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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 8/4/26 creates the following issues:
The Non-Final Office Action dated 7/28/26 included a 35 USC 112 (b) rejection of the claims for being unclear. The original preamble of claim 11 announced the invention as a ”system”, which implied a combination of multiple distinct parts, but the body of the claim only defined a capacitor assembly. The error created a legal ambiguity, since the examiner could not tell if the boundary of the invention was supposed to include the entire “system” or just a single element. When applicant took away the context of the larger system (by amending) to claim a standalone component, applicant created an issue under 112(a). The original description describes the capacitor assembly as an integral component of the overall inverter “system”, not a standalone component. The specification clearly states that the capacitor assembly must work with specific busbars and multiple switches to operate the inverter as a two-level or three-level inverter. The claims new scope is broader than what the original specification actually enables. The claims must be amended to reflect the actual “system” that includes a series of components that must work together to solve high level harmonics and low efficiency at high switching frequencies as stated in the specification.
By removing any reference to the “system”, claim 17 fails to define a novel structure. The claim only recites a capacitor assembly comprising a case, a first group of capacitors in the case, and a second group of capacitors in the case. The claim is an attempt to patent a box of capacitors and an intended use for said box. The amendment to claim 17 also creates issues under 35 USC 112 (a) since the original specification does not describe the “capacitor assembly” as a standalone component instead the assembly is a crucial component of an inverter “system”.
The amendment also created other problems under 35 USC 112 (b) which will be described below.
New prior art was needed to reject the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-6 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. As described above in the section labeled “Response to Amendtment”, the capacitor assembly has been claimed as a standalone sub-component when the original disclosure only supports an integrated inverter system including the capacitor assembly in addition to other mandatory components to operate the inverter in multiple-level operational mode (claims 11-20). Claims 4-6 recite a capacitor assembly comprising busbars, this is not supported by the original documents.
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.
In reference to claim 1, the preamble is directed to an inverter for converting DC power to AC power to drive a motor, wherein the inverter comprises a capacitor assembly and a plurality of power modules. The claim further recites the first group of capacitors being used when the one or more power modules operate as a two-level inverter; and that the second groups is used when the one or more power modules operate as a three-level inverter or as the two-level inverter. However, power modules are just clusters of semiconductor switches; they either turn on or off. The inverter as a whole creates multi-level voltages based on how the power modules are arranged in combination with the plurality of capacitors.
In reference to claim 2, as established in the rejection of claim 1, the power modules cannot operate in either a two-level mode or a three-level mode. Therefore, if claim 1 is amended to fix the clarity issue described above, then claim 2 will need to be amended to just describe that the inverter is a T-type inverter which is an inherent characteristic of a three-level inverter.
In reference to claim 4, it is not technically or physically accurate to state that the capacitor assembly includes the busbars. The inverter as a whole is the one that includes the busbar network. The busbars serve as a physical connection defining how the capacitors are structurally connected to the power modules in order to operate the inverter as a 2-level or 3-level inverter.
In reference to claim 11, this claim has the same issues as described in the rejection of claim 1. Power modules do not operate as a multi-level inverter; they are connected to other components of the inverter to allow the inverter as a whole to operate as either a two-level inverter or a three-level inverter.
In reference to claim 12, the claim is rejected for the same reasons given above in the rejection of claim 4.
In reference to claim 13, how is the first current path between the first group of capacitors and the plurality of power modules being shorter than a second current path between the second capacitor group and the power modules part of an “assembly”.
In reference to claim 17, it is not clear what applicant means by a capacitor assembly comprising a first group of capacitors in a case for a two-level operation of an inverter and a second group of capacitors in the case for a three-level or two-level operation of the inverter. This is being interpreted as a simple capacitor assembly housed in a case, wherein the assembly includes a first group and a second group of capacitors. The intended use of each group of capacitors in the assembly is irrelevant to the apparatus.
In reference to claim 18, the claim is rejected for the same reasons given above in the rejection of claims 4 and 12. A capacitor assembly does not include a busbar network. Based on the detailed description of the invention, an inverter system is the one including a plurality of capacitors and a busbar network.
In reference to claim 19, claim 17 has established the plurality of capacitors are enclosed in a case so how is the plurality of capacitors arranged between the inside of a case and a busbar network. This is not consistent with the invention described in the original documents.
Claims 3, 5-10, 14-16, and 20 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1, which claim 9 depends from has already established the capacitors are connected to the power modules. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). The difference between claims 1 and 11 is the preamble. Claim 11 is supposedly directed to an inverter, however the body of the claim only recites a single component, a capacitor assembly, without reciting anything else related to the inverter. Claim 11 is directed to a single component, a capacitor assembly, having the exact components of the capacitor assembly of claim 1. If claim 4 is found allowable, then claim 12 would also need to be canceled on amended.
Claim 11 is a duplicate of claim 1.
Claim 12 is a duplicate of claim 4.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al (US Patent 9800077) and Li et al (US Patent 9538680).
Claim 1, Hatakeyama et al teaches a multi-level inverter system for converting DC power to AC power to a drive a motor, the inverter system operates in both a two-level and a three-level mode and comprises a capacitor assembly including a first capacitor 6a and a second capacitor 6b connected to one or more power modules as described in figures 9 (item 10) and 10 (item 10). The power modules applies the voltage across the entire series combination of the capacitors to the motor. Hatakeyama et al further describes that during the three-level operation, the inclusion of a neutral point allows the power modules to selectively apply the voltage across either the top capacitor individually or the bottom capacitor voltage individually to the motor.
Hatakeyama et al describes the DC-link capacitors 6a/6bn as single, individual capacitors connected in series. However, Li et al explicitly teaches that in inverter systems, it is standard practice to implement capacitor banks consisting of group of capacitors arranged in parallel and/or series configurations rather than using single capacitors, see for example figures 11A and 11B as well as their corresponding descriptions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the multi-level inverter system of Hatakeyama et al by replacing its single DC-link series capacitors with the capacitor bank described by Li et al in order to improve ripple-current suppression across the DC-link
Claim 2, Hatakeyama et al teaches a T-type inverter in fig. 10.
Claim 3, Li et al describes for example in figures 7A and 7B the plurality of capacitors in set enclosures.
Claims 4-5, Li et al describes in Fig. 7B a busbar network A7-A9 for example connected to the plurality of capacitors. Also, Hatakeyama et al describes in Fig. 10 the plurality of capacitors connected to a busbar network comprising a positive busbar (+rail), a neutral busbar connected to a neutral point, and a negative busbar (-rail).
Claim 6, Li et al describes in Fig. 7B the connection of the busbar network to the plurality of capacitors as recited in the claim.
Claims 7-8, Li et al describes in figures 11A/B a plurality of capacitors arranged in rows.
Claim 9, as described in the rejection of claim 1, the capacitors 6a/6b are connected to a plurality of power modules, see figures 9 and 10.
Claim 10, in addition to the elements recited in claim 1, Li et al teaches a DC power source connected to the DC link represented by capacitors 6a/6b, a motor (see col. 13 lines 5-25). Additionally, Hatakeyama et al teaches a motor control circuit comprising a DC power source found at the output of rectifier 2, a motor 10 (see fig. 9). It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte, Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 11, rejected for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 12, rejected for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 4.
Claim 13, Hatakeyama et al teaches the multi-level power module where current paths have different configurations depending on whether the inverter is operating in a two-level or three-level mode. Li et al teaches the capacitor and power modules via a multi-layer, laminated busbar network. The plurality of configurations optimize the physical layout to control system inductance. Placing specific modules closer to each other mitigates stray inductance and is clearly a design choice that can improve the overall electrical performance of the system.
Claim 14, independent claim 11 which claim 14 depends from does not specify or required asymmetric/different voltage distribution across the DC-link. Claim 11 is silent about restricting the rated voltage of different groups of capacitors. Selecting/designating a specific voltage rating for the first and the second capacitor groups represents a routine components selection depending on a desired output.
Claims 15-16 and 19-20, Li et al clearly describes in figures 11A/11B a plurality of capacitors and busbar network arranged in different configurations; selecting a desired one is considered a design choice.
Claim 17, Li et al describes a plurality of capacitors connected together to form rows which are enclosed in cases.
Claim 18, the rejection of claims 4-5 and 12 above describe the configuration and connection of a busbar network that includes a positive DC busbar, a negative DC busbar, and a neutral busbar connected to a plurality of capacitors.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Rina I Duda whose telephone number is (571)272-2062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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, Eduardo Colon Santana can be reached at (571) 272-2060. 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.
/RINA I DUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
