DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “…first and second current source inverter (CSI) stages; a rectifier stage coupled to the input stage and configured to convert power from the input stage to the first CSI stage; and an inverter stage coupled to the second CSI stage and configured to convert power to an output load or source.” is 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 because –
(i). the underlined portion of the claim limitation “first and second current source inverter (CSI) stages” is not clear because as best understood – “current source inverter” converts DC current input into AC current output. However, according to Application’s Fig.1 and specification, the first and second current source inverter (CSI) stages are referring to “112” in Fig.1, which includes “four inductors (L1-L4)”, a switch “116” and a battery “110”, which are not appeared to be converting DC current input into AC current output as a current source inverter supposed to do;
Note: an example of a current source inverter can be found in the US publication “US 2023/0238804”, cited by Applicant in the IDS submitted on Oct. 16, 2025;
(ii). the underlined portion of the claim limitation “a rectifier stage configured to convert power from the input stage to the first CSI stage” is not clear since the claim doesn’t clearly define a rectifier stage configured to convert power from the input stage to what? Note: a rectifier is known to convert AC power to DC power; and
(iii). the underlined portion of the claim limitation “an inverter stage configured to convert power to an output load or source” is not clear since –
“power” has been previously defined and which has been representing to power from the input stage, and the inverter stage is known to convert DC power to AC power, thus using previously defined “power” is not proper;
The claim doesn’t clearly define an inverter stage configured to convert what power to other?; and
Also, the claim doesn’t clearly define that how would that be possible to provide power to source?
Dependent claims 2-11 are also rejected at least the same reason as rejected independent claim 1 as stated above because the dependent claims 2-10 are depending on the rejected independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim limitation “…the first and the CSI stages include a plurality of inductors electrically connected between the rectifier stage and the inverter stage.” is 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 because the underlined portion of the claim limitation is appeared to be missing something; as best understood - which should be “the first and second CSI stages”.
Regarding claim 3, the term “DC” has not been defined.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation “…to convert DC from the second CSI stage to alternating current to supply to the output load or source.” is 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 because –
(i). the term “DC” has not been defined; and
(ii). the portion of the claim limitation “to supply to source” is not clear because the claim doesn’t clearly define how alternating current is supplied to a source; as best understood “source” would have been referring to “a power source”.
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitation “…at least one DC voltage source electrically connected between the first and second CSI stages; and a switching device in series with the DC voltage source.” is 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 because –
(i). the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “DC” has not been defined; and
(ii). the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “the DC voltage source” should be “the at least one DC voltage source” according to antecedent basis requirement.
Regarding claim 11, the Examine would like to suggest the claim limitation “…the first and the second CSI stages…” to “…the first and second CSI stages…” so that to be consistent with the previous one in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim limitation “…a first and second current source inverter (CSI) stages; a rectifier stage coupled to the input stage and configured to convert power from the input stage to the first CSI stage; and an inverter stage coupled to the second CSI stage and configured to convert power to an output load or source, wherein the first and the CSI stages…” is 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 because –
(i). the underlined portion of the claim limitation “a first and second current source inverter (CSI) stages” is not clear because as best understood – “current source inverter” converts DC current input into AC current output. However, according to Application’s Fig.1 and specification, the first and second current source inverter (CSI) stages are referring to “112” in Fig.1, which includes “four inductors (L1-L4)”, a switch “116” and a battery “110”, which are not appeared to be converting DC current input into AC current output as a current source inverter supposed to do;
Note: an example of a current source inverter can be found in the US publication “US 2023/0238804”, cited by Applicant in the IDS submitted on Oct. 16, 2025;
(ii). the underlined portion of the claim limitation “a rectifier stage configured to convert power from the input stage to the first CSI stage” is not clear since the claim doesn’t clearly define a rectifier stage configured to convert power from the input stage to what? Note: a rectifier is known to convert AC power to DC power; and
(iii). the underlined portion of the claim limitation “an inverter stage configured to convert power to an output load or source” is not clear since –
“power” has been previously defined and which has been representing to power from the input stage, and the inverter stage is known to convert DC power to AC power, thus using previously defined “power” is not proper;
The claim doesn’t clearly define an inverter stage configured to convert what power to other?; and
Also, the claim doesn’t clearly define that how would that be possible to provide power to source?;
(iv). the underlined portion of the claim limitation “the first and the CSI stages” is appeared to be missing something; as best understood - which should be “the first and second CSI stages”; and
(v). the claim 12 is a duplicate claim if compare to the claims 1 and 2 combined.
