Detailed Action
Summary
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 .
1. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on September 04, 2026.
2. Claims 1-15 are pending and has been examined.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in 12/06/24. Applicant file (09/04/25) an English translation to affirming the accuracy of the translation of the third page of the certified copy of the French language priority documents.
Drawings
4. The drawings submitted on 11/27/2024 are acceptable.
5. Claim objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regard to claim 1 is rejected under to U.S. 103 rejection. Here is annotated drawing of Fig.8. Hereafter annotated drawing.
PNG
media_image1.png
784
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that Gerth does not disclose the feature whereby each of the switching cells is formed by two first ones of the switches coupled to different second electrical contacts and juxtaposed side by side, and by two second ones of the switches, each coupled to one of the different second electrical contacts.
However, examiner respectively disagree that Gerth broadly discloses the claim languages. As clearly indicated in the annotating drawing each half bridge 10 has four high side transistor which are arranged in two rows (equivalent to side by side) respectively. The n-first contacts 13 and n-second contacts are configured with the half-bridge 10 to drive current into the load. As indicated in the annotated drawing, a plurality of enclosed boxes are arranged side-by-side, each housing a distinct n-second contact point (13) such that each pair of switches of the half-bridge is coupled to a respective n-second electrical contact 13."
For the above reasons, the examiner respectfully submits that the rejection is proper. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Furthermore , applicant argues that Gerth does not disclose a driver circuit configured to control the switches such that, at the switching of each of the switching cells, one of the second switches from the on state to the off state, after which one of the first switches from the off state to the on state, after which the other of the first switches from the on state to the off state, and then the other of the second switches from the off state to the on state.
However, examiner respectively disagree. Gerth discloses the gate circuit driver circuit (not shown) board is disposed on a ceramic. The connection from the gate circuit driver circuit board to the high-side transistor and the low-side transistor can be made or guided through the ceramic through the bonding wire, see page.4, lines 31-33. Examiner noted that it is well known in the art that each four half -bridge leg has a top switch and a bottom switch and they operate in a complementary fashion: when the top switch (11) is turned ON, the bottom switch (12) must be turned OFF or vis versal and introducing a deliberate delay (often called dead-time) between turning off one switch and turning on the next in the same inverter leg is essential to prevent a catastrophic short circuit (shoot-through)). Although the function of the driver was well known in the art, examiner cited a second reference (Lefevre) to remedy the initial rejection's deficiency regarding the drive circuit."
Lefevre discloses circuit for driving said switches (Figs. 2, 6 and 13 shows gates of transistors Mh-1, Mh-2, Mh-3, Ml-1, Ml-2, Ml-3 are individually connected to a control circuit 4 (CTRL) to control the switches and to generate a three-phase AC current lac, see parag. 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the half bridge inverter of Gerth to include a control circuit as taught by Lefevre because controller helps to manage, regulate and to be stable system , which leads to improve the switching efficiency and system reliability.
For the above reasons, the examiner respectfully submits that the rejection is proper. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues that Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gerth in view of Lefevre and in further view of Das. Applicant notes that claim 6 is dependent upon claim 1 and therefore includes limitations not taught by the combination of Gerth and Lefevre, which deficiencies are not remedied by the teachings of Das. Thus, to the extent that the combination of Gerth and Lefevre in further view of Das fails to establish prima facie obviousness of claim 6,
Applicant respectfully submits that claim 6 is in suitable condition for allowance.
However, upon reconsideration of the rejection, the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 6 and instead objected. Furthermore, upon reconsideration of the objected claim 6, the examiner has decided to reject claim 6.
Again, it is the Examiner’s position that Applicant has not yet submitted claims drawn to limitations, which define the operation and apparatus of Applicant’s disclosed invention in manner, which distinguishes over the prior art. As it is Applicant’s right to continue to claim as broadly as possible their invention. It is also the Examiner’s right to continue to interpret the claim language as broad as reasonable. It is the Examiner’s position that the detailed functionality that allows for Applicant’s invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique. Therefore, it is advised that, in order to further expedite the prosecution of the application in response to this action, Applicant should amend the base claims to describe in more narrow detail the true distinguishing features of Applicant’s claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerth “ CN11701238” in a view of Lefevre “20180191272”.
In re to claim 1 , Gerth discloses power module (Figs. 1-13: half bridge inverter) , comprising at least 2n switches (Fig. 1: shows four leges high-side transistors 11 connected in parallel and four low-side transistors 12 connected in parallel ) intended to form n switching cells between a first electrical contact (13) and n second electrical contacts (15) , n being an integer greater than or equal to 2, each of the second electrical contacts being coupled to at least two of the switches ( metallization part 15 is connected to high and low side switches 11 and 11), further comprising driving said switches (see page 6, lines 23) , and wherein: the switches are arranged two by two, side by side (high and low side switches 11 and 12 are arranged side by side) each of the switching cells is intended to be formed by two first ones of the switches (11 and 12) coupled to different second electrical contacts arranged side by side , and by two second ones of the switches each coupled to one of said different second electrical contacts (the n-first contacts 13 and n-second contacts are configured with the half-bridge 10 to drive current into the load. As indicated in the annotated drawings, a plurality of enclosed boxes are arranged side-by-side, each housing a distinct n-second contact point (13) such that each pair of switches of the half-bridge is coupled to a respective n-second electrical contact 13, see annotated drawing) ; the driver circuit is configured to control the switches so that, at the switching of each of the switching cells ( three gate circuit interfaces G of the transistors 11,12 are shown which are either connected to the external interface of the power module, but are also connected to the gate circuit driver modules via bonding wires,, see pages 6, lines 20-24) , one of the second switches switches from the on state to the off state, after which one of the first switches switches from the off state to the on state, after which the other of the first switches switches from the on state to the off state, and then the other of the second switches switches from the off state to the on state (Examiner noted that it is well known in the art that each four half -bridge leg has a top switch and a bottom switch and they operate in a complementary fashion: when the top switch (11) is turned ON, the bottom switch (12) must be turned OFF or vis versal and introducing a deliberate delay (often called dead-time) between turning off one switch and turning on the next in the same inverter leg is essential to prevent a catastrophic short circuit (shoot-through)) but fails to discloses a circuit for driving said switches.)
Whereas Lefevre discloses circuit for driving said switches.
(Figs. 2, 6 and 13 shows gates of transistors Mh-1, Mh-2, Mh-3, Ml-1, Ml-2, Ml-3 are individually connected to a control circuit 4 (CTRL) to control the switches and to generate a three-phase AC current lac, see parag. 0049).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the half bridge inverter of Gerth to include a control circuit as taught by Lefevre because controller helps to manage, regulate and to be stable system , which leads to improve the switching efficiency and system reliability.
In re to claim 2 , Gerth discloses (Figs. 1-13), wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 3 (Fig. 2 shows a four leg have bridge inverter. Examiner noted that the prior art used n is 2 based upon a design needs / intended purpose for specific reason or goal for acquiring a desired outcome. Therefore, any skilled person designing the circuit of “Gerth: Fig. 1-13” would have to add two extra legs in order to obtain more power output, thereby arriving to the subject matter of claim 2..
In re to claim 3 , Gerth discloses (Figs. 1-13), wherein two of the switches are coupled to one of the second electrical contacts (11 and 12 are coupled to metallization part 15), the other switches being arranged between said two of the switches (11 and 12).
In re to claim 4 , Gerth discloses (Figs. 1-13), Power module according to claim 2, wherein, for each of the switching cells, the different second electrical contacts to which the two second switches are coupled are arranged side by side (Figs.2-3 :the legs source interface S are connected to the metallization part 15 are different each other).
In re to claim 5 , Gerth discloses (Figs. 1-13), wherein the driver circuit is configured so that, at the switching of each of the switching cells: after the switching from the on state to the off state of said one of the second switches, said one of the first switches switches from the off state to the on state after a first waiting period having a duration shorter than 1 µs, or after the switching from the off state to the on state of said one of the first switches , said other one of the first switches switches from the on state to the off state after an overlap period having a duration shorter than 1 µs, or after the switching from the on state to the off state of said other one of the first switches, said other one of the second switches switches from the off state to the on state after a second waiting period, having a duration shorter than 1 µs (Examiner noted that it is well known in the art that each four half -bridge leg has a top switch and a bottom switch and they operate in a complementary fashion: when the top switch (11) is turned ON, the bottom switch (12) must be turned OFF or vis versal and introducing a deliberate delay (often called dead-time) between turning off one switch and turning on the next in the same inverter leg is essential to prevent a catastrophic short circuit (shoot-through)).
In re to claim 6 , Gerth discloses (Figs. 1-13) wherein the switches (102) comprise power components based on wide bandgap semiconductor such as at least one of SiC and GaN (The high-side transistor and the low-side transistor are preferably configured as a silicon carbide (SiC), see page 4, lines 32-33).
In re to claim 7 , Gerth discloses (Figs. 1-13) the switches (11 and 12) but fails to disclose the switches are bidirectional for voltage, or bidirectional for voltage and for current.
Whereas, Lefevre discloses the switches are bidirectional for voltage, or bidirectional for voltage (where each transistor is series-connected with a diode to form a switch which is bidirectional in terms of voltage and unidirectional in terms of current, see parag. 0004 and 0118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the half bridge inverter of Gerth to include a bidirectional switches as taught by Lefevre because bidirectional switches are cost savings, reduced conduction losses, and improved efficiency devices, which leads to improve the switching efficiency of the switching unit.
In re to claim 8 , Gerth discloses (Figs. 1-13), wherein each switch comprises a transistor and a diode coupled in anti-series, or two transistors coupled in anti-series to each other (Fig. 2 of Lefevre disclosed the sources of transistors Mh-1, Mh-2, and Mh-3 are respectively connected to the anodes of diodes Dh-1, Dh-2, and Dh-3, having their cathodes respectively connected to terminals 15, 16, and 17 of the three AC voltage phases. The drains of transistors Ml-1, Ml-2, Ml-3 are respectively connected to terminals 15, 16, and 17, see parg.0061.)
In re to claim 10 , Gerth as modified Static power converter discloses (Figs. 1-13 an inverter) comprising at least one power module according to claim 1 (Fig. 2-13: half bridge 10) .
In re to claim 11 , Gerth as modified (Figs. 1-13), wherein the power module is arranged in a package comprising, on a surface, connection pads electrically coupled to the first and second electrical contacts and to electrodes for controlling the switches (Figs. 2-13: shows half bridge 10 is arranged in one package, surface and connection pads).
In re to claim 12 , Gerth as modified (Figs. 1-13), configured to be coupled to at least one electric power source (capacitor C) , and wherein each of the switches of the power module (10) is sized to conduct a current value proportional to that of the current intended to be delivered by the electric power source (delivered AC voltage AC_OUT at the output) .
In re to claim 13 , Gerth as modified (Figs. 1-13), wherein each of the switches of the power module (10) is sized to conduct a current value equal to half that of the current intended to be delivered by the electric power source (delivered by the electric power source at the AC-Out. Examiner noted that the prior art used to deliver AC_out upon a design needs / intended purpose for specific reason or goal for acquiring a desired outcome . Therefore, any skilled person designing the circuit of would have to exercise a current value equal to half that of the current intended to be delivered by the electric power source, thereby arriving to the subject matter of claim 13.) .
In re to claim 14 , Gerth as modified (Figs. 1-13), wherein the n second electrical contacts (15) are common to the high-side switches (11) and to the low-side switches of the static power converter (12).
In re to claim 15 , Gerth as modified (Figs. 1-13),, wherein the n second electrical contacts (15) are arranged between the high-side switches (11) and the low-side switches (12) .
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6, the prior art fails to discloses the power module including the limitation of “a stack of electrically-conductive layers electrically insulated from one another and forming the second electrical contacts.”
Conclusion
9. 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 SISAY G TIKU whose telephone number is (571)272-6898. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-6:00PM. 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 L Hammond can be reached at (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 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.
/SISAY G TIKU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights