DETAILED ACTION
This action is in regards to the application filed on 6/27/2024.
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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazucha et al. (US Patent 6838863) in view of Ferrel et al. (US Patent 9340114). Regarding claim 1, Hazucha et al. discloses (see fig. 3B) an HSC voltage conversion module comprising: an input voltage (Vin); a transformer (autotransformer with windings 52/56) without a primary winding (there is no primary winding with autotransformer comprising 52/56) and including secondary windings magnetically coupled by a magnetic core (52/56); first and second switch bridges (50 and 58) connected to the transformer and to the input voltage (connection of 50 and 58 to the autotransformer and Vin); and an output capacitor (60) that is connected to a single node of the transformer (60 connection to autotransformer) and provides an output voltage (output from 60). Hazucha et al. does not disclose an output voltage that is one quarter of the input voltage. Ferrel et al. (see fig. 2) discloses an output voltage that is one quarter of the input voltage (see column 6 lines 42-52 which states “The duty cycle of the on-and-off switching for connecting and disconnecting inductor 122 to and from power supply 116 defines the relationship between the input voltage from power supply 116 and the output voltage of buck converter 112. For instance, a duty cycle of 25% results in the output voltage being one quarter of the input voltage. As an example, if the input voltage were forty volts (40V) then the output voltage would be ten volts (10V)”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Ferrel et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 5, Hazucha et al. discloses (see fig. 3B) that the secondary windings of the transformer include first and second windings (52 and 56).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazucha et al. (US Patent 6838863) in view of Rizzolatti et al. (US Patent 11705810) and Ferrel et al. (US Patent 9340114). Regarding claim 2, Hazucha et al. does not disclose a first resonant circuit connected between the first switch bridge and the transformer; and a second resonant circuit connected between the second switch bridge and the transformer. Rizzolatti et al. discloses (see fig. 3) a first resonant circuit (Cres1) connected between a first switch bridge and a transformer (see connection of Cres1); and a second resonant circuit (Cres2) connected between a second switch bridge and the transformer (see connection of Cres2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Rizzolatti et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 3, Hazuha et al. does not disclose that the first resonant circuit includes a first resonant capacitor; the second resonant circuit includes a second resonant capacitor; and the first and the second resonant circuits rely on a leakage inductance of the transformer. Rizzolatti et al. discloses (see fig. 3) that the first resonant circuit includes a first resonant capacitor (Cres1); the second resonant circuit includes a second resonant capacitor (Cres2); and the first and the second resonant circuits rely on a leakage inductance of the transformer (operation of Cres1 and Cres2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Rizzolatti et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 4, Hazucha et al. does not disclose that each of the first and second switch bridges includes first, second, and third switches connected in series. Rizzolatti et al. discloses (see fig. 3) that each first and second switch bridges includes first, second, and third switches connected in series (see series connections of Q1-Q3 and Q4-Q6). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Rizzolatti et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 7, Hazucha et al. discloses (see fig. 3B) a converter comprising: an input terminal (Vin terminal) that receives an input voltage (Vin); a first switch bridge (50) connected in parallel across the input voltage (50 parallel connection to Vin terminal) a second switch bridge (58); an output capacitor (60); a transformer (52/56) including: a single winding that includes first and second secondary windings (52 and 56) that are physically connected to each other to define a secondary winding group (see connection of 52 and 56) and that are magnetically coupled by a magnetic core (see connection of 52 and 56); and a single tap connected to the output capacitor (60 connection to 52/56); and an output terminal (Vout terminal) connected to the first output capacitor (Vout terminal connection to 60). Hazucha et al. does not disclose that the first bridge includes: first, second, and third switches connected in series; a first node between the first and the second switches; and a third node between the second and third switches; the second bridge includes: fourth, fifth, and sixth switches connected in series; a second node between the fourth and the fifth switches; and a fourth node between the fifth and sixth switches; a first resonant circuit connected between the first node and a first end of the single winding; a second resonant circuit connected between the second node and a second end of the single winding opposite to the first end of the single winding; and the output terminal providing a first output voltage that is one quarter of the input voltage. Rizzolatti et al. discloses (see fig. 3) a first bridge includes: first (Q1), second (Q2), and third (Q3) switches connected in series (see series connection); a first node between the first and the second switches (node between Q1 and Q2); and a third node between the second and third switches (node between Q2 and Q3); the second bridge includes: fourth (Q4), fifth (Q5), and sixth (Q6) switches connected in series (see series connection); a second node between the fourth and the fifth switches (node between Q4 and Q5); and a fourth node between the fifth and sixth switches (node between Q5 and Q6); a first resonant circuit (Cres1) connected between the first node and a first end of a single winding (see connection of Cres1); a second resonant circuit (Cres2) connected between the second node and a second end of the single winding opposite to the first end of the single winding (see connection of Cres2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Rizzolatti et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies. Ferrel et al. (see fig. 2) discloses an output terminal (output terminal connected to load) providing a first output voltage that is one quarter of the input voltage (see column 6 lines 42-52 which states “The duty cycle of the on-and-off switching for connecting and disconnecting inductor 122 to and from power supply 116 defines the relationship between the input voltage from power supply 116 and the output voltage of buck converter 112. For instance, a duty cycle of 25% results in the output voltage being one quarter of the input voltage. As an example, if the input voltage were forty volts (40V) then the output voltage would be ten volts (10V)”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Ferrel et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 8, Hazucha et al. does not disclose that the first resonant circuit includes a first resonant capacitor; the second resonant circuit includes a second resonant capacitor; and the first and the second resonant circuits rely on a leakage inductance of the transformer. Rizzolatti et al. discloses (see fig. 3) that the first resonant circuit includes a first resonant capacitor (Cres1); the second resonant circuit includes a second resonant capacitor (Cres2); and the first and the second resonant circuits rely on a leakage inductance of the transformer (operation of Cres1 and Cres2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Rizzolatti et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazucha et al. (US Patent 6838863) in view of Ferrel et al. (US Patent 9340114) and Mueller (US 2013/0336013). Regarding claim 6, Hazucha et al. does not disclose that the HSC voltage conversion module is bidirectional.. Mueller discloses (see fig. ) that a conversion module can be bidirectional (See paragraph 0028). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Mueller et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazucha et al. (US Patent 6838863) in view of Rizzolatti et al. (US Patent 11705810), Ferrel et al. (US Patent 9340114) and Mueller (US 2013/0336013). Regarding claim 9, Hazucha et al. does not disclose that the converter is bidirectional such that power can flow from the input terminal to the output terminal and from the output terminal to the input terminal. Mueller discloses (see fig. ) that a converter can be bidirectional such that power can flow from the input terminal to the output terminal and from the output terminal to the input terminal (See paragraph 0028). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Mueller et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Barrett et al. (US Patent 6469476) discloses a multi-mode converter for a motor vehicle electrical system. Ren et al. (US Patent 7254047) discloses a power converter having an output capacitor and an autotransformer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A GBLENDE whose telephone number is (571)270-5472. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/JEFFREY A GBLENDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights