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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of objection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The language of the applicant’s abstract is not proper.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same six switch assemblies" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which ones are the same?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each of the two outer switches" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Does the applicant mean each switch of the two switches or does the applicant mean each of the two outer switches for each of the six switch modules?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the switch bridge arm" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the applicant claiming only a single switch bridge arm or are there more than one for the entire circuit?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "one of the inner switches" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which inner switch of which inner switches of which switch module is the applicant referring to?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a second end the inner switch" in line 14 [sic[.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inner switch" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the switch component" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which one is the applicant referring to since it seems the applicant claimed more than one for the entire circuit?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the switch component comprised in each clamping switch" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the switch component comprised in each outer switch" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the switch component comprised in each inner switch" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inner switch" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Exactly which inner switch of the plurality of inner switches is the applicant referring to?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the switch bridge arm" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is there only a single bridge arm in the circuit or are there more than one being? Exactly which one is being referenced?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the capacitor lead out terminals" (plural) in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant only positively claimed ONE terminal. Which plural terminals is the applicant referring to?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the two switch bridge arms " in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-30 inherit the same from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the switch bridge arm arranged inside the ANPC" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the two inner switches" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the two switch bridge arms " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the two outer switches" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which outer switches of which switch module is the applicant referring to?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the clamping switches" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which clamping switches of which switch module is the applicant referring to?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "each outer switch" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Each outer switch of just the two or every single outer switch beyond the two for every module?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "each clamping switch" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Each clamping switch of just the two or every single clamping switch beyond the two for every module?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the two inner switches" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which inner switches of which switch module is the applicant referring to?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "each inner switch" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Each inner switch of just the two inner switches or every single inner switch beyond the two for every module?
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the same switch assembly" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the wide band gap devices in the same inner switch" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the IGBT" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the IGBT in the same outer switch" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the two power diodes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 said each switch comprises two diodes. That would make four diodes. So which two diodes out of at least four diodes are being referenced?
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the IGBT in the same outer switch" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the wide band gap devices in the same inner switch" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the switch component comprised in each inner switch" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the switch component comprised in each of the two outer switches" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the same inner switch" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the same inner switch" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "and he first" [sic] in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the vertical direction" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "each cell of the nine-grid" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What cell is the applicant referring to?
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. If assistance is needed in drafting proper claims please call and schedule an interview with the examiner.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "the switch component comprised in each of the two outer switches, the two clamping switches and the two inner switches is also connected to a power diode in parallel" in 4. This is vague and confusing. What is connected in parallel? Also, is the applicant claiming that the two outer switches alone have a switch component or is the applicant trying to claim a switch component in everything listed?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12-30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection(s) set forth in this Office action.
Claim 11 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 6/26/2026
Prosecution Insights