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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a signal acquisition unit … configured to acquire voltages …” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “unit” coupled with functional language “signal acquisition unit … configured to acquire voltages…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “a signal acquisition unit … configured to acquire voltages”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means”
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of " a signal acquisition unit … configured to acquire voltages …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Note: par.53-54 of the specification discloses the signal acquisition unit 114 including pre-processing units 801 and analog-to-digital conversion units 802; and par.55 further discloses pre-processing units 801 including attenuation circuit 901, a filtering circuit 902, an isolation circuit 903, and an amplification circuit 904.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a processing unit … configured to determine whether a fault occurs…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “unit” coupled with functional language “a processing unit … configured to determine whether a fault occurs …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation: “a processing unit … configured to determine whether a fault occurs …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means” or equivalent term
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of " a processing unit … configured to determine whether a fault occurs …"
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform each of the claimed functions cited above in the row of the 112(f)-grid entitled “Prong B” for each of the respective placeholders.
The specification with regards to the processing unit does not demonstrate that the application has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 1, 10 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 recites the limitation "the primary side" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the primary side of the three-phase dual active bridge converter in lines 3-4 or the primary side of something else. If it is referring to the primary side of the three-phase dual active bridge converter in lines 3-4, then it is recommended to amend to recite “the primary side of the three-phase dual active bridge converter”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a processing unit … configured to determine whether a fault occurs …”; The term “a processing unit … configured to determine” renders the claim indefinite as the claim does not define sufficient structure to achieve the function determining whether a fault occurs; the original specification does not provide clarification as to what structure performs the particular functions of this claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret so many structures that can perform the particular function of associating the detected oscillations with physical distances along the rope. Thus, for these reasons, the phrase “a processing unit … configured to determine” renders claim 1 indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the three-phase dual active bridge converter" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There’s no previous mention of a three-phase dual active bridge converter in the claim.
Claims 2-3 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 11-15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a fault determination apparatus for a three-phase dual active bridge converter, comprising: a signal acquisition unit connected to each of three bridge arm switch node points on a primary side of the three-phase dual active bridge converter and configured to acquire voltages between two bridge arm switch node points of the three bridge arm switch node points on the primary side; and a processing unit connected to the signal acquisition unit and configured to determine whether a fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter according to a relative relationship between a sequence change of the voltages and a normal sequence change.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites an apparatus; therefore, it is a machine
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of determining whether a fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter according to a relative relationship between a sequence change of the voltages and a normal sequence change. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining whether a fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: a processing unit
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: a three-phase dual active bridge converter, comprising: a signal acquisition unit connected to each of three bridge arm switch node points on a primary side of the three-phase dual active bridge converter and configured to acquire voltages between two bridge arm switch node points of the three bridge arm switch node points on the primary side
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining a fault for a Three-Phase Dual Active Bridge Converter, in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform fault determination. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)
The following references establish the conventionality of the limitation “a signal acquisition unit connected to each of three bridge arm switch node points on a primary side of the three-phase dual active bridge converter and configured to acquire voltages between two bridge arm switch node points of the three-bridge arm switch node points on the primary side”:
US 20250141343 A1; RECTIFICATION CONTROL SYSTEM, CHARGER AND CONTROL METHOD FOR CHARGER (ZHANG; Lijun et al.) teaches “a signal acquisition unit connected to each of three bridge arm switch node points on a primary side of the three-phase dual active bridge converter and configured to acquire voltages between two bridge arm switch node points of the three-bridge arm switch node points on the primary side” see par.34-41.
CN 103986310 A; Converter circuit and open circuit detecting method thereof (LIU, LIANG et al.) teaches “a signal acquisition unit connected to each of three bridge arm switch node points on a primary side of the three-phase dual active bridge converter and configured to acquire voltages between two bridge arm switch node points of the three-bridge arm switch node points on the primary side” see par.72
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining a fault for a Three-Phase Dual Active Bridge Converter, in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein, in response to the fault occurring in the three-phase dual active bridge converter, the processing unit is further configured to determine a location where the fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter according to a relative relationship between the sequence change of the voltages and a fault sequence change, wherein the fault sequence change corresponds to a controllable switch where the fault occurs.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites a fault determination method for a three-phase dual active bridge converter, comprising: acquiring voltages between two bridge arm switch node points on a primary side of the three- phase dual active bridge converter; and determining whether a fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter according to a relative relationship between a sequence change of the voltages and a normal sequence change.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a method; therefore, it is a process
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of determining whether a fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter according to a relative relationship between a sequence change of the voltages and a normal sequence change. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining whether a fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: acquiring voltages between two bridge arm switch node points on a primary side of the three- phase dual active bridge converter
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining a fault for a Three-Phase Dual Active Bridge Converter, in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform fault determination. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)
The following references establish the conventionality of the limitation “acquiring voltages between two bridge arm switch node points on a primary side of the three- phase dual active bridge converter”:
US 20250141343 A1; RECTIFICATION CONTROL SYSTEM, CHARGER AND CONTROL METHOD FOR CHARGER (ZHANG; Lijun et al.) teaches “a signal acquisition unit connected to each of three bridge arm switch node points on a primary side of the three-phase dual active bridge converter and configured to acquire voltages between two bridge arm switch node points of the three-bridge arm switch node points on the primary side” see par.34-41.
