DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 9 August 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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 11 February 2022.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed topological switches, matrices, and vectors must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As to claim 1, there are a few issues. First, applicant claims “two power semiconductor that form a topological switch”. First, a topological switch is not a common term of art. Secondly, applicant does not show any switches in the figures, just the control system. As such, it is unclear what applicant means. Typically, switches define topological positions, though it appears clear that applicants meant something else in this case. Since the application appears to correlate to motor controls, it will be assumed that applicant meant to claim two switches in series, that switch complimentary with some dead time between them.
Next applicant claims “different semiconductor materials and/or semiconductor types”. First, the and/or is usually indefinite. IE, is applicant claiming a Silicon N-type and GaN P-type? Does it have to do with direct bandgap or widebandgap? Other possibilities include depletion and enhancement mode FETs? Once again, given the electric motor connotation, it will be assumed that applicant meant to have one P-type and one N-type FET.
In addition to this, applicant claims vectors and matrices. This is problematic, because neither the specification nor figures show a matrix. Matrixes typically have a defined number of rows and columns, and mathematical operations can be performed upon them dependent upon their rows and columns. If applicant is defining the truth table in the specification as a matrix, that is extremely different than what is claimed, because truth tables typically respond to Boolean operations and matrices refer to numeric values. Vectors also generally have a defined number of rows with one column and can be multiplied to some matrices.
Lastly, though not technically indefinite since it is known what is meant, terms of degree are outright forbidden by MPEP 2173.05(b)(I). Please use a synonymous term for “degree of modulation”.
As to claim 2, applicant claims “a first modulation frequency” and “another modulation frequency” it is indefinite as to how these relate to the modulation frequency claimed in claim 1. Likewise, it is indefinite how “a first dead time” and “another dead time” it is indefinite as to how these relate to the dead time claimed in claim 1. Proper antecedent basis is required.
As to claim 4-5 specify generating the control matrix from the a truth table, but a matrix is not shown in the specification.
As to claim 7, “which form a topological switch and are made of different semiconductor materials and/or semiconductor types,” this is unclear how it differs from independent claim 1, which also had similar language.
As to claim 11, there are similar issues to claim 1 above..
Claims 12, and 17 have similar issues to claims 2, and 7 above.
Claims 2-10, 12-17 depend directly or indirectly from a rejected claim and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) , or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph for the reasons set above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
For method claims, note that under MPEP 2112.02, the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated. (The claims have been condensed.)
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.
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 of this title, 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.
Ordinarily, the office would provide art based rejections or indicate allowable subject matter based on a good faith interpretation of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. In this particular application though, there is sufficient confusion that the examiner would have to speculate a large amount. Per MPEP 2173.06(II) “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1375. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM,Monday through Thursday, EST.
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER M NOVAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2839
Prosecution Insights