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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 23 Jul 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a braking resistor assembly” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Figs 1-3: reference character “D6” has been used to designate two different diodes in these figures.
Fig 2: reference character “Ch3” has been used to designate three different switches in this figure.
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. 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.
Specification
The lengthy 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: the limitation “their main power structure” is unclear. The pronoun “their” does not match the specification pronoun of “its” for referring back to the singular inverter. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “main power structure” in the claim.
Claims 2-20 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 1.
Claim 2: recites the limitation “six one-way and six two-way switches”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as each set of switches has an additional identifier in claim 1.
Claim 3: recites the limitation “said symmetrical 15Vdc sources”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4: recites the limitation “said two-way switches”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 4.
Claim 4: recites the limitation “the flow of charge”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 4.
Claim 4: recites the limitation “two direct voltage sources Vdc1 and Vdc2”. These appear to be the same “two symmetrical direct voltage sources” of claim 1, not two additional voltage source elements. Therefore, the same naming convention from claim 1 should be used.
Claims 5-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 4.
Claim 5: recites the limitation “the diodes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is objected to as it suffers from the same deficiency.
Claims 6-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 5.
Claim 5: recites the limitation “the switches”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7, 9, 13-15 are objected to as they suffer from the same deficiency.
Claims 6-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 5.
Claim 6: recites the limitation “each arm”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12, 16-17 are objected to as they suffer from the same deficiency.
Claims 7-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 6.
Claim 6: recites the limitation “the first stage”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is objected to as it suffers from the same deficiency.
Claims 7-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 6.
Claim 6: recites the limitation “the second step”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 6.
Claim 7: recites the limitation “the output capacitors”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 7.
Claim 7: recites the limitation “the energy”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8 and 10 are objected to as they suffer from the same deficiency.
Claims 8-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 7.
Claim 7: recites the limitation “the inductors”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8 and 10 are objected to as they suffer from the same deficiency.
Claims 8-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 7.
Claim 7: recites the limitation “each pair”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 7.
Claim 7: recites the limitation “the input voltage source”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 7.
Claim 7: recites the limitation “the load”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 7.
Claim 8: recites the limitation “the power sources”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 8.
Claim 8: recites the limitation “the switch”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 is objected to as it suffers from the same deficiency.
Claims 9-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 8.
Claim 8: recites the limitation “said diodes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 8.
Claim 9: recites the limitation “the closing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 9.
Claim 9: recites the limitation “the reference signals”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 9.
Claim 10: recites the limitation “the capacitor discharge”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 10.
Claim 10: recites the limitation “the association”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 10.
Claim 10: recites the limitation “the voltage source”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 10.
Claim 10: recites the limitation “the capacitors. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 10.
Claim 10: recites the limitation “the connected load””. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 10.
Claim 11: recites the limitation “the magnetization current”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 is objected to as it suffers from the same deficiency.
Claims 12-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 11.
Claim 11: recites the limitation “the body diode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 11.
Claim 12: recites the limitation “the sources”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 12.
Claim 12: recites the limitation “the linear load”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 12.
Claim 13: recites the limitation “the generated sinusoids”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 13.
Claim 13: recites the limitation “the conduction inputs”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 is objected to as it suffers from the same deficiency.
Claims 14-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 13.
Claim 13: recites the limitation “the conduction outputs”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 13.
Claim 14: recites the limitation “the output sinusoids”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 is objected to on the basis of its dependency to Claim 14.
Claim 15: recites the limitation “the negative half-cycle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15: recites the limitation “the inverter output voltages”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is objected to as it suffers from the same deficiency.
Claim 15: recites the limitation “the output voltages”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15: recites the limitation “the positive half-cycles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16: recites the limitation “the control”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17-20 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 16.
Claim 17: recites the limitation “the output terminals”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18-20 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 17.
Claim 17: recites the limitation “the three hysteresis comparators”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18-20 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 17.
Claim 17: recites the limitation “the respective feedback signals”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18-20 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 17.
Claim 18: recites the limitation “the comparisons”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 19-20 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 18.
Claim 18: recites the limitation “the respective semiconductor switches”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 19-20 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 18.
Claim 18: recites the limitation “their output terminals”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 19-20 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 18.
Claim 18: recites the limitation “the change”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 19-20 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 18.
Claim 18: recites the limitation “these feedback signals”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 19-20 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 18.
Claim 18: recites the limitation “the amplitudes of the reference sinusoidal signals”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 19-20 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 18.
Claim 19: recites the limitation “the non-inverting terminals”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is objected to on the basis of its dependency to Claim 19.
Claim 19: recites the limitation “the respective comparators”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is objected to on the basis of its dependency to Claim 19.
Claim 20: recites the limitation “the hysteresis control”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20: recites the limitation “the generated pulses”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20: recites the limitation “the power switches”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20: recites the limitation “the same waveforms”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20: recites the limitation “s the reference signals”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20: recites the limitation “the signal levels of Reference1, Reference2 and Reference3”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear whether “Reference1, Reference2 and Reference3” refer back to “the reference signals” or these are three new reference signals.
Claim 20: recites the limitation “the output signal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20: recites the limitation “the angular phase shift”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20: recites the limitation “the outputs of the comparators”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1: The term “low harmonic distortion” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low harmonic distortion” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no stated value or standard to determine the boundary between “low” and “not low”. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean any value since there is no standard or specific values stated.
Claims 2-20 are objected to on the basis of their dependency.
Claim 2: Claim 2 does not further limit Claim 1; it presents an alternative structural embodiment that replaces two of Claim 1’s enumerated elements (six two-way semiconductor switches and also the six one-way current switches) with twelve two-way current switches. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean an inverter with 12 total switches.
Claim 3: the limitation “the aforementioned six resistors and three voltage comparators configured in hysteresis” is unclear. The specification specifies the feedback resistors as R1-6 and they are shown in Fig 8. Fig 9 shows R7-12, but the specification does not mention these reference characters at all. R7-12 have different values than R1-6, and are shown in a different part of the circuit. The limitation “aforementioned” means the resistors that were already mentioned, which would be the “six feedback resistors” R1-6 in claim 1. It is unclear if the sets of resistors are the same or not. A different ordinal or identifier should be used if this is a separate set of resistors. Additionally, it is unclear whether “and three voltage comparators” is also part of the “aforementioned” elements or not. The limitation “aforementioned” should be removed regardless as it is either redundant or incorrect once proper antecedent form is in place. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean the same six feedback resistors from claim 1 are configured in hysteresis.
Claim 4: the limitation “currents that flow in the opposite direction” is ambiguous. It is unclear in what direction “opposite” means. No direction of current flow was originally stated, therefore, there is no way to determine the “opposite direction”. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean that current flows in any direction.
Claims 5-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency.
Claim 5: the limitation “the diodes present in all the switches associated with the diodes existing in an inverter cell” is not clear. It is not clear which switches are being referenced, which of the diodes are associated, how they are associated, or which diodes are part of the inverter cell. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean at least one diode and at least one switch.
Claims 6-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency.
Claim 7: the limitation “wherein in the first stage, the switches close, with the closing of each pair being 120 electrical degrees phase shifted relative to each other, the voltages on the output capacitors begin to grow linearly and the energy stored in the inductors, in association with the input voltage source supplies energy to them and to the load” is not clear. It is not clear which switches close, which ones are paired, or to whom “them” is referring. Additionally, it is unclear what “and” is linking together. The limitation “in association with” is grammatically incorrect and it is not clear what is meant by this phrase. It is unclear to whom “them” is referring. This entire claim is replete with grammatical errors, ambiguities, and antecedent issues that make the metes and bounds of the claim impossible to discern. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean an inverter with three phases on the output.
Claims 8-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency.
Claim 8: the limitation “wherein the energy stored in the inductors is discharged through the power sources, through the diodes, antiparallel to the switch, which are directly polarized, being analogous in said diodes which are directly polarized, thus allowing demagnetization of the inductors” is not clear. This entire claim is replete with grammatical errors, ambiguities, and antecedent issues that make the metes and bounds of the claim impossible to discern. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean an inverter with inductors that are discharged through some of the diodes.
Claims 9-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency.
Claim 9: the limitation “wherein the closing of the switches takes place first, after 120 electrical degrees the switches close, and after 240 degrees (or -120 degrees) the switches close, wherein these shifts are inserted into the reference signals, which must be 120 degrees phase shifted relative to each other” is not clear. This entire claim is replete with grammatical errors, ambiguities, and antecedent issues that make the metes and bounds of the claim impossible to discern. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean a three-phase inverter where each phase 120 degrees phase-shifted.
Claims 10-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency.
Claim 10: the limitation “wherein part of the energy stored in the inductors and which is discharged, contributes to the capacitor discharge, also, the association with inductors and the voltage source further provides energy for discharging the capacitors and the connected load” is not clear. This entire claim is replete with grammatical errors, ambiguities, and antecedent issues that make the metes and bounds of the claim impossible to discern. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean an inverter with inductors and capacitors that get charged and discharged during operation.
Claims 11-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency.
Claim 11: the limitation “wherein the switch conducts part of the demagnetization current that flows through the body diode of this switch, resulting in non-dissipative switching both when opening and closing, wherein the other part of such demagnetization current flows through the inductor and through the switch, which causes this switch to enter non-dissipative switching in a ZCS mode” is not clear. This entire claim is replete with grammatical errors, ambiguities, and antecedent issues that make the metes and bounds of the claim impossible to discern. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean an inverter with at least one switch that has a body diode and can operate in ZCS mode.
Claims 12-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency.
Claim 12: the limitation “wherein in each arm, part of the demagnetization current is reused in the linear load of its respective output capacitor, and the other part of this current returns to the source” is not clear. This entire claim is replete with grammatical errors, ambiguities, and antecedent issues that make the metes and bounds of the claim impossible to discern. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean an inverter with capacitors that receive current from inductors.
Claims 13-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency.
Claim 13: the limitation “wherein in periods of negative half-cycles of the generated sinusoids, the switches operate in non-dissipative ZVS switching both at the conduction input and at the conduction output” is not clear. This entire claim is replete with grammatical errors, ambiguities, and antecedent issues that make the metes and bounds of the claim impossible to discern. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean an inverter with ZVS switching.
Claims 14-15 are objected to on the basis of their dependency.
Claim 14: the limitation “wherein the switches operate in non-dissipative ZVS switching when opening and closing in all positive periods of generation of the output sinusoids” is not clear. This entire claim is replete with grammatical errors, ambiguities, and antecedent issues that make the metes and bounds of the claim impossible to discern. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean an inverter with ZVS switching.
Claim 15 is objected to on the basis of its dependency.
Claim 15: the limitation “wherein in ZCS switching, the conduction input in switches takes place in the negative half-cycle of generation of the inverter output voltages, and in switches it takes place when the output voltages are generated in the positive half-cycles, with the switches presenting non-dissipative ZCS switching only in the conduction input” is not clear. This entire claim is replete with grammatical errors, ambiguities, and antecedent issues that make the metes and bounds of the claim impossible to discern. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean an inverter with ZCS switching.
Claim 16: The term “further comprising the control of all semiconductor switches using three hysteresis comparators, each one producing PWM signals to drive the four switches on each arm” is not clear. This entire claim is replete with grammatical errors, ambiguities, and antecedent issues that make the metes and bounds of the claim impossible to discern. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean an inverter with three hysteresis comparators that drive the switches with PWM signals.
Claims 17-20 are objected to on the basis of their dependency.
Claim 17: The term “low amplitude” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low harmonic distortion” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no stated value or standard to determine the boundary between “low” and “not low”. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean any value since there is no standard or specific values stated.
Claims 18-20 are objected to on the basis of their dependency.
Claim 18: the limitation “wherein the comparisons generate PWM signals that activate the respective semiconductor switches, allowing the creation of three sinusoidal waves at their output terminals, with a module varying according to the change in the amplitude of these feedback signals or by changing the amplitudes of the reference sinusoidal signals” is not clear. This entire claim is replete with grammatical errors, ambiguities, and antecedent issues that make the metes and bounds of the claim impossible to discern. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean an inverter with PWM control signals.