Dependent claims 13-19 are also rejected at least the same reason as rejected independent claim 12 as stated above because the dependent claims 13-19 are depending on the rejected independent claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the term “DC” has not been defined.
Regarding claim 14, the claim limitation “…to convert DC from the second CSI stage to alternating current to supply to the output load or source.” is 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 because –
(i). the term “DC” has not been defined; and
(ii). the portion of the claim limitation “to supply to source” is not clear because the claim doesn’t clearly define how alternating current is supplied to a source; as best understood “source” would have been referring to “a power source”.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitation “…at least one DC voltage source electrically connected between the first and second CSI stages; and a switching device in series with the DC voltage source.” is 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 because –
(i). the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “DC” has not been defined; and
(ii). the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “the DC voltage source” should be “the at least one DC voltage source” according to antecedent basis requirement.
Regarding claim 19, the claim limitation “…the first and the CSI stages…” is not clear what is meant.
Regarding claim 20, the claim limitation “…first and second current source inverter (CSI) stages; a rectifier stage coupled to the input stage and configured to convert power from the input stage to the first CSI stage; and an inverter stage coupled to the second CSI stage and configured to convert power to an output load or source, wherein the first and the CSI stages…” is 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 because –
(i). the underlined portion of the claim limitation “a first and second current source inverter (CSI) stages” is not clear because as best understood – “current source inverter” converts DC current input into AC current output. However, according to Application’s Fig.1 and specification, the first and second current source inverter (CSI) stages are referring to “112” in Fig.1, which includes “four inductors (L1-L4)”, a switch “116” and a battery “110”, which are not appeared to be converting DC current input into AC current output as a current source inverter supposed to do;
Note: an example of a current source inverter can be found in the US publication “US 2023/0238804”, cited by Applicant in the IDS submitted on Oct. 16, 2025;
(ii). the underlined portion of the claim limitation “a rectifier stage configured to convert power from the input stage to the first CSI stage” is not clear since the claim doesn’t clearly define a rectifier stage configured to convert power from the input stage to what? Note: a rectifier is known to convert AC power to DC power; and
(iii). the underlined portion of the claim limitation “an inverter stage configured to convert power to an output load or source” is not clear since –
“power” has been previously defined and which has been representing to power from the input stage, and the inverter stage is known to convert DC power to AC power, thus using previously defined “power” is not proper;
The claim doesn’t clearly define an inverter stage configured to convert what power to other?; and
Also, the claim doesn’t clearly define that how would that be possible to provide power to source?; and
(iv). the underlined portion of the claim limitation “the first and the CSI stages” is appeared to be missing something; as best understood - which should be “the first and second CSI stages”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (as best understood) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (2022/0393585) (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a modular power conversion system (Fig.2, please refer to the whole reference for detailed), comprising: an input stage (input stage between 260-1 and 250-1) configured to connect to a supply voltage or load voltage (260-1; ¶ 28); first and second current source inverter (CSI) stages (first one formed by Lf in between 206-1 and 208, 204-1, 206-1, 210-1, 212-1, 212-3 and 206-3; and second one formed by Lf in between 206-2 and 208, 204-2, 206-2, 210-2, 212-2, 212-4 and 206-4); a rectifier stage (250-1) coupled to the input stage and configured to convert power from the input stage to the first CSI stage; and an inverter stage (250-2) coupled to the second CSI stage and configured to convert power to an output load or source (260-2).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the first and the CSI stages include a plurality of inductors (two inductors “Lf”) electrically connected between the rectifier stage (250-1) and the inverter stage (250-2).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses the first and the second CSI stages are configured to operate without the supply voltage or load voltage (since the first and the second CSI stages received power from the batteries 204-1 and 204-2 and provide a DC voltage to 250-1 and 250-2; please refer to at least ¶ 28).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses a modular power conversion system (Fig.2, please refer to the whole reference for detailed), comprising: an input stage (input stage between 260-1 and 250-1) configured to connect to a supply voltage or load voltage (260-1; ¶ 28); a first and second current source inverter (CSI) stages (first one formed by Lf in between 206-1 and 208, 204-1, 206-1, 210-1, 212-1, 212-3 and 206-3; and second one formed by Lf in between 206-2 and 208, 204-2, 206-2, 210-2, 212-2, 212-4 and 206-4); a rectifier stage (250-1) coupled to the input stage and configured to convert power from the input stage to the first CSI stage; and an inverter stage (250-2) coupled to the second CSI stage and configured to convert power to an output load or source (260-2), wherein the first and the CSI stages include a plurality of inductors (two inductors “Lf”) electrically connected between the rectifier stage (250-1) and the inverter stage (250-2).
