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 filed on 6/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “Tan does not teach or suggest at least these features of amended claim 1. Tan does not teach or suggest using a "magnetic coupling system" as recited by amended claim 1: specifically, a first and second winding wrapped around a common core, with the first winding connected to the DC-DC converter, and a second winding connected to the switching power electronics. In contrast, Tan describes that the "voltage-balancing circuit is realized by connecting a resistor between the center tap of the ... transformer ... and the midpoint of the EDLC bank." Tan, 2760”.
However, Tan table 2 describes the transformer in Fig. 1 that is magnetically connecting the first and second side of the DC-DC converter. Switch SB in series with the RB resistor is connected to the tap “O” of the transformer.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., claim 1 remarks, “set of ultracapacitors that is integrated into the rectifier”, claim 15 remarks, “the set of ultracapacitors" is connected to "the second switching device.”, “part of the internal circuitry of the rectifier depicted in FIGS. 3A and 3B, rather than an external component,”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tan et. al. (2008). “Voltage Balancing of a 320-V, 12-F Electric Double-Layer Capacitor Bank Combined With a 10-kW Bidirectional Isolated DC–DC Converter”( IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 23, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 2008).
Regarding claim 1, Tan et. al. teaches a system comprising:
a set of ultracapacitors (e.g. Ved/EDLC bank)(Fig. 1)(Background page 2755 line 1, “The electric double-layer capacitor (EDLC), also known as the supercapacitor or the ultracapacitor”);
an input characterized by a first nominal voltage (e.g. CD1/VD1)(Fig. 1);
an output characterized by a second nominal voltage (e.g. CD2)(Fig. 1);
a direct current to direct current (DC-DC) converter (e.g. Bi-directional Isolated DC-DC converter)(Fig. 1) configured to convert power from the input at the first nominal voltage to power at the output at the second nominal voltage; and
switching power electronics (e.g. SB in Fig. 1 or Fig. 7) electrically connected to the set of ultracapacitors, wherein
the DC-DC converter includes a magnetic coupling system (e.g. 20kHz transformer)(Fig. 1) that electromagnetically couples a first side of the DC-DC converter (e.g. Bridge 1)(Fig. 1) to a second side of the DC-DC converter (e.g. Bridge 2)(Fig. 1),
the magnetic coupling system also electromagnetically couples the switching power electronics to the second side of the DC-DC converter (e.g. . SB in Fig. 1 or Fig. 7 is connected to secondary winding of the transformer)(Fig. 1),
the magnetic coupling system includes a first winding (e.g. left side of 20 kHz transformer)(Fig. 1) electrically connected to the first side of the DC-DC converter and a second winding (e.g. right side of 20 kHz transformer)(Fig. 1) electrically connected to the second side of the DC-DC converter,
the first winding and the second winding are wrapped around a core (e.g. table 2 core material)(Fig. 1), and
the second winding includes a tap (e.g. O or top/bottom of secondary winding going to bridge 2)(Fig. 1) electrically connected to the switching power electronics.
Regarding claim 5, Tan et. al. teaches wherein the first side of the DC-DC converter includes a switching device configured to convert the first nominal voltage into pulsating DC (e.g. Bridge 1)(Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Tan et. al. teaches wherein the switching device includes an H-bridge (e.g. Bridge1)(Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Tan et. al. teaches wherein the second side of the DC-DC converter includes a rectification device configured to convert pulsating DC into the second nominal voltage (e.g. Bridge 2)(Fig. 1)(Page 2761, A. Self-starting, lines 14-16, “Simultaneously, bridge 2 was operated as a diode rectifier by keeping all four IGBTs in bridge 2 turned off”).
Regarding claim 10, Tan et. al. teaches wherein the set of ultracapacitors includes a plurality of ultracapacitors connected in series and/or parallel. (Page 2755 B. Series connected EDLC cells lines 3-5 “In order to achieve a higher rated voltage and better voltage sharing, EDLC banks are made up of many EDLC cells that are connected in series and parallel”)(See fig. 1).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et. al. (2008). “Voltage Balancing of a 320-V, 12-F Electric Double-Layer Capacitor Bank Combined With a 10-kW Bidirectional Isolated DC–DC Converter”( IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 23, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 2008) in view of Pahlevaninezhad et. al. (U.S. Publication No 2023/0268129 A1).
Regarding claim 8, although Tan et. al. discloses the limitations in claim 1, Tan et. al. does not teach wherein the first nominal voltage is greater than 100 Volts; and the second nominal voltage is one of approximately 12 Volts and approximately 48 Volts.
However, Pahlevaninezhad et. al. teaches wherein the first nominal voltage is greater than 100 Volts; and the second nominal voltage is one of approximately 12 Volts and approximately 48 Volts. (Para [0023], “the converter 122DD is first designed using the above-described guidelines for a specific application, charging a 48 V battery from a 190 V DC grid”)(see Fig. 14F).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the “magnetic coupling system” teachings of Tan et. al. such that it comprises “wherein the first nominal voltage is greater than 100 Volts; and the second nominal voltage is one of approximately 12 Volts and approximately 48 Volts” as taught by Pahlevaninezhad et. al. The reason for doing so would be to provide power to lower voltage loads. 9.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et. al. (2008). “Voltage Balancing of a 320-V, 12-F Electric Double-Layer Capacitor Bank Combined With a 10-kW Bidirectional Isolated DC–DC Converter”( IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 23, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 2008) in view of Tao et. al (2010). “Multiport converters for hybrid power sources”( Power Electronics Specialists Conference, 2008. PESC 2008. IEEE, 20080615 IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA).
Regarding claim 9, although Tan et. al. discloses the limitations in claim 1, Tan et. al. does not teach wherein the switching power electronics include an H-bridge.
However, Tao et. al. teaches wherein the switching power electronics include an H-bridge (Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the “magnetic coupling system” teachings of Tan et. al. such that it comprises “wherein the switching power electronics include an H-bridge” as taught by Tao et. al. The reason for doing so would be it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a reduction in component variance, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et. al. (2008). “Voltage Balancing of a 320-V, 12-F Electric Double-Layer Capacitor Bank Combined With a 10-kW Bidirectional Isolated DC–DC Converter”( IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 23, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 2008) in view of Jang et. al. (U.S. Publication No 2009/0244944 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Tan et. al. teaches a rectifier system (e.g. Bridge 2/EDLC bank/CD2 )(Fig. 1) comprising: a set of ultracapacitors (e.g. Ved/EDLC bank)(Fig. 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
291
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
a first switching device including (Fig. 1) (i) a first terminal (e.g. top of 1st switch)(Fig. 1) connected to an internal node (e.g. node above 3rd switch)(Fig. 1) and (ii) a second terminal (e.g. bottom of 1st switch)(Fig. 1);
a second switching device (Fig. 1) connected between the internal node and the set of ultracapacitors (e.g. EDLC Bank)(Fig. 1);
a third switching device (Fig. 1) connected between the internal node and a reference terminal (e.g. node below 2nd switch)(Fig. 1);
a magnetic coupling system (e.g. 20kHz transformer)(Fig. 1) configured to electromagnetically couple an input to the second terminal of the first switching device and the reference terminal; wherein:
the output is a rectified version of the input (e.g. output of Bridge 2)(Page 2761, A. Self-starting, lines 14-16, “Simultaneously, bridge 2 was operated as a diode rectifier by keeping all four IGBTs in bridge 2 turned off”).,
the input is characterized by a first nominal voltage (e.g. CD1/VD1)(Fig. 1), and the output characterized by a second nominal voltage (e.g. CD2)(Fig. 1).
Tao et. al. does not teach and an inductive device connected between the internal node and an output.
However, Jang et. al. teaches an inductive device (e.g. Lf)(Fig. 12g) connected between the internal node (e.g. node between Lf and LL)(Fig. 12g) and an output (e.g. Vo)(Fig. 12g).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the “magnetic coupling system” teachings of Tan et. al. such that it comprises “an inductive device connected between the internal node and an output” as taught by Jang et. al. The reason for doing so would be to improve the low pass filter by including and inductor.
Regarding claim 16, Tan et. al. teaches a transformer (e.g. 20kHz transformer), a first winding of the transformer is connected to the input (e.g. Vd1)(Fig. 1), and a second winding of the transformer is connected between the second terminal of the first switching device (e.g. 1st switch) and the reference terminal e.g. node below 2nd switch.
Regarding claim 17, Tan et. al. teaches a fourth switching device (Fig. 2 below) connected across the output.
PNG
media_image2.png
291
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2
Regarding claim 18, Tan et. al. teaches the first switching device includes a transistor, the second switching device includes a transistor, the third switching device includes a transistor, and the fourth switching device includes a transistor (Page 2757, lines 1-4, “Fig. 1 also shows a lossless capacitor connected in parallel with each of the 600-V, 150-A trench-gate insulated-gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs) to reduce switching loss and damp out overvoltage”).
Regarding claim 20, Tan et. al. teaches wherein the set of ultracapacitors includes a plurality of ultracapacitors connected in parallel and/or series (e.g. EDLC bank)(Fig. 1).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et. al. (2008). “Voltage Balancing of a 320-V, 12-F Electric Double-Layer Capacitor Bank Combined With a 10-kW Bidirectional Isolated DC–DC Converter”( IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER ELECTRONICS, VOL. 23, NO. 6, NOVEMBER 2008) in view of Kajouke et. al. (U.S. Publication No 2012/0268078 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Tan et. al. discloses a set of ultracapacitors (e.g. Ved/EDLC bank)(Fig. 1)(Background page 2755 line 1, “The electric double-layer capacitor (EDLC), also known as the supercapacitor or the ultracapacitor”);
an input characterized by a first nominal voltage (e.g. CD1/VD1)(Fig. 1);
an output characterized by a second nominal voltage (e.g. CD2)(Fig. 1);
a direct current to direct current (DC-DC) converter (e.g. Bi-directional Isolated DC-DC converter)(Fig. 1) configured to convert power from the input at the first nominal voltage to power at the output at the second nominal voltage; and
switching power electronics (e.g. SB in Fig. 1 or Fig. 7) electrically connected to the set of ultracapacitors, wherein
the DC-DC converter includes a magnetic coupling system (e.g. 20kHz transformer)(Fig. 1) that electromagnetically couples a first side of the DC-DC converter (e.g. Bridge 1)(Fig. 1) to a second side of the DC-DC converter (e.g. Bridge 2)(Fig. 1),
the magnetic coupling system electromagnetically couples the switching power electronics to the second side of the DC-DC converter (e.g. SB in Fig. 1 or Fig. 7 is connected to secondary winding of the transformer)(Fig. 1),
the magnetic coupling system is configured such that energy associated with the set of ultracapacitors is exchanged with the second side of the DC-DC converter (Page 2762, B. Charge-discharge operations, lines 7-9, “The charge–discharge voltage waveform was observed to be linear. The energy transferred from the EDLCbank during this operation was 398 kJ”) through the magnetic coupling system during operation of the DC-DC converter,
the switching power electronics are configured to selectively (Page 2759, B. Voltage-Balancing Circuit Based on a switched resistor, lines 4-11, “The two voltage balancing circuits act to prevent overvoltage during charging of the EDLC bank from rest mode. Current iB is the current flow in RB1 when SB1 is turned on. When both switches SB1 and SB2 are turned off, iED flows to charge the EDLC bank. When the positive subbank is detected to have reached its rated voltage ahead of the negative subbank, SB1 is turned on to prevent the positive subbank from experiencing an overvoltage. The subbank discharge current is denoted as iC”) transfer energy between the set of ultracapacitors (e.g. SB in Fig. 1 or Fig. 7 is connected to secondary winding of the transformer)(Fig. 1) and the second side of the DC-DC converter via the magnetic coupling system without a separate DC-DC converter (Fig. 1) dedicated to the set of ultracapacitors.
Tan et. al. does not specifically disclose the operation of the DC-DC converter and the switching power electronics is coordinated such that the set of ultracapacitors participates in supplying power to, or absorbing power from, the output through the magnetic coupling system.
However, Kajouke et. al. discloses the operation of the DC-DC converter and the switching power electronics is coordinated such that the set of ultracapacitors (Para [0029], “the DC energy source 154 may be realized as a battery, an ultracapacitor, or another suitable energy storage element”) participates in supplying power to, or absorbing power from (Para [0031], “The control module 116 may also be used to operate the energy conversion modules 104, 108 to support vehicle-to-grid applications (e.g., the DC energy source 154 delivering energy to the AC interface 114 and/or AC energy source 156). Moreover, the control module 116 operates the energy conversion modules 104, 108 in an appropriate manner to discharge the DC bus capacitor 103 when needed”), the output through the magnetic coupling system (e.g. 106)(Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the “magnetic coupling system” teachings of Tan et. al. such that it comprises “operation of the DC-DC converter and the switching power electronics is coordinated such that the set of ultracapacitors participates in supplying power to, or absorbing power from, the output through the magnetic coupling system” as taught by Kajouke et. al. The reason for doing so would be to provide an output transient control means, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
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 JONATHAN W SOILEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-6650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00 CT.
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, Hammond L Crystal 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.
/JONATHAN WALTER SOILEAU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights