DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 5 November 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 China on 16 November 2023.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (US 20250121712) in view of Lee (US 20210194275).
As to claim 1, Feng discloses A power converter, comprising: a first power conversion module (Fig. 3, 1010), comprising a first bridge arm (Fig. 4, 10100) and a second bridge arm (Fig. 4, 10101), wherein a first terminal of the first power conversion module is configured to be capable of being electrically connected to a mains supply (Fig. 3, 11) and/or a rechargeable battery, and a second terminal of the first power conversion module is configured to be capable of being electrically connected to a direct current bus (Fig. 3, bus 1011 + terminal, - terminal); a second power conversion module (Fig. 3, 1012),
Feng does not teach second power conversion module, comprising a third bridge arm and a fourth bridge arm, and a switch module, configured to enable the first terminal of the first power conversion module and the first terminal of the second power conversion module to be selectively electrically connected to the mains supply and/or the rechargeable battery, wherein the first power conversion module, the second power conversion module, and the switch module are configured to charge the rechargeable battery from the direct current bus through the first bridge arm and the fourth bridge arm.
Lee teaches a power converter, comprising: a first power conversion module (Fig. 3, 120), wherein a first terminal of the first power conversion module is configured to be capable of being electrically connected to a mains supply (Fig. 3, 110) and/or a rechargeable battery, and a second terminal of the first power conversion module is configured to be capable of being electrically connected to a direct current bus (Fig. 3, N1l); a second power conversion module (Fig. 3, 125), comprising a third bridge arm and a fourth bridge arm, wherein a first terminal of the second power conversion module is configured to be capable of being electrically connected to the mains supply (Fig. 3, 110) and/or the rechargeable battery, and a second terminal of the second power conversion module is configured to be capable of being electrically connected to a direct current bus (Fig. 3, N1); and a switch module (ACCBs 1-3, DCCBs 1-4), configured to enable the first terminal of the first power conversion module and the first terminal of the second power conversion module to be selectively electrically connected to the mains supply and/or the rechargeable battery, wherein the first power conversion module, the second power conversion module, and the switch module are configured to charge the rechargeable battery (Fig. 5, Charge mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use parallel rectifiers as disclosed in Feng to increase power throughput.
As to the limitation regarding, “second power conversion module comprising a third bridge arm and a fourth bridge arm” this would be taught by the combination, with the parallel rectifier providing the third and fourth bridge arm.
As to claim 2, Feng in view of Lee teaches wherein the first power conversion module, the second power conversion module, and the switch module are configured to convert a first phase of the mains supply into a direct current through the second bridge arm and provide the direct current to the direct current bus, and convert a second phase of the mains supply into a direct current through the third bridge arm and provide the direct current to the direct current bus (this would correspond to phases A/B).
As to claim 11, Feng in view of Lee teaches An uninterruptible power supply, comprising: the power converter according to claim 1; an inverter (Feng, Fig. 4A, 1013), electrically connected to the direct current bus of the power converter; a rechargeable battery (Feng, 12), whose charging terminal is electrically connected to the switch module (Lee, ACCBs 1-3, DCCBs 1-4) of the power converter; and a DC-DC converter (Feng, 1012), configured to convert an output voltage of the rechargeable battery and then provide a converted voltage to the inverter.
As to claim 12, Feng in view of Lee teaches further comprising a charger (Feng, 1015) electrically connected to the charging terminal of the rechargeable battery.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (US 20250121712) in view of Lee (US 20210194275) and Ding (US 20250119055).
As to claim 6, Feng in view of Lee does not disclose wherein two capacitors connected in series with each other are separately disposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode of the direct current bus, and a node between the two capacitors is grounded.
Ding teaches wherein two capacitors connected in series with each other are separately disposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode of the direct current bus, and a node between the two capacitors is grounded (Fig. 4, C211, C212, GND).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use a grounded midpoint in order to reduce steady state losses.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent 12418194. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented document has more limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7, 8 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) is filed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 3, the prior art fails to disclose: “wherein the switch module comprises a first switch assembly, a second switch assembly, a third switch assembly, and a fourth switch assembly that respectively correspond to the first bridge arm, the second bridge arm, the third bridge arm, and the fourth bridge arm and are separately configured to enable first terminals of the first bridge arm, the second bridge arm, the third bridge arm, and the fourth bridge arm to be selectively connected to the mains supply or the rechargeable battery.” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
Please note: while objected or allowed claims have been indicated, only the presented claims have been examined for compliance with form and 35 USC 112 consideration. As a reminder, new claims that are dependent upon objected claims still require examination for form and 35 USC 112 issues even if they overcome 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections. Similarly, amendments incorporating allowable subject matter into independent claims requires reconsideration for dependent claim form and any possible 35 USC 112 issues that arise through amendments even if the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are overcome. As such, applicant is advised that while examiner can enter previously allowed claims or previously objected claims rewritten into independent form after final rejection, any other claims may not be entered.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular column, paragraph, and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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