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 .
Applicant’s response filed on 10/19/2025 has been entered and considered. Upon entering claims 1-18 were pending; and claims 5 and 14 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/19/2025 have been fully considered, however they are not persuasive for following reasons:
Applicant argues that Marsh-Croft does not teach “combine output waveforms of the power controllers to form the periodic waveform”.
The examiner respectfully do not agree because Marsh-Croft clearly discloses in figure 4: (427) and states "1" in (430) indicating 1 power controller active during either a positive half cycle or a negative half cycle, together forming the sine wave of input signal 410.
Therefore, in order to expedite the prosecution of this application, the examiner recommends the applicant to amend the claims by including structural components that are different from the prior art applied in order to distinguish the claim invention from the prior art of record.
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, 6-11, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being participated by Marsh-Croft et al. (US 2018/0115161).
Regarding claim 1, Marsh-Croft teaches a control system (see figure 3: control system 300 and figure 5B: 530) comprising: a plurality of power controllers (see figure 3: 312 and figure 5B: 512; and par. [0049]); and control circuitry (see figure 3: 310 and figure 5B: 532) configured to: stagger switch-on and switch-off times of the power controllers so the power controllers turn on and turn off in sequence within a cycle of a periodic waveform (see figure 4: 424, 429, 430; and par. [0049-0054], [0057], [0060] and [0065]); and combine output waveforms of the power controllers to form the periodic waveform (see figure 4: (427) and states "1" in (430) indicating 1 power controller active during either a positive half cycle or a negative half cycle, together forming the sine wave of input signal 410).
Regarding claim 6, Marsh-Croft teaches wherein the control circuitry comprises a processor that is a separate component from the power controllers (see par. [0016-0017], “a processor apparatus adapted to generate one or more switching signal for controlling operation”).
Regarding claim 7, Marsh-Croft teaches wherein the power controllers are connected, and wherein the control circuitry is configured within the power controllers (see par. [0016-0017] and [0107-0109]).
Regarding claim 8, Marsh-Croft teaches wherein the periodic waveform is a sinusoidal waveform (see figure 4 and par. [0045]).
Regarding claim 9, Marsh-Croft teaches wherein the control circuitry is configured to control the switch-on and switch-off times of the power controllers so each power controller provides a segment of a cycle of the periodic waveform (see figure 4; and par. [0049-0054], [0057], [0060] and [0065]).
Regarding claim 10, Marsh-Croft teaches a method for controlling a plurality of power controllers (see figure 3: 312 and figure 5B: 512; and par. [0049]), the method comprising: staggering switch-on and switch-off times of the power controllers so the power controllers turn on and turn off in sequence (see figure 4: 424, 429, 430; and par. [0049-0054], [0057], [0060] and [0065]); and combining waveforms of the power controllers to form a periodic waveform (see figure 4: (427) and states "1" in (430) indicating 1 power controller active during either a positive half cycle or a negative half cycle, together forming the sine wave of input signal 410).
Regarding claim 11, Marsh-Croft teaches receiving a reference periodic waveform; wherein staggering the switch-on and switch-off times comprises staggering the switch-on and switch-off times so an output waveform the each of the power controllers is a segment of the reference periodic waveform (see figure 4; and par. [0049-0054], [0057], [0060] and [0065]).
Regarding claim 15, Marsh-Croft teaches a non-transitory processor-readable medium encoded with instructions to control power controllers (see par. [0107-0109]), the instructions comprising instructions to: set switch-on and switch-off times for each power controller within a cycle of a periodic waveform (see figure 4: 424, 429, 430; and par. [0049-0054], [0057], [0060] and [0065]); stagger switch-on and switch-off times such that the power controllers turn on and turn off in sequence within the cycle of the periodic waveform (see figure 4: (427) and states "1" in (430) indicating 1 power controller active during either a positive half cycle or a negative half cycle); sum output waveforms of the power controllers to form a summed output waveform, wherein the summed output waveform corresponds to periodic waveform (see figure 4: (427) and states "1" in (430) indicating 1 power controller active during either a positive half cycle or a negative half cycle, together forming the sine wave of input signal 410); and generate output waveforms from the power controllers that are segments of the cycle of the periodic waveform (see par. [0016-0017], [0049-0054], [0057], [0060] and [0065]).
