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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/03/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim(s) 1 and 11, step number viii) is repeated twice. Examiner suggests renumbering the last step from “viii)” to “ix)” to restore clarity.
Regarding Claim(s) 1 and 11, Examiner suggests adding conjunction word “and” at the end of the last but one paragraph/step to restore clarity.
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.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 16-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Claim(s) 6 and 16 recite a limitation "the first predetermined range" before introduction. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 recite a limitation "the first threshold" before introduction. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 recite a limitation "the second threshold" before introduction. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s).
Dependent Claim(s) 9 and 19 not specifically addressed share the same 112(b) rejection as the rejected base claim(s). Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-5, 10-15 and 20 are objected to as pending formal matter of claim objection(s) or objected to as being dependent upon a objected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome formality issues including all of the limitations of the claims.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 16-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reason for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest references are found based on the search:
a) Ljushev et al. (US 20200403493) discloses that an inverter system and a method of using said inverter system. A rectifier stage of the inverter system is used to charge a DC link stage to a first voltage level and a control module determines whether voltages over series connected capacitors of the DC link stage are balanced. If those voltages are balanced, the rectifier stage charges the DC link stage to a second voltage level higher than the first voltage level (see specification for more details).
b) Kanjiya et al. (US 20150077067) discloses that A fault-tolerant doubly-fed induction generator (DFIG) for use with a wind energy conversion system. stator windings are directly connected to the grid, a grid fault may cause a voltage dip at the DFIG terminals that directly affects the air-gap flux, and thus, the energy conversion process. Depending on the type of fault, the voltage dip may introduce a DC component, or a combination of a DC component and reverse rotating AC component, in the air-gap flux. These flux components induce high voltage in the rotor windings at rotational and/or double the rotational frequency. Unless the proper mitigating measures are employed, the rotor currents under the grid fault condition can exceed the transient current ratings of the RSC. (see specification for more details).
c) Dujic et al (US 20240266963) discloses that power converters that provide zero-voltage turn-on for the switching of the power converter. methods to prevent short circuit failures through switching devices of the power converter. (see specification for more details).
However, the combination or each of the cited references above does not disclose nor fairly suggest each and every claimed limitation of independent claims 1 and 11. These claims specify method/system of monitoring a system comprising determining the presence or absence of a fault in the first or second inverters based on a combination of two or more of first ratio of the turn off delay for the first inverter relative to the turn off delay for the second inverter, second ratio of the on-state resistance for the first inverter relative to the on-state resistance for the second inverter, third ratio of the on-state voltage for the first inverter relative to the on-state voltage for the second inverter and fourth ratio of the equivalent series resistance for the first inverter relative to the equivalent series resistance for the second inverter. While the cited prior arts do disclose fault determination in a power electronics system, none bases the determination on said ratios. Therefore, the claims are allowable pending formal matters.
Other claim(s) 2-5, 10, 12-15 and 20 depend from the independent claim(s) are allowable pending formal matters for the same reasons.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKM ZAKARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0664. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-5 PM (PST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Judy Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-2258. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/AKM ZAKARIA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights