DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 13 December 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 abstract has a line of text after line 15 read as Fig. 2A. This appears to be a typographical error.
The abstract refers to reference characters. This is permitted; however, they should be in parenthesis. Also, the abstract should not have legal language (MPEP 608.01 I C) such as “comprising”.
Applicant has a British and European copending application. The British application appears to have the oldest filing date, so the filing date of the British application is required be in the background. It is also ordinary and customary to include the filing dates of all copending applications as well as their publication dates (if available).
The title is not descriptive. Examiner suggests Full Bridge Injection to Alter Impedance of DC-DC Converter.
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.
Drawings
Figures 8A, 10 are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Great Britain on 20 December 2023.
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As to claim 17, applicant claims “selecting the new impedance for the AC link comprising selected an impedance with a higher resistive component”. Generally speaking, resistance cannot be changed without physically altering the circuit, since it is the real component of impedance. Item 13 appears to be wires connecting the AC sides in Figures 2A and 4, and may comprise a transformer in other places. In short, while it is clear how the impedance could theoretically change, it is unclear how the real value of resistance of a passive element could change, since that usually requires increasing length, inserting resistances, greatly increasing temperature or changing materials. Per 37 CFR 1.83 (a), all claimed subject matters must be shown in the drawings. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed applicant claimed impedance, not resistance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Marethoz (US 20200119653).
As to claim 1, Marethoz discloses A DC:DC power converter (Fig. 7), comprising: a DC:AC converter circuit (item 21.1); an AC:DC converter circuit (item 26.1); an AC link (unlabelled transformers) that connects an AC side of the DC:AC converter circuit to an AC side of the AC:DC converter circuit and has an impedance synthesizer (item 1.2) connected therein, the impedance synthesizer comprising an active bridge circuit (item 1.2 shows a full bridge); and a switching controller (Fig. 11, item 33) configured to control a switching operation of a plurality of power semiconductor switches (switches shown in converters/impedance synthesizer) of the active bridge circuit and thereby control an output voltage (primary side of 1.2) of the impedance synthesizer and an impedance of the AC link (¶48-49, the auxiliary unit and the first AC unit are kept at the same frequency, with the auxiliary unit being a fraction of the first unit. Since it is altering voltage at the same frequency, impedance is being altered as well. Also, broadly interpreted, the resonant operation described in ¶28 could read on the claim language as well).
As to claim 2, Marethoz discloses wherein the active bridge circuit (140) of the impedance synthesizer (14) is a full-bridge circuit (Fig. 7 shows all rectifiers/inverters being full bridge).
As to claim 3, Marethoz discloses wherein each of the DC:AC converter circuit and the AC:DC converter circuit comprise an active bridge circuit, each active bridge circuit comprising a plurality of power semiconductor switches (Fig. 7 shows all rectifiers/inverters being full bridge).
As to claim 5, Marethoz teaches wherein: the impedance synthesizer comprises a plurality of parallel-connected active bridge circuits (two half bridges broadly interpreted make a whole bridge), each of the plurality of active bridge circuits comprising a plurality of power semiconductor switches (2 switches per half bridge); and the switching controller is configured to control a switching operation of the plurality of power semiconductor switches of each of the plurality of active bridge circuits and thereby control the output voltage of the impedance synthesizer and the impedance of the AC link.
As to claim 8, Marethoz discloses further comprising an isolating transformer connected in the AC link (Fig. 7 shows two transformers).
Claim(s) 9-14, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Raju (US 20170279361)
As to claim 9, Raju discloses an electrical power system comprising: a DC:DC power converter (Fig. 3) comprising a DC:AC converter circuit (302), an AC:DC converter circuit (304), and an AC link (306) that connects an AC side of the DC:AC converter circuit to an AC side of the AC:DC converter circuit and has an impedance synthesizer (324) connected therein, the impedance synthesizer comprising an active bridge circuit (326, 328); and a control system (311) configured to: determine a desired impedance for the AC link; and control a switching operation of a plurality of power semiconductor switches (¶28 “In one embodiment, the auxiliary voltage has a characteristic of a resonant capacitor voltage. In other words, the auxiliary converter 324 is controlled such that it would produce a similar voltage as that would have been produced by a resonant capacitor.”) of the active bridge circuit and thereby control an output voltage of the impedance synthesizer and an impedance of the AC link according to the desired impedance.
As to claim 10, Raju discolses wherein the control system (is further configured to: receive an indication of a current at input terminals of the impedance synthesizer; determine, based on the current and the desired input impedance, an output voltage for emulating the desired impedance; and control the switching operation of the plurality of power semiconductor switches of the impedance synthesizer according to the output voltage (See Fig. 6, and ¶28 above).
As to claim 11, Raju discloses wherein the control system (150) is further configured to: determine a common-mode component and/or a differential-mode component of the current (Fig. 6); and determine the output voltage based on both the desired impedance and one or more pre-defined transfer functions for filtering the common-mode component and/or differential-mode components (¶29, changing modes).
As to claims 12-14, these correspond to clams 9-11 above and are anticipated for similar reasons. Likewise, claims 9 and 10 correspond to claims 19 and 20 above and are anticipated for similar reasons.
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 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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marethoz (US 20200119653).
As to claim 4, Marethoz explicitly teaches wherein: each of the DC:AC converter circuit and the AC:DC converter circuit comprises a plurality of semiconductor switches; the switching controller is configured to switch the plurality of power semiconductor switches of the impedance synthesizer.
He does not explicitly teach switches of the impedance synthesizer at a frequency that is higher than a frequency at which the plurality of power semiconductor switches of the DC:AC converter circuit and the AC:DC converter circuit are switched. However, he speaks of multiple frequencies in ¶11, and the switching frequencies can only be higher, lower, or equal to each other. It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to claim 5, Marethoz discloses the limitations broadly as explained above, in an effort to expedite prosecution, a more narrow interpretation shall be given. Marethoz teaches wherein: the impedance synthesizer (14) comprises a
Though he does not teach a plurality of parallel connected bridges, this would be old and well known in the art and therefore not patentable. The expected advantage would be to increase the available current throughput.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marethoz (US 20200119653) in view of Xie (US 20170294847).
As to claim 6, Marethoz discloses wherein: the impedance synthesizer comprises
He does not explicitly teach plurality of series-connected active bridge circuits.
Xie teaches plurality of series-connected active bridge circuits (Fig. 2)
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 series stacked switches as disclosed in Xie to increase voltage.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marethoz (US 20200119653) in view of Tyagi (US 20220021221).
As to claim 7, Marethoz teaches wherein: the impedance synthesizer comprises a
Marethoz does not teach plurality of series-connected cells, each cell of the plurality of series-connecting cells comprising a plurality of parallel-connected.
Tyagi teaches plurality of series-connected cells, each cell of the plurality of series-connecting cells comprising a plurality of parallel-connected (¶43 “In some embodiments, the power unit 102 may monitor each block and modify current to change its charging or discharging in a fine-grained controlled manner. The blocks are electrically connected in one of a series configuration or a parallel configuration. The one or more cells are electrically connected in one of a series configuration or a parallel configuration.”).
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 additional parallel and series cells as disclosed in Tyagi to provide for greater current and voltage.
Claims 15-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raju (US 20170279361)in view of Trainer (US 20230018916).
As to claim 15, Raju teaches further comprising: wherein the desired impedance for the AC link (13) is determined based on the one more operating parameters of the DC electrical network.
He does not explicitly teach monitoring, by the control system, one or more operating parameters of the DC electrical network,
Trainer teaches teach monitoring, by the control system, one or more operating parameters of the DC electrical network (See Fig. 14, and ¶88, the system injects a voltage from the DC full bridge when a DC fault occurs),
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 fault voltage injection as disclosed in Trainer to increase fault tolerance.
As to claim 16, Raju in view of Trainer teaches further comprising: determining , by the control system, based on the one or more operating parameters, whether there has been a change in an operating condition of the DC electrical network (Fig. 14, DC faulted network); wherein determining the desired impedance for the AC link comprises, in response to determining there has been a change in the operating condition of the DC electrical network, selecting a new impedance for the AC link (one of ordinary skill would expect conditions to change under faulted conditions).
As to claim 17, Raju in view of Trainer teaches wherein the change in the operating condition is a fault in the DC electrical network (Fig. 14).
As to claim 18, Raju in view of Trainer teaches wherein selecting the new impedance for the AC link comprising selected an impedance with a higher resistive component (a fault on the DC side will cause the auxiliary converter to increase impedance in order to decrease current).
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