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 .
This non-final office action is responsive to Applicants' application filed on Date. Claims 1-7 are presented for examination and are pending for the reasons indicated herein below.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 6-7 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. Claim recites the use of “Arbitrary”, however, configuration of 51 and 52 with bridges allows for a portion from 30 being distributed at different times and not arbitrary or by chance as how it’s being recited. For the sake of examining limitation has been interpreted as operating at different times.
Claims 2-5 depend directly or indirectly from a rejected claim and are, therefore, rejected for the reasons set above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ghosh et al. (US 20170104365 A1)
PNG
media_image1.png
466
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1. Ghosh teaches a power converter [fig 2] comprising: external connection terminals, number of the external connection terminals being three or more [236/240/202/204];
bridge circuits [bridge circuits on primary and secondary sides] connected to the external connection terminals, respectively;
an inductance element [transformer of 218 or Lm] provided for each combination of arbitrary two [interpreted as ununiform, operating at different times] of the bridge circuits, the inductance element connected between an AC terminal [ac terminal of primary side] of one of the two bridge circuits and an AC terminal [ac terminal of secondary side] of another one of the two bridge circuits, the two bridge circuits configured to transfer power [i.e. to output];
and a controller [controller for 122] configured to drive switching elements included in the bridge circuits, wherein the two of the bridge circuits and the inductance element are included in a closed-loop circuit [circuits are shown in a close loop circuit],
the closed-loop circuit has a capacitor [216] connected between the inductance element and at least one of respective AC terminals of the two bridge circuits,
and the controller is configured to drive the switching elements at a switching frequency higher than a maximum value [i.e. max frequency at the moment] of a resonant frequency of the closed-loop circuit [¶56].
Regarding claim 3. Ghosh teaches the power converter according to Claim 1, wherein at least one capacitor [230] is connected between the inductance element and the AC terminal of the one of the two bridge circuits, and at least one capacitor [232] is connected between the inductance element and the AC terminal of the other one of the two bridge circuits.
Regarding claim 4. Ghosh teaches the power converter according to Claim 1, wherein the inductance element is a transformer [see 218].
Regarding claim 5. Ghosh teaches the power converter according to Claim 1, wherein the inductance element is an inductor [Lm].
Regarding claim 6. Ghosh teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium [¶79] configured to be adapted to a power converter [fig 2], the non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program product comprising instructions configured to, when executed by at least one processor [806], cause the at least one processor to: set a switching frequency higher than a maximum value of a resonant frequency [¶56] of a closed-loop circuit [close loop circuit of fig 2] of the power converter,
the closed-loop circuit including arbitrary [interpreted as ununiform, operating at different times] two of bridge circuits [bridge circuit shown in fig 2 replicated above] and an inductance element [transformer of 218 or Lm], the inductance element connected between an AC terminal [ac terminal primary side] of one of the arbitrary two of the bridge circuits and an AC terminal [ac terminal secondary side] of another one of the arbitrary two of the bridge circuits,
the closed-loop circuit further including a capacitor [216] connected between the inductance element and at least one of respective AC terminals of the two bridge circuits, the bridge circuits connected to more than three external connection terminals [236/240/202/204], respectively;
and drive switching elements included in the two bridge circuits at the switching frequency [switching elements are included in the two bridges while operating at the switching frequency].
Regarding method claim 7, 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 "inherently performs 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.
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.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh et al. (US 20170104365 A1)
Regarding claim 2. Ghosh teaches the power converter according to Claim 1, except for wherein the switching frequency is within a range of 1.3 to 2 times of the resonant frequency. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a specific threshold value which would better align the circuit towards design requirements, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Examiner Note
The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryan Perez whose telephone number is (571)272-8837. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. (7:30 – 5:00).
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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BRYAN R PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights