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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species I in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. Applicants’ argument regarding restriction is found persuasive and the restriction requirement is reversed.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: --MISFET-- should read --MOSFET-. 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 8 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 8 recites the limitation “the off potential” in --line 3--. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 5-10 and 13-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Charpentier et al. (WO 2017070290 A1 and Charpentier hereinafter.).
Regarding claim 1, Charpentier discloses [fig. 5] a gate drive circuit comprising: a gate driving circuit [504] configured to generate a gate drive signal for a power device [508]; and a drive capability switching circuit [502] configured to stepwisely [on off in repeated discreet fashion] increase gate drive capability of the gate driving circuit, during at least one of a turn-off transition period and a turn-on transition period of the power device [508 repeatedly turned off or on].
Regarding claim 2, Charpentier discloses further wherein the drive capability switching circuit includes a comparator [512] configured to compare an inter-terminal voltage between main terminals of the power device [voltage from 508 onto a first input of 512] with a predetermined threshold voltage [voltage from 502 onto a second input of 512], so as to generate a comparison signal, and a switch configured to switch the gate drive capability according to the comparison signal [502 turning off or on 508 with a switching signal].
Regarding claim 3, Charpentier discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the threshold voltage is a variable value. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make a voltage as adjustable, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 5, Charpentier discloses further wherein the drive capability switching circuit includes a timer [502] configured to generate a timer signal that changes its logic level when a predetermined time has elapsed after at least one of turn-off timing and turn-on timing of the power device [fig. 8 and para. 28], and a switch configured to switch the gate drive capability according to the timer signal [output of 502 wherein 502 acts as a switching output].
Regarding claim 6, Charpentier discloses further wherein the drive capability switching circuit further includes a gate resistor [inherent gate impedance], so that the switch switches a resistance value of the gate resistor [gate voltage applied to gate impedance reaches a turn on voltage thereby turning on 508].
Regarding claim 7, Charpentier discloses further wherein the drive capability switching circuit further includes a gate capacitance [inherent gate capacitance of 508], so that the switch switches between connection and disconnection of the gate capacitance [gate switched to ground].
Regarding claim 8, Charpentier discloses further wherein the drive capability switching circuit further includes a DC voltage source configured to generate a negative potential lower than a reference potential [ground], so that the switch switches the off potential of the gate drive signal between the negative potential and the reference potential [gate of 508 applied to ground thereby switching 508].
Regarding claim 9, Charpentier discloses further wherein the drive capability switching circuit decreases the gate drive capability from a first gate drive capability [508 off] to a second gate drive [508 on] capability during at least one of the turn-off transition period and the turn-on transition period of the power device [para. 35], and afterward increases the same from the second gate drive capability to the first gate drive capability again [508 going from on to off].
Regarding claim 10, Charpentier discloses an electric power conversion device comprising: a power module configured to include at least one said power device [508 including 508]; and the gate drive circuit [504] according to claim 1 [as shown].
Regarding claim 13, Charpentier discloses the claimed invention except for wherein current flowing between the main terminals of each of the power devices is 10 A or more and 300 A or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the current flowing between the main terminals of each of the power devices is 10 A or more and 300 A or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,
Regarding claim 14, Charpentier discloses further wherein the power device is a MISFET including an SiC substrate [para. 20].
Regarding claim 15, Charpentier discloses further wherein the power device is an IGBT [para. 20].
Regarding claim 16, Charpentier discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the power device has a withstand voltage of 100 V or more and 3,500 V or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the power device has a withstand voltage of 100 V or more and 3,500 V or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,
Regarding claim 17, Charpentier discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the power device has a switching frequency of 1 Hz or more and 1,000 kHz or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the power device has a switching frequency of 1 Hz or more and 1,000 kHz or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,
Regarding claim 18, Charpentier discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a current change amount per unit time of current flowing between the main terminals during turn on/off is 0.1 A/ns or more and 30 A/ns or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a current change amount per unit time of current flowing between the main terminals during turn on/off is 0.1 A/ns or more and 30 A/ns or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,
Regarding claim 19, Charpentier discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a voltage change amount per unit time of voltage between the main terminals during turn on/off is 10 V/ns or more and 150 V/ns or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a voltage change amount per unit time of voltage between the main terminals during turn on/off is 10 V/ns or more and 150 V/ns or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,
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 Charpentier in view of Mednik et al. (US 10778080 B1 and Mednik hereinafter.) further in view of "5183" (CN 111835183 A and “5183” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Charpentier discloses all the features regarding claim 1 as indicated above. Charpentier discloses further wherein the drive capability switching circuit includes a comparator [512] configured to compare an inter-terminal voltage between a control terminal and a main terminal [inter-terminal voltage between Vce and ground] of the power device with a predetermined threshold voltage [comparator voltage on 512 from 502], so as to generate the comparison signal [output of comparator]. Charpentier does not explicitly disclose a latch configured to receive input of the comparison signal so as to generate a latch signal, and a switch configured to switch the gate drive capability according to the latch signal.
However, Mednik discloses [fig. 7] a latch [130] configured to receive input of the comparison signal [output of 131] so as to generate a latch signal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention as described by Charpentier to include a latch configured to receive input of the comparison signal so as to generate a latch signal, and a switch configured to switch the gate drive capability according to the latch signal as taught by Mednik to improve high switching frequency performance in a switching circuit. Charpentier in view of Mednik does not explicitly disclose a switch configured to switch the gate drive capability according to the latch signal.
However, “5183” discloses [fig. 3] a switch [Q1] configured to switch the gate drive capability [drive signal on gate of 140] according to the latch signal [122 controlling Q1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention as described by Charpentier in view of Mednik to include a switch configured to switch the gate drive capability according to the latch signal as taught by “5183” to improve switching circuit performance by reducing high frequency noises and unwanted glitches.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charpentier in view of Yamada et al. (US 20140218099 A1 and Yamada hereinafter.).
Regarding claim 11, Charpentier discloses all the features regarding claim 1 as indicated above. Charpentier does not explicitly disclose wherein the power module includes a plurality of the power devices connected in parallel to each other.
However Yamada discloses wherein the power module includes a plurality of the power devices connected in parallel to each other [2]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention as described by Charpentier to include wherein the power module includes a plurality of the power devices connected in parallel to each other as taught by Yamada to improve a switching circuits timing performance.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charpentier in view of Yamada further in view of Yasako et al. (US 20190296653 A1 and Yasako hereinafter.).
Regarding claim 12, Charpentier in view of Yamada discloses all the features regarding claim 11 as indicated above. Charpentier in view of Yamada does not explicitly disclose the electric power conversion device further comprising an external control terminal electrically connected to control terminals of the plurality of power devices, wherein control wiring lengths, which are connection path lengths between the external control terminal and the control terminals of the plurality of power devices, are different from each other. However, Asako discloses the electric power conversion device further comprising an external control terminal electrically connected to control terminals of the plurality of power devices [fig. 5], wherein control wiring lengths, which are connection path lengths between the external control terminal and the control terminals of the plurality of power devices, are different from each other [para. 8 and 96-100]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention as described by Charpentier in view of Yamada to include the electric power conversion device further comprising an external control terminal electrically connected to control terminals of the plurality of power devices, wherein control wiring lengths, which are connection path lengths between the external control terminal and the control terminals of the plurality of power devices, are different from each other as taught by Yasako to improve a switching circuits performance by suppressing unwanted voltage differences from occurring between switching elements.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charpentier in view of Yamada.
Regarding claim 20, Charpentier discloses all the features regarding claim 10 as indicated above. Charpentier does not explicitly disclose a vehicle comprising: a drive source; and the electric power conversion device according to claim 10, wherein the electric power conversion device is electrically connected to the drive source.
However, Yamada discloses a vehicle [para. 25] comprising: a drive source [fig. 1, M1]; and the electric power conversion device [fig. 1 and 2] according to claim 10, wherein the electric power conversion device is electrically connected to the drive source [as shown]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention as described by Charpentier to include a vehicle comprising: a drive source; and the electric power conversion device according to claim 10, wherein the electric power conversion device is electrically connected to the drive source as taught by Yamada to improve a switching circuits timing performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES G YEAMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 954 Schedule.
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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/JAMES G YEAMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2842
/LINCOLN D DONOVAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2842