CN 103986310 A; Converter circuit and open circuit detecting method thereof (LIU, LIANG et al.) teaches “a signal acquisition unit connected to each of three bridge arm switch node points on a primary side of the three-phase dual active bridge converter and configured to acquire voltages between two bridge arm switch node points of the three-bridge arm switch node points on the primary side” see par.72
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining a fault for a Three-Phase Dual Active Bridge Converter, in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein determining whether a fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter according to a relative relationship between a sequence change of the voltages and a normal sequence change comprises: in response to the sequence change of the voltages failing to match the normal sequence change, determining that the fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter; and in response to the sequence change of the voltages matching the normal sequence change, determining that the fault does occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein, the voltages comprises a first-second bridge arm voltage, a second-third bridge arm voltage, and a third-first bridge arm voltage; and before determining whether the fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter according to the relative relationship between the sequence change of the voltages and the normal sequence change, the method further comprises: performing pre-processing and analog-to-digital conversion processing on an acquired analog signal of the first-second bridge arm voltage to generate a digital signal of the first-second bridge arm voltage; performing the pre-processing and the analog-to-digital conversion processing on an acquired analog signal of the second-third bridge arm voltage to generate a digital signal of the second- third bridge arm voltage, and performing the pre-processing and the analog-to-digital conversion processing on an acquired analog signal of the third-first bridge arm voltage to generate a digital signal of the third-first bridge arm voltage.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on Claim 6, which depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the pre-processing comprises attenuation processing, filtering processing, and isolation processing.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on Claim 6, which depends on claim 4, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the normal sequence change comprises: a sequential combination of the first-second bridge arm voltage, the second- third bridge arm voltage, and the third-first bridge arm voltage cyclically changes from high- low-zero into high-zero-low, from high-zero-low into zero-high-low, from zero-high-low into low-high-zero, from low-high-zero into low-zero-high, from low-zero-high into zero-low-high, and from zero-low-high back into high-low-zero.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends claim 4, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein after determining whether the fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter according to the relative relationship between the sequence change of the voltages and the normal sequence change, the method further comprises: in response to the fault occurring in the three-phase dual active bridge converter, locating a controllable switch where the fault occurs according to a relative relationship between the sequence change of the voltages and a fault sequence change.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites an electronic device, comprising: at least one processing unit; and a memory which is in a communication connection with the at least one processing unit; wherein the memory stores a computer program executable by the at least one processing unit, and the computer program is executed by the at least one processing unit to enable the at least one processing unit to execute acquiring voltages between two bridge arm switch node points on a primary side of the three- phase dual active bridge converter; and determining whether a fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter according to a relative relationship between a sequence change of the voltages and a normal sequence change.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a device; therefore, it is a machine
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitation of determining whether a fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter according to a relative relationship between a sequence change of the voltages and a normal sequence change. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind; for example, determining whether a fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter can be done by a human with pen and paper.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. the following additional elements merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the abstract idea, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea: at least one processing unit; and a memory which is in a communication connection with the at least one processing unit; wherein the memory stores a computer program executable by the at least one processing unit, and the computer program is executed by the at least one processing unit to enable the at least one processing unit to execute
the following additional elements merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea: acquiring voltages between two bridge arm switch node points on a primary side of the three- phase dual active bridge converter
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining a fault for a Three-Phase Dual Active Bridge Converter, in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform fault determination. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
These additional elements have been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)
The following references establish the conventionality of the limitation “acquiring voltages between two bridge arm switch node points on a primary side of the three- phase dual active bridge converter”:
US 20250141343 A1; RECTIFICATION CONTROL SYSTEM, CHARGER AND CONTROL METHOD FOR CHARGER (ZHANG; Lijun et al.) teaches “a signal acquisition unit connected to each of three bridge arm switch node points on a primary side of the three-phase dual active bridge converter and configured to acquire voltages between two bridge arm switch node points of the three-bridge arm switch node points on the primary side” see par.34-41.
CN 103986310 A; Converter circuit and open circuit detecting method thereof (LIU, LIANG et al.) teaches “a signal acquisition unit connected to each of three bridge arm switch node points on a primary side of the three-phase dual active bridge converter and configured to acquire voltages between two bridge arm switch node points of the three-bridge arm switch node points on the primary side” see par.72
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining a fault for a Three-Phase Dual Active Bridge Converter, in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 depends claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine whether a fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter by: in response to the sequence change of the voltages failing to match the normal sequence change, determining that the fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter; and in response to the sequence change of the voltages matching the normal sequence change, determining that the fault does occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 12 depends claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein, the voltages comprises a first-second bridge arm voltage, a second-third bridge arm voltage, and a third-first bridge arm voltage; and before determining whether the fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter, the at least one processor is further configured to execute: performing pre-processing and analog-to-digital conversion processing on an acquired analog signal of the first-second bridge arm voltage to generate a digital signal of the first-second bridge arm voltage; performing the pre-processing and the analog-to-digital conversion processing on an acquired analog signal of the second-third bridge arm voltage to generate a digital signal of the second- third bridge arm voltage, and performing the pre-processing and the analog-to-digital conversion processing on an acquired analog signal of the third-first bridge arm voltage to generate a digital signal of the third-first bridge arm voltage.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 13 depends on Claim 12, which depends claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the pre-processing comprises attenuation processing, filtering processing, and isolation processing.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 14 depends on Claim 12, which depends claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the normal sequence change comprises: a sequential combination of the first-second bridge arm voltage, the second-third bridge arm voltage, and the third-first bridge arm voltage cyclically changes from high-low-zero into high-zero-low, from high-zero-low into zero-high-low, from zero-high-low into low-high- zero, from low-high-zero into low-zero-high, from low-zero-high into zero-low-high, and from zero-low-high back into high-low-zero.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 15 depends claim 10, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein after determining whether the fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter, the at least one processor is further configured to execute: in response to the fault occurring in the three-phase dual active bridge converter, locating a controllable switch where the fault occurs according to a relative relationship between the sequence change of the voltages and a fault sequence change.”, which is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activities routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this limitation(s) is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU, LIANG et al. (Chinese Publication #CN 103986310 A: Hereinafter Liu; provided by the applicant; translation provided by the examiner) in view of Rastogi; Sagar K et al. (US Patent # US 11870358 B2; hereinafter Rastogi).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches
A fault determination apparatus (abstract), comprising:
a signal acquisition unit (voltage measurement module 14) connected to each of three bridge arm switch node points (fig.1 shows three bridge arms connected to short-circuit detection module 18; par.77 teaches 3 bridge arms 12A, 12B, and 12C each of which comprising node points) on a primary side of the three-phase dual active bridge converter (fig.1 shows top side of the circuit as primary side) and configured to acquire voltages between two bridge arm switch node points of the three-bridge arm switch node points on the primary side (par.8 teaches “The voltage measurement module is electrically connected to the midpoint of the bridge arm to measure the voltage difference between every two bridge arms”); and
a processing unit (open circuit detection module 16) connected to the signal acquisition unit (fig.1 shows voltage measurement module 14 connected to open circuit detection module 16) and configured to determine whether a fault occurs (par.78-81 teaches determining fault) in the three-phase dual active bridge converter according to a relative relationship (par.77 teaches relative relationship through comparison of different set of test pulse signals s1-s12) between a sequence change of the voltages (par.77 teaches sequence change from set of test signals) and a normal sequence change (par.77 teaches normal sequence change included in the set test signal).
Liu fails to teach a three-phase dual active bridge converter.
Rastogi does teach a three-phase dual active bridge converter (fig.1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu to include the teachings of Rastogi; which would provide an improved fault determination apparatus that uses detailed waveform analysis for transient and steady-state fault operation of 3-Φ DAB, resulting in a logic-based fault diagnosis method as disclosed by Rastogi (col.2 ln 1-9).
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches A fault determination method (abstract), comprising:
acquiring voltages between two bridge arm switch node points on a primary side (fig.1 shows top side of the circuit as primary side) of the three- phase dual active bridge converter (par.8 teaches “The voltage measurement module is electrically connected to the midpoint of the bridge arm to measure the voltage difference between every two bridge arms”); and
determining whether a fault occurs (par.78-81 teaches determining fault) in the three-phase dual active bridge converter according to a relative relationship (par.77 teaches relative relationship through comparison of different set of test pulse signals s1-s12) between a sequence change of the voltages (par.77 teaches sequence change from set of test signals) and a normal sequence change (par.77 teaches normal sequence change included in the set test signal).
Liu fails to teach a three-phase dual active bridge converter.
Rastogi does teach a three-phase dual active bridge converter (fig.1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu to include the teachings of Rastogi; which would provide an improved fault determination apparatus that uses detailed waveform analysis for transient and steady-state fault operation of 3-Φ DAB, resulting in a logic-based fault diagnosis method as disclosed by Rastogi (col.2 ln 1-9).
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches
acquiring voltages between two bridge arm switch node points on a primary side (fig.1 shows top side of the circuit as primary side) of the three- phase dual active bridge converter (par.8 teaches “The voltage measurement module is electrically connected to the midpoint of the bridge arm to measure the voltage difference between every two bridge arms”); and
determining whether a fault occurs (par.78-81 teaches determining fault) in the three-phase dual active bridge converter according to a relative relationship (par.77 teaches relative relationship through comparison of different set of test pulse signals s1-s12) between a sequence change of the voltages (par.77 teaches sequence change from set of test signals) and a normal sequence change (par.77 teaches normal sequence change included in the set test signal).
Liu fails to teach an electronic device, comprising: at least one processing unit; and a memory which is in a communication connection with the at least one processing unit; wherein the memory stores a computer program executable by the at least one processing unit, and the computer program is executed by the at least one processing unit to enable the at least one processing unit to execute.
Rastogi does teach an electronic device (controller 120), comprising: at least one processing unit (col.7 line 6 “an electronic data processor”); and a memory which is in a communication connection with the at least one processing unit (col.7 lines 9-11 “The electronic data processor and the data storage device may be coupled to the data bus to facilitate communication of data messages among the electronic data processor”); wherein the memory stores a computer program executable by the at least one processing unit (col.7 lines 23-25 “the electronic data processor can execute software instructions stored in the data storage device”), and the computer program is executed by the at least one processing unit to enable the at least one processing unit to execute (col.7 lines 4-25).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu to include the teachings of Rastogi; which would provide an improved fault determination apparatus that uses detailed waveform analysis for transient and steady-state fault operation of 3-Φ DAB, resulting in a logic-based fault diagnosis method as disclosed by Rastogi (col.2 ln 1-9).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Rastogi further in view of Rastogi; Sagar Kumar et al. (US Publication # US 20240186888 A1; Hereinafter Rastogi II).
Regarding claim 3, Liu in view of Rastogi teach the fault determination apparatus according to claim 1, Liu further teaches wherein, in response to the fault occurring in the three-phase dual active bridge converter (par.80 teaches response to fault occurrence), but fails to teach the processing unit is further configured to determine a location where the fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter according to a relative relationship between the sequence change of the voltages and a fault sequence change, wherein the fault sequence change corresponds to a controllable switch where the fault occurs.
Rastogi II does teach the processing unit is further configured to determine a location where the fault occurs in the three-phase dual active bridge converter (par.24) according to a relative relationship between the sequence change of the voltages and a fault sequence change (figs 4-6 show relative relationships between the sequence change of the voltages and a fault sequence change), wherein the fault sequence change corresponds to a controllable switch where the fault occurs (par.37-38 “The proposed fault diagnosis scheme successfully detected the fault and identified the faulty transistor within 4 switching cycles”; transistors can function as switches in circuits; fault sequence change is implicitly taught in switching cycles).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu in view of Rastogi to include the teachings of Rastogi II; which would provide an improved fault diagnosis scheme that uses an alpha-beta stationary reference frame that is divided into a plurality of regions, each region associated with a no-fault condition or a fault in a corresponding primary side switching device or a corresponding secondary side switching device as disclosed by Rastogi II.
Conclusion
The Prior are made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 11139750 B2; Lai; Chien-An et al. is an embodiment for an Active bridge rectifier circuit.
US 20210135561 A1; Hanson; Michael J. is a dual active bridge system for ripple cancelation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights