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 Office Action responses to the Application filed on 03/11/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102024108162.7, filed on 03/21/2024 and DE102024113906.4, filed on 05/17/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 03/11/2025, 08/14/2025, and 03/02/2026 were considered.
Claims 1-10 are pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
“on the one hand” and “on the other hand” are improper antecedence basis
“of the inverter circuits” and “of both inverter circuits” should be “of the two inverter circuits”
Line 12 “the other electric motor” is improper antecedence basis
Lines 13 “via one multi-way switch or via the other multi-way switch” are improper antecedence basis
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “the direction of current” should be “the input path of the charging current”
Regarding claims 2-9, the claims recite “Device of claim” should be “The device of claim”.
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) 1-10 is/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.
Regarding claims 1-10, the claim drafting is lack of clarity. Under 37 CFR 1.75 (i), a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See MPEP § 608.01. For examination purpose, the rejections are based on best understood.
Phrase “can be” is used throughout the claims. The phrase does not provide a clear boundary or limitation on the scope of the claimed invention. Claims that use "can be" or similar language may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim, making it unclear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation or a broader example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined
Regarding claims 1:
line 8 recites “the inverter negative”, it is unclear whether the limitation is the same limitation “an inverter minus” as cited in line 6 or it is a different limitation. For examination purpose, the limitation will be construed as “the inverter minus”
line 10 recites “wherein the inverter positive”, is unclear whether the limitation is the same limitation “an inverter plus” as cited in line 5 or it is a different limitation. For examination purpose, the limitation will be construed as “the inverter plus”.
Lines 11-12 recites “,and at least one inductor of one electric motor can be electrically connected,”, it is unclear where the inductor is connected to.
Regarding claim 2, line 18 “connected to separate multi-way switches”. It is unclear whether the limitation is the same as “the other multi-way switch” as cited in claim 1 line 13 or a different limitation. For examination purpose, the limitation will be construed as “the other multi-way switch”;
line 18 “an inductor of one electric motor”. It is unclear whether the limitation is the same as “at least one inductor of one electric motor” as cited in claim 1 line 11 or a different limitation. For examination purpose, the limitation will be construed as “the at least one inductor of the one electric motor”.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “the one multi-way switch comprises two diodes, which can be electrically connected via switches of a respective inverter circuit to its inverter plus”. The connections are unclear. For examination purpose, the limitations will be construed as best understood.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “respective capacitors electrically connect the inverter plus of the inverters and a node of the one multi-way switch and/or the inverter minus of the inverters and the node of the one multi-way switch to one another”. The connections are unclear. For examination purpose, the limitations will be construed as best understood.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “the respective capacitors electrically switchably connect the inverter plus of the inverters and the node of the one multi-way switch and/or the inverter minus of the inverters and the node of the one multi-way switch to one another”. The connections are unclear. For examination purpose, the limitations will be construed as best understood.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “Device according to claim 7, wherein a single additional inductor is provided in the direction of current upstream of the one multi-way switch”. However, claim 7 requires “additional inductors are provided in the input path of a charging current”. Since claim 9 is a dependent of claim 7, therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear because it seem to combine multiple embodiments of Fig. 6B and Fig. 6C. Wherein, according to the disclosure, the embodiment of Fig. 6C is based on the embodiment of Fig. 4 which only requires one inductor at the input, not additional to the two inductors as shown in Fig. 6B. Applicant should check for the claimed invention according to the disclosure.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “use of a device according to claim 1”. It is unclear whether it is the same device of claim 1 or a different device. For examination purpose the limitation will be construed as “use of the device according to claim 1”.
The claim also recites “for fast charging”. The term “fast” is a relative term, and the disclosure does not disclose how fast is fast or anything relating to the speed of charging. Therefore, the term “fast” will not be considered.
There are way too many issues in the claims. Applicant should revise all the claims with proper indentation and antecedence basis to avoid leading to confusion over the intended scope of the claims and to set forth mete and bound of the claimed inventions.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TRÖSTER et al. (US 20240253489 A1), hereinafter TRÖSTER.
Regarding claim 1, TRÖSTER discloses a device for fast charging of a battery (2),
having two inverter circuits (9 and 10) which are each electrically connected to a three-phase electric motor (5 and 6), the battery being electrically connected on the one hand to an inverter plus (one terminal of battery 2 connected to the topside bus of the inverters usually indicating positive terminal) and on the other hand to an inverter minus of the inverter circuits (one terminal of battery 2 connected to the bottom side bus of the inverters usually indicating negative terminal), and having a charging voltage connection (3), whose positive terminal (top terminal of 3) can be connected to a multi-way switch (top switches of 12), and whose negative terminal (bottom terminal of 3) can be connected to the inverter negative of both inverter circuits or to a further multi-way switch (bottom switches of 12),
wherein the inverter positive of the two inverter circuits (top rail of the inverters) can be electrically connected via the one multi-way switch (top switches of 12), and at least one inductor of one electric motor can be electrically connected (top switches of 12 is connected to one of the inductor of motor 5), and at least one inductor of the other electric motor can be electrically connected via one multi-way switch or via the other multi-way switch (bottom switches of 12 is connected to one of the inductor of motor 6).
Regarding claim 2, TRÖSTER discloses the device according to claim 1 above, TRÖSTER also discloses:
a charging voltage connection plus (top terminal of 3) and a charging voltage connection minus (bottom terminal of 3) can be electrically connected to separate multi-way switches (bottom switches of 12), of which an inductor of one electric motor and an inverter positive can be electrically connected via one multi-way switch (top switches of 12 is connected to one of the inductor of motor 5), and an inductor of the other electric motor and an inverter negative can be electrically connected via the other multi-way switch (bottom switches of 12 is connected to one of the inductor of motor 6).
Regarding claim 3, TRÖSTER discloses the device according to claim 1 above, TRÖSTER also discloses the one multi-way switch comprises three diodes or switches (top switches of 12), via which the respective inverter circuits (9) and the respective inductors of the electric motors (5) can be electrically connected (12, 9, and 5 are connected).
Regarding claim 10, TRÖSTER discloses use a device according to claim 1 above, TRÖSTER also discloses the device for fast charging an automotive battery [0012], in particular the automotive battery of an electric vehicle [0012].
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRÖSTER in view of Hwang (US 20030020442 A1), hereinafter Hwang.
Regarding claim 4, TRÖSTER discloses the device according to claim 1 above, TRÖSTER also discloses the device for a charging operation of 800 V [0012] or 500 V,
TRÖSTER disclose the one multi-way switch electrically connected via switches of a respective inverter circuit to its inverter plus TRÖSTER does not disclose the one multi-way switch comprises two diodes. Hwang discloses a device using switches. Hwang also discloses diodes can be replacing switches [0012]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified TRÖSTER to incorporate the teaching of Hwang and use diodes in place of switches. Doing so would avoid having control signals to control the switches when other circuitries in the device can automatically bias the diodes to allow the diode operating in forward bias since this technique is well-known in the art.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRÖSTER in view of Prasad et al. (US 20240308379 A1), hereinafter Prasad.
Regarding claim 5, TRÖSTER discloses the device according to claim 1 above, TRÖSTER does not explicitly disclose respective capacitors electrically connect the inverter plus of the inverters and a node of the one multi-way switch and/or the inverter minus of the inverters and the node of the one multi-way switch to one another. Prasad discloses a device having respective capacitors (Fig. 3, C1 and C0) electrically connect an inverter plus of a plurality of inverters (Fig. 3, C1-CN connects between positive rail of the converters) and a node of an one multi-way switch and/or an inverter minus of the plurality of inverters (Fig. 3, C1-CN connects between negative rail of the converters) and the node of the one multi-way switch to one another (Fig. 3, C0 connects to a node near 242). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified TRÖSTER to incorporate the teaching of Prasad and provide respective capacitors electrically connect the inverter plus of the inverters and a node of the one multi-way switch and/or the inverter minus of the inverters and the node of the one multi-way switch to one another. Doing so would allow filtering noises in the device since using capacitor to filter noises is a well-known practice in the art.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of TRÖSTER and Prasad discloses the device according to claim 1 above, Prasad also discloses the respective capacitors electrically switchably connect the inverter plus of the inverters (Fig. 3, C1-CN connects between positive rail of the converters) and the node of the one multi-way switch and/or the inverter minus of the inverters (Fig. 3, C1-CN connects between negative rail of the converters) and the node of the one multi-way switch to one another (Fig. 3, C0 connects to a node near 242 when the respective switches are activated).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRÖSTER in view of Prasad et al. (US 20220302867 A1), hereinafter Prasad 867.
Regarding claim 7, TRÖSTER discloses the device according to claim 1 above, TRÖSTER does not explicitly disclose additional inductors are provided in the input path of a charging current. Prasad 867 discloses a device having additional inductors (Fig. 3, Lx-Lz) beside the inductors of motors are provided upstream or downstream of switches in a direction of current (Fig. 3, Lx-Lz are upstream of the switches). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified TRÖSTER to incorporate the teaching of Prasad 867 and provide additional inductors are provided in the input path of a charging current. Doing so would allow filtering noises in the device since using inductor to filter noises is a well-known practice in the art.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of TRÖSTER and Prasad 867 discloses the device according to claim 7 above, Prasad 867 further discloses the additional inductors (Fig. 3, Lx-Lz) are provided upstream or downstream of the one multi-way switch in the direction of current (Fig. 3, Lx-Lz are upstream of the switches).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TRÖSTER and Prasad 867 in view of ZHU (US 20190092178 A1), hereinafter ZHU.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of TRÖSTER and Prasad 867 discloses the device according to claim 7 above, the combination of TRÖSTER and Prasad 867 does not disclose using a single additional inductor in a direction of current upstream of a one multi-way switch. ZHU discloses a single inductor in a direction of current upstream of a one multi-way switch (Fig. 1, inductor upstream of 116). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of TRÖSTER and Prasad 867 to incorporate the teaching of ZHU and using a single additional inductor in a direction of current upstream of a switch. Doing so would allow filtering noises in the device since using inductor to filter noises is a well-known practice in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0668. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Rexford Barney can be reached at 571-272-7492. 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.
/THAI H TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2836 /REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights