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 .
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 1-9 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. Claim 1 line 9 Applicant should remove the language “so as to” which has been eliminated in the reminder of the claim. A similar issue presents itself in claims 6-8. Applicant should consistently remove the “so as to” language from the claims.
With respect to claim 9 the claim recites “a further operating mode” it appears this claim is intended to depend from claim 8 as claim 1 merely requires one mode. The claim further recites “the second DC voltage converter (11)” this is not consistent with the presented claim 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ortiz et al. Design and Experimental Testing of a Resonant DC–DC Converter for Solid-State Transformers, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, Vol.32, No.10, 2017
With respect to claim 1, 4-5 and 11 Ortiz teaches a DC voltage converter apparatus (see Fig. 7 and 13), having: a first DC voltage converter (HC-DCM-SRC) configured to be coupled to a first DC voltage network (MV network) at a first terminal and to a second DC voltage network (low voltage network) at a second terminal; and a second DC voltage converter (TCM-DAB) configured to be coupled to the first DC voltage network (MV network) at a first terminal and to the second DC voltage network (low voltage network) at a second terminal; wherein, in a first operating mode (see pg. 7540 col. 1 paragraph 2-3), the first DC voltage converter (HC-DCM-SRC) is configured so as toto transfer electrical energy from the first terminal to the second terminal of the first DC voltage converter (HC-DCM-SRC), and the second DC voltage converter (TCM-DAB) is configured to simultaneously transfer electrical energy from the second terminal to the first terminal of the second DC voltage converter (TCM-DAB).
With respect to claim 8 Ortiz teaches , in a second operating mode (at least one converter in a forward mode), the first DC voltage converter or the second DC voltage converter are configured to transfer electrical energy from the first DC voltage network to the second DC voltage network , and in a third operating mode (at least one converter in reverse mode), the first DC voltage converter or the second DC voltage converter are configured so as toto transfer electrical energy from the second DC voltage network to the first DC voltage network.
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.
Claim 2-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortiz in view of Isaksson (US 11,878,603).
With respect to claim 2 Ortiz teaches the first terminals of the first DC voltage converter and the second DC voltage converter are configured to be connected to a DC link capacitor (see DC-link capacitor see pg. 7537-7538), and wherein the DC voltage converter apparatus comprises a control device (see control platform), however does not teach the configured to drive the first DC voltage converter and the second DC voltage converter in the first operating mode for discharging the DC link capacitor. Isaksson teaches (col. 3 lines 50-55) the known use of a discharging a capacitor (6) operating a converter (5) for the benefit of increased safety for the system (col. 7 lines 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply mode of operation of Ortiz to a DC link capacitor as seen in Isaksson for the benefit of increased safety for the system (col. 7 lines 15).
With respect to claim 3 Isaksson teaches the control device (11) is configured to set the first operating mode until an electrical voltage across the DC link capacitor (6) drops below a predetermined threshold value (col. 7 line 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ortiz to include a threshold as seen in Isaksson for the predictable result of increasing safety.
With respect to claim 9 Ortiz teaches transferring an operating mode, the first DC voltage converter is configured to transfer electrical energy in from the first terminal to the second terminal of the first DC voltage converter and from the second terminal to the first terminal of the second DC voltage converter however does not teach the alternating manner. Isaksson teaches the known use of alternating mode of operation (see pre-charge and discharge mode). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ortiz to include the know use of a mode as seen in Isaksson for the predictable result of ensuring the system is charged and balanced prior to testing operations.
With respect to claim 10 Ortiz teaches the converter and operation as detailed in claim 1 however does not teach the DC link capacitor and connection with a vehicle electrical system. Isaksson teaches the known use of a vehicle and link capacitor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply Ortiz to a vehicle system with a DC link capacitor as seen in Isaksson for the benefit of increased safety for the system (col. 7 lines 15).
Claim 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortiz in view of Isaksson (US 11,878,603) in view of Pfeilschifter (US 11,750,092).
With respect to claims 6 Ortiz teaches the DC converter system, however, does not teach the connection a subnetwork. Pfeilschifter teaches the second DC voltage network (see Fig with two DC converters W1-2) comprises a first DC voltage sub- network (formed with S1-2 closed) and a second DC voltage sub-network (formed with S1-2 opened), wherein the first DC voltage converter (W1) is configured to be coupled to the first DC voltage sub-network of the second DC voltage network at the second terminal of the first DC voltage converter, and the second DC voltage converter (W2) is configured so as to be coupled to the second DC voltage sub-network of the second DC voltage network at the second terminal of the second DC voltage converter, and wherein the DC voltage converter apparatus comprises a coupling element (S1-2) configured electrically couple the first DC voltage sub-network and the second DC voltage sub-network in the first operating mode (see selective configuration of the converters and link capacitance in series or parallel based on switching configuration). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ortiz to include the use of networks as seen in Pfeilschifter for the benefit of providing a common secondary side for power circulation to ensure safe discharge.
With respect to claims 7 Ortiz teaches the DC converter system however does not teach the connection a subnetwork. Pfeilschifter teaches the DC voltage network (see Fig with two DC converters W1-2) comprises a first DC voltage sub- network (formed with W1 and C1) and a second DC voltage sub-network (W2 and C2), wherein the first DC voltage converter (W1) is configured to be coupled to the first DC voltage sub-network of the second DC voltage network at the second terminal of the first DC voltage converter, and the second DC voltage converter (W2) is configured so as to be coupled to the first DC voltage sub-network of the second DC voltage network at the second terminal of the second DC voltage converter, and wherein the DC voltage converter apparatus comprises a coupling element (15) configured electrically couple the first DC voltage sub-network and the second DC voltage sub-network in the first operating mode (see selective configuration of the converters and link capacitance in series or parallel based on switching configuration). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Ortiz to include the use of networks as seen in Pfeilschifter for the benefit of providing a common secondary side for power circulation to ensure safe discharge.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Fin whose telephone number is (571)272-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30.
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 Barnie can be reached at 571-272-7429. 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.
MICHAEL FIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/MICHAEL R. FIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights