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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 requires “several basic converters” and “a boost converter.” What is a clear definition for a “basic converter?” What is a clear definition for a “boost converter? In this field, many converters exist that perform different, incompatible functions. For example there are analog-to-digital converters, digital-to analog converters, DC to DC converters, transformers, invertors, etc. The specification only discloses that a “basic converter refers to an electrical circuit that converts a DC voltage supplied at the input into a DC voltage with a higher, lower or inverted voltage level and is designed to transfer a basic voltage level and/or a basic power level via its output.” That still leaves the choice of three distinct DC converters. Which one is used? There is no definition for a “boost converter.” Likewise, the boost converter is defined as “an electrical circuit that converts a DC voltage supplied at the input into a DC voltage with a higher, lower or inverted voltage level.” What is the difference, then, between a “basic converter” and a “boost converter” given the specification defines them exactly the same? Clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the channels” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only one channel is defined in line 5.
The term “safety related” in claims 1, 8, 9, 10, & 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “safety related” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What does it mean for a switch to be “safety related?” Is it a safety switch or is it not? If it is “safety related,” how so? Is it near the safety equipment? Does it work in the same circuit? Clarification is required.
Claim 3 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 3 recites the limitation “the channels” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only one channel is defined in line 5 of claim 1.
Claims 4 & 11 are 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.
Claims 4 & 11 recite the limitation “the storage device” in lines 2 & 2, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 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.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “boost converters” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 requires only “boost converter.”
Claims 8-10 are 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.
Claims 8-10 & 15 recite the limitation “the safety switches” in lines 3, 2, 2, & 2 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only one “safety related switch” is defined in claim 1.
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.
The term “fast storage” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fast storage” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What defines fast? Is 1 second fast? Is 1 minute fast? Is 1 nanosecond fast? Clarification is required.
The term “fast access time” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fast access time” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What defines slow? Is 1 second slow? Is 1 minute slow? Is 1 nanosecond slow? Clarification is required.
The term “slow storage” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slow storage” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What defines slow? Is 1 second slow? Is 1 minute slow? Is 1 nanosecond slow? Clarification is required.
The term “slow access time” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slow access time” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What defines slow? Is 1 second slow? Is 1 minute slow? Is 1 nanosecond slow? Clarification is required.
Claim 12 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 12 recites the limitation “the channels” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only one channel is defined in line 5 of claim 1.
Claim 15 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 15 requires that “the safety-related switches are signal-technically connected to a safety system.” What does “signal-technically connected” mean? It is not clear from the claims or the specification what is meant by that phrase. Clarification is required. Examiner will assume any connection meets this limitation.
Claim 17 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.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Is the system of claim 1 needed or not. If so, then there exists a 101 rejection detailed below.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites the limitation “the basic converter” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The method supposedly depends from the test system of claim 1, which requires “several basic converters.” If there are several in claim 1, then which one is “the basic converter” in claim 17? If claim 17 is independent, then there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification is required.
Claim 18 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.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Examiner, in order to advance prosecution, will use the broadest reasonable interpretation when applying art in the rejection below. Given the lack of clarity, Examiner will make the best attempt to reject using art below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it mixes the statutory classes of product and process wherein the method of claim 17 incorporates the system of claim 1. What is the proper statutory category for this?
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations.” Claims 19 & 20 are explicitly claiming a computer program.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 14-15, 17, & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Reisinger et al (Translation of WO 2021174278 A1).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Reisinger teaches:
Test system for simultaneous testing of several batteries (Fig. 2 Elements 15, 15’, & 15”. Paragraphs 0004, 0018, 0020, 0045, & 0048.), in particular high-voltage batteries, comprising:
a DC voltage intermediate circuit (Fig. 2 Element 9. Paragraphs 0037-0047.),
several basic converters (Fig. 2 Elements 7, 7’, & 7”. Paragraphs 0035, 0038-0039, & 0041-0049.) connected to the DC voltage intermediate circuit (Fig. 2 Element 9. Paragraphs 0037-0047.), each of which is switchably connected to a test channel via a connection line (Fig. 2 Elements 7, 7’, 7” & 19, the data bus. Paragraphs 0035, 0038-0039, & 0041-0049.),
a boost converter (Fig. 2 Element (AC/DC converter). Paragraph 0053) connected to the DC voltage intermediate circuit (Fig. 2 Element 9. Paragraphs 0037-0047.) which, during operation of the test system (Fig. 2 Elements 15, 15’, & 15”. Paragraphs 0004, 0018, 0020, 0045, & 0048.), is switchable to different connection lines to at least one of the test channels via a boost line (Fig. 2 Elements the (AC/DC converter) and the lines to and from it. Paragraph 0053.) and one respective connection node (Fig. 2 Elements (AC/DC converter) and nodes in the circuit. Paragraphs 0035, 0038-0039, & 0041-0049.),
a control unit for controlling the basic converters and the boost converter according to a desired power transfer (Fig. 2 Element 1. Paragraphs 0007-0017, 0019, & 0038-0045.); wherein
each connection line comprises a safety-related switch between test channel and connection node (Fig. 2 Element 8. Paragraph 0039.).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger teaches the DC voltage intermediate circuit (Fig. 2 Element 9. Paragraphs 0037-0047.) is connected to a power supply grid via a mains inverter (Fig. 2 Elements 9 & DC power supply. Paragraphs 0037-0047.).
Regarding claim 3, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger teaches a storage device which is configured to transfer power to at least one of the test channels (Fig. 2 Element 15. Paragraphs 0004, 0018, 0020, 0045, & 0048.) or from at least one of the test channels (Fig. 2 Element 15. Paragraphs 0004, 0018, 0020, 0045, & 0048.), wherein the storage device is connected to the DC voltage intermediate circuit (Fig. 2 Element 15. Paragraphs 0004, 0018, 0020, 0045, & 0048.).
Regarding claim 5, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger teaches an active front-end converter which is configured to transfer power to the power supply grid or from the power supply grid (Fig. 2 Elements AC/DC converter. Paragraph 0053.).
Regarding claim 6, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger teaches the basic converter is operable in a first power range (Fig. 2 Elements 7, 7’, & 7”. Paragraphs 0035, 0038-0039, & 0041-0049.) and the boost converter is operable in a second power range (Fig. 2 Elements 7, 7’, & 7”. Paragraphs 0035, 0038-0039, & 0041-0049.), and the first power range is smaller than the second power range (Fig. 2 Elements 7, 7’, & 7”. Paragraphs 0035, 0038-0039, & 0041-0049.).
Regarding claim 7, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger teaches the ratio of the number of boost converters to the number of basic converters in the test system is between 1/2 and 1/6 (Fig. 2 Elements AC/DC converter. Paragraph 0053 & elsewhere.), and preferably between 1/3 and 1/5 (Fig. 2 Elements AC/DC converter. Paragraph 0053 & elsewhere.).
Regarding claim 8, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger teaches a voltage measuring device is arranged above each of the safety-related switches (Fig. 2 Element 5. Paragraphs 0038 & 0041.).
Regarding claim 11, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger teaches the storage device comprises a fast storage with fast access time (Fig. 2 Element 3. Paragraph 0040.) and a slow storage with slow access time (Fig. 2 Element 3. Paragraph 0040.), and the fast storage comprises a lower capacity than the slow storage (Fig. 2 Element 3. Paragraph 0040.).
Regarding claim 14, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger teaches at least one of the basic converters is galvanically isolated from the DC voltage intermediate circuit (Paragraph 0053.).
Regarding claim 15, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger teaches the safety-related switches are signal-technically connected to a safety system (Fig. 2 Element 8 wherein any appropriate discharge device meets that limitation as connected in the figure. Paragraph 0039.).
Regarding claim 17, Reisinger teaches:
Method for testing one or more units under test with a test system, preferably according to claim 1, comprising the steps:
a) connecting a unit under test to one of the test channels (Fig. 2 Elements 15, 15’, & 15” wherein all elements are connected. Paragraphs 0004, 0018, 0020, 0045, & 0048.);
b) starting a test run on the unit under test (Fig. 2 Elements 15, 15’, & 15”. Paragraphs 0004, 0018, 0020, 0045, & 0048 wherein any testing system necessarily starts testing when tests are needed. Fig. 2 Element 1 wherein the control unit necessarily starts when needed.);
c) sending a power request for a test channel to the control unit (Fig. 2 Elements 15, 15’, & 15”. Fig. 2 Element 1 wherein the controller measures voltages and currents and adjusts things accordingly. Paragraphs 0039, 0041, 0043-0044, 0051, & elsewhere.);
d) checking whether the requested power is greater in amount than the power transferable by the basic converter (Fig. 2 Elements 7, 7’, & 7”. Paragraphs 0035, 0038-0039, & 0041-0049. Fig. 2 Element 1. Fig. 2 Elements 15, 15’, & 15”. Paragraphs 0039, 0041, 0043-0044, 0051, & elsewhere.);
e) connecting the boost converter (Fig. 2 Element (AC/DC converter). Paragraphs 0036-0048 & 0053.) to one of the test channels if the requested power is greater in amount than the power transferable from the basic converter (Fig. 2 Elements 7, 7’, & 7”. Paragraphs 0035, 0038-0039, & 0041-0049.);
f) transferring the requested power via the basic converter and the boost converter (Fig. 2 Elements 1, 8, and all lines available. Paragraphs 0035-0045 & elsewhere.).
PNG
media_image1.png
338
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 17, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger teaches commands which, when the program is run on a computer, cause it to carry out the method according to claim 17 (Paragraphs 0007, 0029, & Claim 20 wherein all computers run computer programs.).
Regarding claim 20, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 19, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger teaches a computer-readable data medium on which the computer program product according to claim 19 is stored (Fig. 2 Element 3. Paragraph 0040.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisinger et al (Translation of WO 2021174278 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger does not explicitly teach the test system comprises a second boost converter connected to the DC voltage intermediate circuit which is connectable to the boost line during operation of the test system.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the test system comprise a second boost converter connected to the DC voltage intermediate circuit which is connectable to the boost line during operation of the test system because this is a mere duplication of parts that has no patentable significance because no new and unexpected result would be produced. See MPEP Section 2144.04 VI B.
Regarding claim 18, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 17, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger does not explicitly teach the power request is sent to the control unit at least 1 ps, preferably at least 100ps, prior to providing the power.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the power request be sent to the control unit at least 1 ps, preferably at least 100ps, prior to providing the power because this is routine optimization of the circuit timing that would not produce new and unexpected results. See MPEP Section 2144.05 II A.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reisinger et al (Translation of WO 2021174278 A1) in view of Vavilapalli et al (Vavilapalli, Sridhar, et al. "A buck-chopper based energy storage system for the cascaded H-bridge inverters in PV applications." Energy Procedia 145 (2018): 534-541.).
Regarding claim 4, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger does not explicitly teach the storage device comprises a chopper.
Vavilapalli teaches the storage device comprises a chopper (Title, Abstract, and Fig. 1 B. See page 536 paragraph 1.).
PNG
media_image2.png
208
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Vavilapalli to the teachings of Reisinger such that the storage device would comprise a chopper because “if multiple independent battery banks are available in the system, then the chopper based configurations are more suitable” … because “the battery voltage can be selected higher or lower than the PV voltage levels.” See page 536 of Vavilapalli.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 & 12-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art listed does not anticipate alone or combine in an obvious manner to teach the invention claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 9, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger teaches at least one of the safety-related switches comprises a parallel connection of several switches.
Regarding claim 10, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 9, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger teaches at least one of the safety-related switches is configured to switch a direct current that is superimposed with ripple current.
Regarding claim 12, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger teaches the boost line comprises a boost switch for switching a boost power to at least one of the test channels.
Regarding claim 13, Reisinger teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Reisinger teaches the basic converter and/or the boost converter(s) each comprises back-up capacitors and an output capacitance of the back-up capacitors of the boost converter or the boost converters is less than an output capacitance of the back-up capacitors of the basic converters.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights