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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Please delete the reference to [FIG.1].
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.
(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) 1-6, 12-15, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Kawashima et al. (US 20170237334).
Claims 1-4, 6, 18 and 19; Kawashima et al. disclose an electrical power system, comprising: a rotary electrical machine (1) configured to output AC; a diode-bridge rectifier (21) having an AC input connected to the electrical machine and a DC output; an active filter circuit (6, 5, C2, D1, D2, etc.) comprising a plurality of power semiconductor switches (5) connected in a bridge configuration between first and second output terminals (LH, LL), the first and second output terminals connected to the DC output of the diode-bridge rectifier (21); and a controller (not shown) configured to control a switching operation of the plurality of power semiconductor switches (5) of the active filter circuit to control an output voltage across the first and second output terminals of the active filter circuit.
Claim 5; Kawashima et al. disclose R = 3 and the diode-bridge rectifier comprises: a first single-phase full-wave diode-bridge rectifier circuit having an AC input (VR) connected to a first phase of the electrical machine and having first and second DC terminals the first DC terminal forming a first DC output of the diode-bridge rectifier; a second single-phase full-wave diode-bridge rectifier circuit having an AC input (VS) connected to a second phase of the electrical machine and having third and fourth DC terminals, the third DC terminal connected to the second DC terminal of the first single-phase full-wave diode-bridge rectifier circuit; and a third single-phase full-wave diode-bridge rectifier circuit having an AC input (VT) connected to a third phase of the electrical machine and having fifth and sixth DC terminals, the fifth DC terminal connected to the fourth DC terminal of the second single-phase diode-bridge rectifier, and the sixth DC terminal forming the second DC output of the diode- bridge rectifier.
Claim 12; Vedet et al., abstract (e.g. 6 times fundamental frequency).
Claim 13; the active filter circuit comprises a plurality of active bridge circuits (i.e. the first leg of high side and low side switch for the R-phase, S-Phase and T-phase) connected in parallel between the first and second output terminals (LH & LL), each of the plurality of active bridge circuits comprising a plurality of power semiconductor switches (e.g. the high side and low side); and the controller is configured to control a switching operation of the plurality of power semiconductor switches of each of the active bridge circuits and thereby control the output voltage (Vout) across the first and second output terminals of the active filter circuit.
Claim 14; all of the switches are not turned ON at once or OFF at once, that would create a short; thus they are switched interleaved.
Claim 15; three groups of P bridges and three groups Q bridge circuits.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Videt et al. (US 8964425).
Claim 1; an electrical power system, comprising: a rotary electrical machine (RST) configured to output AC; a diode-bridge rectifier (1) having an AC input connected to the electrical machine and a DC output; an active filter circuit (2) comprising a plurality of power semiconductor switches (T1, D1, T2, D2) connected in a bridge configuration between first and second output terminals (P1, P2), the first and second output terminals connected to the DC output of the diode-bridge rectifier (1); and a controller (fig. 2) configured to control a switching operation of the plurality of power semiconductor switches (T1, T2) of the active filter circuit to control an output voltage across the first and second output terminals of the active filter circuit.
Claims 7 and 8; fig. 2, a voltage sensor configured to measure a voltage across the DC output (Vbus) of the diode-bridge rectifier and to provide the measured voltage to the controller (see fig. 2), and wherein the controller is configured to: identify one or more harmonics to be filtered; determine, from the measured voltage, an output voltage for filtering the one or more harmonics; control the switching operation of the plurality of power semiconductor switches of the active filter circuit so that the output voltage (Vouc) across the first and second output terminals of the active filter circuit is equal to the determined output voltage (e.g. col. 2 lines 35-55).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima et al. or Videt et al. in view of Yukimori et al. (JP5169017 – IDS).
Kawashima et al. and Videt et al. disclose the claimed subject matter in regards to claim 1 supra, except for series connected bridge circuits.
Yukimori et al. teach that it is already known in the art to series connect active bridge circuits in order to reduce total harmonic distortion while providing constant DC voltage during power conversion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify in order to reduce total harmonic distortion while providing constant DC voltage during power conversion as taught by Yukimori et al.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawashima et al. or Videt et al.
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1674 (1987).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Kawashima et al. or Videt et al. to used in an aircraft in order to provide power without low harmonic distortion as taught by both Kawashima et al. and Videt et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY L LAXTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2079. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 am-4 pm.
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 at 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 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.
/GARY L LAXTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 9/04/2026
Prosecution Insights