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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 1 is very blurry and the labels for the elements in the Figure are not clear to read. 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 Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7, “a totem pole T1” should be changed to “the totem pole T1”.
Claim 1, line 9, “a totem pole T2” should be changed to “the totem pole T2”.
Claim 1, line 9-10, “a totem pole T3” should be changed to “the totem pole T3”.
Claim 1, line 12, “a totem pole T4” should be changed to “the totem pole T4”.
Claim 1, line 14, “a totem pole T5” should be changed to “the totem pole T5”.
Claim 1, lines 37 and 38, “a current” should be changed to “the current”.
Claim 2 is objected to because it depends on claim 1.
Also, in claim 2, “Ron1” (line 2), “Ron2” (line 5) and “Ron3” (line 8) should be changed to “the Ron1”, “the Ron2” and “the Ron3”, respectively.
Claim 3, line 6, “a totem pole T1” should be changed to “the totem pole T1”.
Claim 3, line 8, “a totem pole T2” should be changed to “the totem pole T2”.
Claim 3, line 8, “a totem pole T3” should be changed to “the totem pole T3”.
Claim 3, line 10-11, “a totem pole T4” should be changed to “the totem pole T4”.
Claim 3, line 12-13, “a totem pole T5” should be changed to “the totem pole T5”.
Claim 3, lines 34 and 35, “a current” should be changed to “the current”.
Claim 3, line 50, “a collector-emitter voltage VCE_H” should be changed to “the collector-emitter voltage VCE_H”.
Claim 3, line 88-89, “a resistor Ron1” should be changed to “the resistor Ron1”.
Claim 3, line 89, “a resistor Ron2” should be changed to “the resistor Ron2”.
Claim 3, line 91, “a resistance value” should be changed to “the resistance value”.
Claim 3, line 122, “a driving resistor Ron3” should be changed to “the driving resistor Ron3”.
Claim 3, line 137, “Ron3” should be changed to “the Ron3”.
Claim 3, line 157, “Ron1 and Ron2” should be changed to “the Ron1 and the Ron2”.
Claim 4 is objected to because it depends on claim 3.
Also, in claim 4, “Ron1” (line 2), “Ron2” (line 6) and “Ron3” (line 9) should be changed to “the Ron1”, “the Ron2” and “the Ron3”, respectively.
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.
Claims 1-4 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.
For claim 1, the recitation “a totem pole T1 is used to achieve switching of a resistor Ron1 with a first resistance value in a turn-on process, a totem pole T2 and a totem pole T3 are used to achieve switching of a resistor Ron2 with a second resistance value and a resistor Ron3 with a third resistance value, a totem pole T4 is used to achieve switching of a resistor Roff with a fourth resistance value in a turn-off process” recites on lines 7-14 is indefinite because there is no connection provided between the respective resistor and the respective totem pole. Further, the recitation “a feedback circuit, wherein the feedback circuit is composed of a comparison unit and a logic unit; the comparison unit comprises divided resistors Ru1, Ru2, Rd1 and Rd2, sampling resistors Ri1 and Ri2, and a comparator” recites on the lines 19-22 is indefinite because there is no connections between the elements in the feedback circuit. Further, the recitation “an IGBT is divided into an upper IGBT and a lower IGBT which are connected in series and are complementary transistors for each other” recites on line 23-24 is indefinite because it is not clear the relationship between “IGBT” and the “feedback circuit” (i.e., if the IGBT is part of the feedback circuit, or whether it belongs to part of the comparation unit or to part of the logic unit of the feedback circuit); and it is not clear how “an IGBT” can be divided into “an upper IGBT and a lower IGBT”. Further, the recitation “Iref-H and Iref_L are current comparison thresholds of the upper IGBT and the lower IGBT at time ta in a turn-on phase, respectively, and Vref-H and Vref_L are voltage comparison thresholds of the upper IGBT and the lower IGBT at time tb and time tc in the turn-on phase, respectively” recites on lines 24-29 is indefinite because it is not clear if any of Iref-H, Iref_L, Vref-H and Vref_L are input of “a comparator” (of the feedback circuit), and it is then it is not clear how can “a comparator” (which the claim recites “the feedback circuit comprises a comparator”, see line 22) can performs comparison with all Iref-H, Iref_L, Vref-H and Vref_L. Similarly, the recitation “wherein a collector-emitter voltage VCE_H of the upper IGBT and a collector-emitter voltage VCE_L of the lower IGBT are subjected to voltage division by the divided resistors Ru1, Ru2, Rd1 and Rd2, and then are compared with the voltage comparison thresholds Vref-H and Vref_L respectively, to output digital signals” (lines 30-34) is indefinite because there is no connections provided between the elements in the claims as discussed above, and it is not clear if the same comparator (of the feedback circuit, line 22) performs the comparison of VCE_H and VCE_L with Vref-H and Vref_L. Further, the recitation “totem poles” on line 35 is unclear antecedent basis and it is not clear if it should recite as “the 5 totem poles T1 to T5”. Further, the recitation “internal currents of the upper IGBT and the lower IGBT, after passing through the sampling resistors Ri1 and Ri2, are compared with a current comparison threshold Iref-H of the upper IGBT and a current comparison threshold Iref-L of the lower IGBT to output digital signals to participate in the control of the totem poles” (line 35-40) is indefinite because it is not clear if the same comparator (of the feedback circuit, line 22) performs such recited comparison in the above phrase; further, it is also not clear if “digital signals” (line 39-40) is the same as “digital signals” recited earlier (on line34); and the recitation “the totem poles” on line 40 lacks clear antecedent basis and it is not clear if it should recite as “the 5 totem poles T1 to T5”. Further, “a signal output by the comparison unit” (line 46-47) is indefinite because it is not clear if “a signal output by the comparison unit” is any of the “digital signals” (recited on lines 34 and 40). Further, the recitation “the totem pole” on line 48 lacks clear antecedent basis and it is not clear if applicant means “the 5 totem poles T1 to T5” or any particular totem pole. Thus, the meets and bounds of the claim cannot be determined renders the claim indefinite. Clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it depends on claim 1.
For claim 3, the recitations “an adaptive IGBT active drive circuit … a driving signal of the totem pole” (lines 1-44) recited the same recitations as in claim 1 above, so they are indefinite for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above. Also, in claim 3, the recitation “the gate of the upper transistors of the IGBT continuously, to switch on the IGBT” (lines 57-59) is indefinite because “the gate of the upper transistors of the IGBT” lacks clear antecedent basis and it is not clear if applicant means “the gate of the upper IGBT” (see lines 46-47). Further, it is unclear if “the IGBT” (lines 59, 62, 66, 80, 96-97) means “the upper IGBT”. Further, the recitations “the phase” (lines 46, 57, 93, 107, 131, 143) and the recitations “the time” (line 105, 140, 158) are indefinite because it is not clear which specific phase or specific time that each of the phrase and time is referred to. Further, variables “Rg1” (line 95), “Rg2” (line 106), “Rg3” (line 132), “Rg4” (line 142) and “Rg5” (line 159) are indefinite because it is not defined what each of the variable is in the claim. Thus, the meets and bounds of the claim cannot be determined renders the claim indefinite. Clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is indefinite because it depends on claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin et al. (US 2022/0231592) teaches power drive circuit including gate driver, resistors and feedback circuit for driving IGBT. Li et al. (USP 11,444,613) teaches a gate driver system including a gate driver circuit and a feedback circuit for driving a transistor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directly to Examiner Long Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1753. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Regis Betsch, can be reached at (571) 270-7101. The fax number for this group 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/Long Nguyen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights