an electrical discharge machine which consistently ensures optimum finishing in response to the changes in electrode area and machining conditions (Col. 3, lines 8-11).
In re claim 11, Murai discloses (Fig. 1) a line replaceable unit (LRU) comprising:
an input interface comprising a first reference voltage node (node connected to the upper terminal of voltage source E) and a second reference voltage node (node connected to the reference terminal of voltage source E);
a switching element (switch SW1) coupled between the first reference voltage node and a third node (node connected to the emitter of switch SW1);
a first diode (D1) coupled between the third node and the second reference voltage node to enable current from the second reference voltage node to the third node;
at least one capacitive element (capacitor C) coupled between a fourth node (node connected to the upper terminal of capacitor C) and the second reference voltage node;
an inductive element (inductor L) coupled between the third node and the fourth node;
a second diode (D2) coupled between the fourth node and the first reference voltage node to enable current from the fourth node to the first reference voltage node
Murai fails to disclose control circuitry coupled to the switching element to deactivate the switching element based at least in part on a current through the inductive element.
Magara teaches (Fig. 8) a converter (100), wherein control circuitry (106) coupled to the switching element (101) to deactivate the switching element based at least in part on a current through the inductive element (control circuitry 106 uses the inductor current sensed using current sensor 105 to turn on/off switch 101 Col. 7, lines 14-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Murai wherein control circuitry coupled to the switching element to deactivate the switching element based at least in part on a current through the inductive element as disclosed in Magara to provide an electrical discharge machine which consistently ensures optimum finishing in response to the changes in electrode area and machining conditions (Col. 3, lines 8-11).
In re claim 13, Murai discloses wherein the switching element, the first diode and the inductive element are configured as a buck converter (See Fig. 1).
In re claim 18, Murai fails to disclose wherein the control circuitry reactivates the switching element with a variable switching frequency less than or equal to a maximum switching frequency of the switching element.
Magara teaches (Fig. 8) a converter (100), wherein the control circuitry (106) reactivates the switching element (101) with a variable switching frequency less than or equal to a maximum switching frequency of the switching element (Col. 7, lines 14-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Murai wherein the control circuitry reactivates the switching element with a variable switching frequency less than or equal to a maximum switching frequency of the switching element as disclosed in Magara to provide an electrical discharge machine which consistently ensures optimum finishing in response to the changes in electrode area and machining conditions (Col. 3, lines 8-11).
In re claim 19, Murai fails to disclose wherein the control circuitry associated with activation of the switching element based at least in part on the current through the inductive element.
Magara teaches (Fig. 8) a converter (100), wherein the control circuitry (106) associated with activation of the switching element based at least in part on the current through the inductive element (Col. 7, lines 14-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Murai wherein the control circuitry associated with activation of the switching element based at least in part on the current through the inductive element as disclosed in Magara to provide an electrical discharge machine which consistently ensures optimum finishing in response to the changes in electrode area and machining conditions (Col. 3, lines 8-11).
In re claim 20, Murai fails to disclose wherein the control circuitry automatically deactivates the switching element when the current through the inductive element is greater than a threshold.
Magara teaches (Fig. 8) a converter (100), wherein the control circuitry (106) automatically deactivates the switching element (101) when the current through the inductive element is greater than a threshold (Col. 7, lines 14-65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Murai wherein the control circuitry automatically deactivates the switching element when the current through the inductive element is greater than a threshold as disclosed in Magara to provide an electrical discharge machine which consistently ensures optimum finishing in response to the changes in electrode area and machining conditions (Col. 3, lines 8-11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 10, 12 and 14-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding to claim 2, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest “a snubber coupled between the first bus reference voltage node and the fourth node electrically in series with the second diode” in combination with other limitations of the claim. Claim 3 depends directly from claim 2 and is, therefore, also objected at least for the reasons set above.
Regarding to claim 10, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest “a power inverter coupled between the fourth node and the second bus reference voltage node” in combination with other limitations of the claim.
Regarding to claim 12, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest “a power inverter coupled between the fourth node and the second reference voltage node” in combination with other limitations of the claim.
Regarding to claim 14, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest “wherein the second diode, the inductive element and the at least one capacitive element are configured as an electromagnetic interference filtering stage” in combination with other limitations of the claim. Claim 15 depends directly from claim 14 and is, therefore, also objected at least for the reasons set above.
Regarding to claim 16, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest “a snubber coupled between the fourth node and the first reference voltage node electrically in series with the second diode” in combination with other limitations of the claim. Claim 17 depends directly from claim 16 and is, therefore, also objected at least for the reasons set above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL O. DE LEON DOMENECH whose telephone number is (571)270-0517. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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 (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 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.
/RAFAEL O DE LEON DOMENECH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838