Regarding claim 17, Marsh-Croft teaches wherein the instructions comprise instructions to: receive a reference periodic waveform that defines the periodic waveform; wherein staggering the switch-on and switch-off times comprises staggering the switch-on and switch-off times so an output waveform the each of the power controllers is a segment of the reference periodic waveform (see figure 4; and par. [0049-0054], [0057], [0060] and [0065]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2-4, 12-13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh-Croft et al. (US 2018/0115161) in view of Schaffarra et al. (US 2023/0170816).
Regarding claim 2, Marsh-Croft teaches the control system above, but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the power controllers comprises a switchable power component configured to be switched on or off at any time and configured to conduct current in both forward and reverse directions when switched on.
Schaffarra teaches each of the power controllers (see figure 5: power controller circuit 500) comprises a switchable power component (figure 5: bi-directional cut-off switch assembly 501) configured to be switched on or off at any time and configured to conduct current in both forward and reverse directions when switched on (see Abstract and par. [0030-0043], “The power controller circuit 500 includes a bi-directional cut-off switch assembly 501 having multiple controllable switches 502, 503 that are controllable by a controller 504 into a conduction mode and into a non-conduction mode”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsh-Croft with the teachings of Schaffarra by having the power controllers comprises a switchable power component configured to be switched on or off at any time and configured to conduct current in both forward and reverse directions when switched on in order to using a switchable power component that conducts in both forward and reverse directions allows for efficient and precise control over power flow, enabling the regulation of voltage, current, or the complete switching on/off of a circuit at high speeds.
Regarding claim 3, Marsh-Croft teaches the control system above, but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the power controllers comprises: a first switchable power component paired with a first diode for conducting current in a forward direction; and a second switchable power component paired with a second diode for conducting current in a reverse direction.
Schaffarra teaches a first switchable power component paired with a first diode (figure 5: 506) for conducting current in a forward direction; and a second switchable power component paired with a second diode (figure 5: 506) for conducting current in a reverse direction, (see Abstract and par. [0030-0043], “The power controller circuit 500 includes a bi-directional cut-off switch assembly 501 having multiple controllable switches 502, 503 that are controllable by a controller 504 into a conduction mode and into a non-conduction mode”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsh-Croft with the teachings of Schaffarra by having the power controllers comprises: a first switchable power component paired with a first diode for conducting current in a forward direction; and a second switchable power component paired with a second diode for conducting current in a reverse direction in order to using a switchable power component that conducts in both forward and reverse directions allows for efficient and precise control over power flow, enabling the regulation of voltage, current, or the complete switching on/off of a circuit at high speeds.
Regarding claim 4, Marsh-Croft teaches the control system above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the control circuitry is configured to optimize the switch-on and switch-off times of the power controllers by using the combined output waveform as feedback.
Schaffarra teaches the control circuitry is configured to optimize the switch-on and switch-off times of the power controllers by using the combined output waveform as feedback, (see par. [0040] and [0043], optimize the control to reduce harmonics and correct/shift switch on/off times to correct energy delivery offsets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsh-Croft with the teachings of Schaffarra by having the control circuitry is configured to optimize the switch-on and switch-off times of the power controllers by using the combined output waveform as feedback in order to determine, control and maintain, i.e. optimize, an average energy delivery per branch/load in the two-branch converter.
Regarding claim 12, Marsh-Croft teaches the method above, but does not explicitly teach further comprising: setting the switch-on and switch-off times by a switchable power component configured to be switched on or off at any time and configured to conduct current in both forward and reverse directions when switched on.
Schaffarra teaches setting the switch-on and switch-off times by a switchable power component configured to be switched on or off at any time and configured to conduct current in both forward and reverse directions when switched on (see Abstract and par. [0030-0043], “The power controller circuit 500 includes a bi-directional cut-off switch assembly 501 having multiple controllable switches 502, 503 that are controllable by a controller 504 into a conduction mode and into a non-conduction mode”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsh-Croft with the teachings of Schaffarra by having setting the switch-on and switch-off times by a switchable power component configured to be switched on or off at any time and configured to conduct current in both forward and reverse directions when switched on in order to using a switchable power component that conducts in both forward and reverse directions allows for efficient and precise control over power flow, enabling the regulation of voltage, current, or the complete switching on/off of a circuit at high speeds.
Regarding claim 13, Marsh-Croft teaches the method above, but does not explicitly teach further comprising: optimizing the switch-on and switch-off times of the power controllers by using the periodic waveform as feedback.
Schaffarra teaches optimizing the switch-on and switch-off times of the power controllers by using the periodic waveform as feedback, (see par. [0040] and [0043], optimize the control to reduce harmonics and correct/shift switch on/off times to correct energy delivery offsets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsh-Croft with the teachings of Schaffarra by having optimizing the switch-on and switch-off times of the power controllers by using the periodic waveform as feedback in order to determine, control and maintain, i.e. optimize, an average energy delivery per branch/load in the two-branch converter.
Regarding claim 16, Marsh-Croft teaches the non-transitory processor-readable medium above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions comprise instructions to: set the switch-on and switch-off times by a switchable power component configured to be switched on or off at any time and configured to conduct current in both forward and reverse directions when switched on.
Schaffarra teaches set the switch-on and switch-off times by a switchable power component configured to be switched on or off at any time and configured to conduct current in both forward and reverse directions when switched on (see Abstract and par. [0030-0043], “The power controller circuit 500 includes a bi-directional cut-off switch assembly 501 having multiple controllable switches 502, 503 that are controllable by a controller 504 into a conduction mode and into a non-conduction mode”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsh-Croft with the teachings of Schaffarra by having set the switch-on and switch-off times by a switchable power component configured to be switched on or off at any time and configured to conduct current in both forward and reverse directions when switched on in order to using a switchable power component that conducts in both forward and reverse directions allows for efficient and precise control over power flow, enabling the regulation of voltage, current, or the complete switching on/off of a circuit at high speeds.
Regarding claim 18, Marsh-Croft teaches the non-transitory processor-readable medium above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions comprise instructions to optimize the switch-on and switch-off times of the power controllers by using the periodic waveform as feedback.
Schaffarra teaches the instructions comprise instructions to optimize the switch-on and switch-off times of the power controllers by using the periodic waveform as feedback, (see par. [0040] and [0043], optimize the control to reduce harmonics and correct/shift switch on/off times to correct energy delivery offsets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsh-Croft with the teachings of Schaffarra by having the instructions comprise instructions to optimize the switch-on and switch-off times of the power controllers by using the periodic waveform as feedback in order to determine, control and maintain, i.e. optimize, an average energy delivery per branch/load in the two-branch converter.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh-Croft et al. (US 2018/0115161) in view of Schaffarra et al. (US 2023/0170816) and further in view of Bangerter (US 6,191,563).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the control system above, but does not explicitly teach wherein: each power controller provides power to an ohmic-inductive load; and the control circuitry is configured to shift the switch-on and/or switch-off times of the power controllers to avoid spikes in the periodic waveform.
Bangerter teaches power controller provides power to an ohmic-inductive load; and the control circuitry is configured to shift the switch-on and/or switch-off times of the power controllers to avoid spikes in the periodic waveform (see Abstract and col. 5, lines 18-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsh-Croft and Schaffarra with the teachings of Bangerter by having power controller provides power to an ohmic-inductive load; and the control circuitry is configured to shift the switch-on and/or switch-off times of the power controllers to avoid spikes in the periodic waveform in order to provide control circuitry that shifts power controller switch-on and/or switch-off times is the elimination or mitigation of voltage and current spikes when dealing with ohmic-inductive loads.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marsh-Croft et al. (US 2018/0115161) in view of Bangerter (US 6,191,563).
Regarding claim 14, Marsh-Croft teaches the method above, but does not explicitly teach wherein: each of the power controllers provides power to an ohmic-inductive load, and the switch-on and/or switch-off times of the power controllers are shifted to avoid spikes in periodic waveform.
Bangerter teaches the power controllers provides power to an ohmic-inductive load, and the switch-on and/or switch-off times of the power controllers are shifted to avoid spikes in periodic waveform (see Abstract and col. 5, lines 18-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Marsh-Croft with the teachings of Bangerter by having the power controllers provides power to an ohmic-inductive load, and the switch-on and/or switch-off times of the power controllers are shifted to avoid spikes in periodic waveform in order to provide control circuitry that shifts power controller switch-on and/or switch-off times is the elimination or mitigation of voltage and current spikes when dealing with ohmic-inductive loads.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 XUAN LY whose telephone number is (571)272-9885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7492. 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.
/XUAN LY/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836