DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application filed 20 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 specification is objected to for the following informalities:
The title is not descriptive. Examiner suggests emphasizing the claimed transformer and LCL structure.
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 Germany on 28 December 2023.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sartler (US 20150355259).
As to claim 1, Sartler discloses an electric power converter, in particular for MVAC/LVAC to LVDC electric power conversion drives, comprising an active front end (30, 40,50), a transformer (3) and an LCL-filter (20) with a grid side choke (La, Lb, Lc) and a drive side choke (Lu, Lv, Lw), wherein the transformer and the LCL-filter are at least partially magnetically combined with each other (there is a series connection between the inductors, meaning they have shared reluctance. Broadly interpreted, this reads on the claim).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu (CN 108648902).
As to claim 1, Liu discloses an electric power converter, in particular for MVAC/LVAC to LVDC electric power conversion drives, comprising an active front end (S1-S6), a transformer (Tsa,sb,sc,Tpa,pb,pc) and an LCL-filter (LG1-3, C1-C, LF1-3) with a grid side choke (LG1-3) and a drive side choke (LF1-3), wherein the transformer and the LCL-filter are at least partially magnetically combined with each other (See Figure 8).
As to claim 4, Liu discloses wherein at least one of the chokes (L1, L2) and the transformer use the same core (Liu, Fig. 8).
As to claim 5, Liu discloses wherein the grid side choke (L1) and the capacitor (C) of the LCL-filter are provided on the primary side of the transformer (labelling the primary or secondary is a matter of preference).
As to claim 7, Liu discloses wherein the drive side choke (L2) is provided on the secondary side of the transformer (when interpreted broadly either side can be labelled primary or secondary, it is matter of preference).
As to claim 13, Liu discloses wherein the grid side choke (L1) and the capacitor (C) of the LCL-filter are provided on the primary side of the transformer (when interpreted broadly either side can be labelled primary or secondary, it is matter of preference).
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 2, 3, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 108648902).in view of Rodriguez (US 20190052167)
As to claim 2, Liu does not disclose wherein a stray inductance of the transformer is used as part of the only grid side choke.
Rodriguez teaches (Fig.) does not disclose wherein a stray inductance of the transformer is used as part of the only grid side choke (¶25 “The primary-side resonant inductor Lr and/or the secondary-side choke inductor Lo can be realized as discrete external inductors, or as stray or leakage inductances from other elements (e.g. the transformer Tr) of the converter.”).
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 stray inductance as chokes as disclosed in Rodriguez to decrease parts count.
As to claim 3, Liu in view of Rodriguez teaches wherein the magnetic flux in the grid side choke’s core is closed by a part of the transformer yoke (Liu, Fig. 8).
As to claim 9, Liu in view of Rodriguez teaches wherein at least one of the chokes (L1, L2) and the transformer use the same core (Liu, Fig. 8).
As to claim 10, Liu in view of Rodriguez teaches wherein at least one of the chokes (L1, L2) and the transformer use the same core (Liu, Fig. 8).
As to claim 11, Liu in view of Rodriguez teaches wherein the grid side choke (L1) and the capacitor (C) of the LCL-filter are provided on the primary side of the transformer (when interprettted broadly either side can be labelled primary or secondary, it is matter of preference).
As to claim 12, Liu in view of Rodriguez teaches wherein the grid side choke (L1) and the capacitor (C) of the LCL-filter are provided on the primary side of the transformer (when interprettted broadly either side can be labelled primary or secondary, it is matter of preference).
Claims 6,16, 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 108648902).in view of Watanabe (US 5892645).
As to claim 6, Liu does not disclose wherein a circuit breaker (CB) is provided on the primary side of the transformer before or after the LC part filter.
Watanabe teaches wherein a circuit breaker (51, 71) is provided on the primary side of the transformer (61).
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 breakers on either side of the transformer as disclosed in Watanabe to isolate transformer faults.
As to claim 16, Liu does not disclose wherein a circuit breaker (CB) is provided on the primary side of the transformer before or after the LC part filter.
Watanabe teaches wherein a circuit breaker (51, 71) is provided on the primary side of the transformer (61).
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 breakers on either side of the transformer as disclosed in Watanabe to isolate transformer faults.
As to claim 17, Liu does not disclose wherein a circuit breaker (CB) is provided on the primary side of the transformer before or after the LC part filter.
Watanabe teaches wherein a circuit breaker (51, 71) is provided on the primary side of the transformer (61).
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 breakers on either side of the transformer as disclosed in Watanabe to isolate transformer faults
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 108648902).
As to claim 8, Liu teaches wherein the drive side choke and the secondary winding of the transformer. He does not explicitly state they share the same secondary winding. However, making things integral and separate are generally not patentable per MPEP 2144.04(V).
Claims 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 108648902).in view of Rodriguez (US 20190052167) and Watanabe (US 5892645)
As to claim 14, Liu in view of Rodriguez not teach wherein a circuit breaker (CB) is provided on the primary side of the transformer before or after the LC part filter.
Watanabe teaches wherein a circuit breaker (51, 71) is provided on the primary side of the transformer (61).
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 breakers on either side of the transformer as disclosed in Watanabe to isolate transformer faults.
As to claim 15, Liu in view of Rodriguez not teach wherein a circuit breaker (CB) is provided on the primary side of the transformer before or after the LC part filter.
Watanabe teaches wherein a circuit breaker (51, 71) is provided on the primary side of the transformer (61).
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 breakers on either side of the transformer as disclosed in Watanabe to isolate transformer faults.
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