Claims 19-20 are objected to on the basis of their dependency.
Claim 19: the limitation “wherein sinusoidal signals 120 degrees phase shifted relative to each other are connected to the non-inverting terminals of the respective comparators” is not clear. This entire claim is replete with grammatical errors, ambiguities, and antecedent issues that make the metes and bounds of the claim impossible to discern. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean a three-phase inverter with at least two comparators that have non-inverting inputs.
Claim 20 is objected to on the basis of its dependency.
Claim 20: the limitation “further comprising a voltage-follower DC/AC inverter, wherein in the hysteresis control, the generated pulses control the power switches, causing the inverter output voltages to present the same waveforms as the reference signals, wherein a form of gain is generated by modifying the signal levels of Reference1, Reference2 and Reference3, wherein it is also possible to change the frequency of the output signal and the angular phase shift, and wherein the outputs of the comparators are connected to a gate driver for each switch.” is not clear. This entire claim is replete with grammatical errors, ambiguities, and antecedent issues that make the metes and bounds of the claim impossible to discern. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean a three-phase inverter that uses hysteresis to control at least some of the switches.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanoue (WO 2023095830 A1) in view of Nikitin (US 20190044453 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamanoue discloses a there-phase inverter (110, Fig 5), comprising: six two-way semiconductor switches (M1-2 in each of the three phases [110U, 110V, & 110W]=6 switches, Fig 5); six one-way current switches (SW1-2 in each of the three phases [110U, 110V, & 110W]=6 switches, Fig 5); six inductors (L3-4 in each of the three phases [110U, 110V, & 110W]=6 inductors, Fig 5); nine diodes (D1-3 in each of the three phases [110U, 110V, & 110W]=9 diodes, Fig 5); three depolarized capacitors (C1-2 in each of the three phases [110U, 110V, & 110W]=6 capacitors, Fig 5); two symmetrical direct voltage sources in their main power structure (e.g. top two of the three power sources that combine to make power source E, Fig 5), wherein a sinusoidal output voltage with low harmonic distortion is produced (OUT of each of the three phases [110U, 110V, & 110W] combine to drive a 3-phase motor, Fig 5).
Yamanoue does not disclose six feedback resistors.
Nikitin teaches a conventional three-phase bidirectional converter (see Fig 45) including a three-phase inverter (Fig 45 is a bidirectional converter so it can be used as an inverter, Fig 45, [0203-9]), comprising: six two-way semiconductor switches (Q11, Q12, Q21, Q22, Q31, Q32, Fig 45); six one-way current switches (diodes connected to Q11, Q12, Q21, Q22, Q31, & Q32 conduct current in one direction, Fig 45); six inductors (two inductors are connected to each phase Va, Vb, Vc, Fig 45); three depolarized capacitors (the three capacitors connected on the AC/left side of the converter, Fig 45); six feedback resistors (resistors connected to the comparators that control the gates of the transistors, Fig 45); and two symmetrical direct voltage sources in their main power structure (two symmetrical capacitors on the DC/right side of the converter, Fig 45), wherein a sinusoidal output voltage with low harmonic distortion is produced (when operating this bidirectional circuit to convert power from the DC side to the AC side, sinusoidal output voltage comes out on the left side, Fig 45).
Regarding Claims 2-20, as best understood notwithstanding the numerous and compounding grammatical and antecedent basis deficiencies discussed above, the combination of Yamanoue and Nikitin discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses twelve two-way switches that can be operated two-way, PWM signals on the output of hysteresis comparators, deceleration regenerative operation, multiple phase arms, positive and negative cycles, discharge-recharge cycles, reference signals, phases that are 120 degrees apart, inductors with magnetization and demagnetization cycles, ZVS, ZCS, feedback signals, frequency, and voltage-follower.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Haryani (US 20200373853 A1) discloses a three-phase three-level inverter with ZVS and phase synchronization.
Amirahmadi (US 20150062988 A1) discloses a three-phase inverter with ZVS and comparators with a PWM output.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C CAULK whose telephone number is (571)270-0623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30, every other Fri off.
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 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.
/J.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/GARY L LAXTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights