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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/07/2024 and 2/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
Fig. 1B does not show the H-Bridge as component 116 as it does in Fig. 1A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
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 1-3, 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)(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)(Fig. 1) 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. Bridge1)(Fig. 1) to a second side of the DC-DC converter (e.g. Bridge2)(Fig. 1), and
wherein the magnetic coupling system electromagnetically couples the switching power electronics to the second side of the DC-DC converter (e.g. SB is connected to secondary winding of the transformer)(Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Tan et. al. teaches a first winding electrically connected to the first side of the DC-DC converter (e.g. left side winding of 20kHz transformer)(Fig. 1); and
a second winding electrically connected to the second side of the DC-DC converter (e.g. right side winding of 20kHz transformer)(Fig. 1),
wherein the first winding and the second winding are wrapped around a core (e.g. line shown between windings of 20kHz transformer)(Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, tan et. al. teaches wherein the second winding includes a tap electrically connected to the switching power electronics (e.g. O)(Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Tan et. al. teaches wherein the DC-DC converter includes a switching device configured to convert the first nominal voltage into pulsating DC (e.g. Bridge1)(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 DC-DC converter includes a rectification device configured to convert pulsating DC into the second nominal voltage (e.g. Bridge2)(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 4 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 4, although Tan et. al. discloses the limitations in claims 1 and 2, Tan et. al. does not teach wherein the magnetic coupling system includes a third winding electrically connected to the switching power electronics, and the third winding is wrapped around the core.
However, Tao et. al. teaches wherein the magnetic coupling system includes a third winding electrically connected to the switching power electronics, and the third winding is wrapped around the core (see 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 “the magnetic coupling system includes a third winding electrically connected to the switching power electronics, and the third winding is wrapped around the core” as taught by Tao et. al. The reason for doing so would be to provide power to additional loads.
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.
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 11-12 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 Ahmed et. al. (U.S. Publication No 2024/0243667 A1).
Regarding claim 11, although Tan et. al. discloses the limitations in claim 1, Tan et. al. does not teach a second DC-DC converter configured to in a first operating mode, provide power from the second side of the DC-DC converter to the set of ultracapacitors, and in a second operating mode, provide power from the set of ultracapacitors to the second side of the DC-DC converter.
However, Ahmed et. al. teaches a second DC-DC converter (e.g. 730)(Fig. 7) configured to in a first operating mode, provide power from the second side of the DC-DC converter (e.g. 312)(Fig. 7) to the set of ultracapacitors (e.g. 528)(Fig. 7), and in a second operating mode, provide power from the set of ultracapacitors to the second side of the DC-DC converter. (Para [0074], “As such, power may flow from the low voltage side of the power converter 312 through the power converter 730 to charge the ultra-capacitor 528. Additionally, power may discharge from the ultra-capacitor 528 and flow through the power converter 730 to the DC bus 118”)
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 “a second DC-DC converter configured to in a first operating mode, provide power from the second side of the DC-DC converter to the set of ultracapacitors, and in a second operating mode, provide power from the set of ultracapacitors to the second side of the DC-DC converter” as taught by Ahmed et. al. The reason for doing so would be to mitigate the effects of a transient load condition.
Regarding claim 12, Tan et. al. teaches wherein the second side of the DC-DC converter includes a rectifier connected to the output (e.g. Bridge2)(Fig. 1).
Claims 13-14 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) and Ahmed et. al. (U.S. Publication No 2024/0243667 A1) in further view of Jang et. al. (U.S. Publication No 2009/0244944 A1).
Regarding claim 13, although Tan et. al. and Ahmed et. al. discloses the limitations in claim 11, they do not teach the magnetic coupling system includes a first transformer having a first core, the magnetic coupling system includes a second transformer having a second core, the first core and the second core are separate, and the second transformer is connected between the second side of the DC-DC converter and the set of ultracapacitors.
However, Jang et. al. teaches the magnetic coupling system includes a first transformer having a first core (e.g. TR1)(Fig. 12g), the magnetic coupling system includes a second transformer having a second core (e.g. TR2)(Fig. 12g), the first core and the second core are separate, and the second transformer is connected between the second side of the DC-DC converter (e.g. Dr1)(Fig. 12g) and the set of ultracapacitors (e.g. Cl)(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. and Ahmed et. al. such that it comprises “the magnetic coupling system includes a first transformer having a first core, the magnetic coupling system includes a second transformer having a second core, the first core and the second core are separate, and the second transformer is connected between the second side of the DC-DC converter and the set of ultracapacitors.” As taught by Jang et. al. and Ahmed 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.
Regarding claim 14, Jang et. al. teaches a switching device (e.g. SL1, SL2)(Fig. 12g) that is connected between the second transformer and the set of ultracapacitors.
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 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 connected to an internal node (e.g. node above 3rd switch) and (ii) a second terminal; a second switching device (Fig. 1) connected between the internal node and the set of ultracapacitors (e.g. EDLC Bank);
a third switching device (Fig. 1) connected between the internal node and a reference terminal (e.g. node below 2nd switch) ;
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 input is characterized by a first nominal voltage (e.g. CD1)(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. 1) connected across the output.
PNG
media_image2.png
291
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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).
Conclusion
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