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses the first and the second CSI stages are configured to operate without the supply voltage or load voltage (since the first and the second CSI stages received power from the batteries 204-1 and 204-2 and provide a DC voltage to 250-1 and 250-2; please refer to at least ¶ 28).
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses a modular power conversion system (Fig.2, please refer to the whole reference for detailed), comprising: an input stage (input stage between 260-1 and 250-1) configured to connect to a supply voltage (260-1; ¶ 28); first and second current source inverter (CSI) stages (first one formed by Lf in between 206-1 and 208, 204-1, 206-1, 210-1, 212-1, 212-3 and 206-3; and second one formed by Lf in between 206-2 and 208, 204-2, 206-2, 210-2, 212-2, 212-4 and 206-4); a rectifier stage (250-1) coupled to the input stage and configured to convert power from the input stage to the first CSI stage; and an inverter stage (250-2) coupled to the second CSI stage and configured to convert power to an output load (260-2) or source, wherein the first and the CSI stages include a plurality of inductors (two inductors “Lf”) electrically connected between the rectifier stage (250-1) and the inverter stage (250-2) and arranged to store magnetic energy by means of current from the supply voltage (which is a function of inductors “Lf”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
8. Claims 3, 4, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2022/0393585) (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Wu et al. (7,132,812) (“Wu”).
Regarding claim 3, Lee is used to reject claim 1 above.
Lee discloses the rectifier stage (250-1) configured to convert alternating current from the supply voltage (260-1) to a DC.
Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose the rectifier stage includes a set of switching devices.
Wu discloses an example of a rectifier stage (8) includes a set of switching devices (S1-S6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with the teaching of Wu to recognize that the rectifier stage includes a set of switching devices. The suggestion/motivation would have been to support the rectifier stage includes a set of switching devices.
Regarding claim 4, Lee is used to reject claim 1 above.
Lee discloses the inverter stage (250-2) configured to convert DC from the second CSI stage to alternating current to supply to the output load (260-2) or source.
Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose the inverter stage includes a set of switching devices.
Wu discloses the inverter stage (20) includes a set of switching devices (S7-S12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with the teaching of Wu to recognize that the inverter stage includes a set of switching devices. The suggestion/motivation would have been to support the inverter stage includes a set of switching devices.
Regarding claim 13, Lee is used to reject claim 12 above.
Lee discloses the rectifier stage (250-1) configured to convert alternating current from the supply voltage (260-1) to a DC.
Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose the rectifier stage includes a set of switching devices.
Wu discloses an example of a rectifier stage (8) includes a set of switching devices (S1-S6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with the teaching of Wu to recognize that the rectifier stage includes a set of switching devices. The suggestion/motivation would have been to support the rectifier stage includes a set of switching devices.
Regarding claim 14, Lee is used to reject claim 12 above.
Lee discloses the inverter stage (250-2) configured to convert DC from the second CSI stage to alternating current to supply to the output load (260-2) or source.
Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose the inverter stage includes a set of switching devices.
Wu discloses the inverter stage (20) includes a set of switching devices (S7-S12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with the teaching of Wu to recognize that the inverter stage includes a set of switching devices. The suggestion/motivation would have been to support the inverter stage includes a set of switching devices.
9. Claims 5, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2022/0393585) (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Toyoda (10,084,341).
Regarding claim 5, Lee is used to reject claim 1 above.
Lee discloses at least one DC voltage source (204-1 and/or 204-2) electrically connected between the first and second CSI stages (first one formed by Lf in between 206-1 and 208, 204-1, 206-1, 210-1, 212-1, 212-3 and 206-3; and second one formed by Lf in between 206-2 and 208, 204-2, 206-2, 210-2, 212-2, 212-4 and 206-4).
Lee doesn’t disclose a switching device in series with the DC voltage source.
Toyoda discloses a switching device (7) in series with a DC voltage source (53; column 6, line 12-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with the teaching of Toyoda to provide a switching device in series with the DC voltage source. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a switching device so that to turn off upon maintenance of the battery as taught by Toyoda’s column 6, line 12-20.
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Toyoda is used to reject claims 1 and 5 above.
Lee doesn’t disclose control circuitry configured to control the switching device to control delivery of power from the at least one DC voltage source.
Toyoda discloses control circuitry (control circuitry which control electromagnetic contactor 7; column 4, line 65-67) configured to control the switching device (7) to control delivery of power from the at least one DC voltage source (53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with the teaching of Toyoda to provide control circuitry configured to control the switching device to control delivery of power from the at least one DC voltage source. The suggestion/motivation would have been to supply power from the DC voltage source.
Regarding claim 15, Lee is used to reject claim 12 above.
Lee discloses at least one DC voltage source (204-1 and/or 204-2) electrically connected between the first and second CSI stages (first one formed by Lf in between 206-1 and 208, 204-1, 206-1, 210-1, 212-1, 212-3 and 206-3; and second one formed by Lf in between 206-2 and 208, 204-2, 206-2, 210-2, 212-2, 212-4 and 206-4).
Lee doesn’t disclose a switching device in series with the DC voltage source.
Toyoda discloses a switching device (7) in series with a DC voltage source (53; column 6, line 12-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with the teaching of Toyoda to provide a switching device in series with the DC voltage source. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a switching device so that to turn off upon maintenance of the battery as taught by Toyoda’s column 6, line 12-20.
10. Claims 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2022/0393585) (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Toyoda (10,084,341) and Rohera (2018/0198290).
Regarding claims 6-8, Lee in view of Toyoda is used to reject claims 1 and 5 above.
Lee discloses the at least one DC voltage source (204-1 and/or 204-2).
Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose (claim 6) the at least one DC voltage source includes a sodium-ion (Na-Ion) battery; (claim 7) the at least one DC voltage source includes lithium-ion (Li-Ion) battery; (claim 8) the at least one DC voltage source includes Valve-Regulated Lead-Acid (VRLA) battery.
Rohera discloses an example of DC voltage source (220 in Fig.2) includes a sodium-ion (Na-Ion) battery; lithium-ion (Li-Ion) battery; or Valve-Regulated Lead-Acid (VRLA) battery (¶ 74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Toyoda with the teaching of Rohera to provide (claim 6) the at least one DC voltage source includes a sodium-ion (Na-Ion) battery; (claim 7) the at least one DC voltage source includes lithium-ion (Li-Ion) battery; (claim 8) the at least one DC voltage source includes Valve-Regulated Lead-Acid (VRLA) battery. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use any type of battery for storage purpose as supported by Rohera.
Regarding claims 16-18, Lee in view of Toyoda is used to reject claims 12 and 15 above.
Lee discloses the at least one DC voltage source (204-1 and/or 204-2).
Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose (claim 6) the at least one DC voltage source includes a sodium-ion (Na-Ion) battery; (claim 7) the at least one DC voltage source includes lithium-ion (Li-Ion) battery; (claim 8) the at least one DC voltage source includes Valve-Regulated Lead-Acid (VRLA) battery.
Rohera discloses an example of DC voltage source (220 in Fig.2) includes a sodium-ion (Na-Ion) battery; lithium-ion (Li-Ion) battery; or Valve-Regulated Lead-Acid (VRLA) battery (¶ 74).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Toyoda with the teaching of Rohera to provide (claim 6) the at least one DC voltage source includes a sodium-ion (Na-Ion) battery; (claim 7) the at least one DC voltage source includes lithium-ion (Li-Ion) battery; (claim 8) the at least one DC voltage source includes Valve-Regulated Lead-Acid (VRLA) battery. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use any type of battery for storage purpose as supported by Rohera.
11. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2022/0393585) (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Toyoda (10,084,341) and Wu et al. (7,132,812) (“Wu”).
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Toyoda is used to reject claims 1 and 5 above.
Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose the input stage includes a multi-phase input.
Wu discloses an example of the input stage (input stage connected to 7a-7c in Fig.1) includes a multi-phase input (3 phases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Toyoda with the teaching of Wu to provide the input stage includes a multi-phase input. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use a 3-phase power supply for motor as taught by Wu.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD TAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7455. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached on 571-270-3684. 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.
/Richard Tan/Primary Examiner 2849