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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were/was submitted on 08/25/2025. The information disclosure statement(s) have/has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on 11/11/2022.
Restriction/Election of Species
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, for examination in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged and is made FINAL.
Status of Application
Claims 1-15, and 22-26, are pending.
No claims are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 16-21 are cancelled.
Claims 22-26 are added.
Claims 1, 8, and 22, are independent claims.
Claims 1-15, and 22-26, will be examined.
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Claims” and “Response to Election / Restriction” dated 05/26/2026.
Objection to Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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(s) 1, and 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUMAR et al., US 20240227577, herein further known as Kumar, in view of LÖFGREN et al., US 20210408930, herein further known as Löfren.
Regarding claim 1, Kumar discloses bounce events (¶¶ [0014], conductive gap, [0017], arcing electrical current, [0022], bounces), comprising: a pantograph (¶¶ [0003], [0014], [0020]) disposed on a railway car (¶ [0018], train), the pantograph structured to be electrically coupled with a contact wire to receive electric power from the contact wire (¶¶ [0019-0020], conductive pathway 16, see also FIG. 1); electric power received via the contact wire from the railway car (¶¶ [0019-0020], conductive pathway 16, see also FIG. 1); and a controller disposed in the railway car, the, the controller comprising a bounce circuit (¶ [0015], perform several control operations… reduce voltage overshoot) identify, a voltage of the electric power from the pantograph (¶¶ [0014-0017]) ; determine that the voltage satisfies a voltage threshold (¶ [0022], voltage received by the collector device from the conductive pathway quickly drops); detect a bounce event (¶¶ [0013-0014], [0017], [0032-0043], [0050]) in a connection between the pantograph and the contact wire providing the electric power based on the voltage satisfying the voltage threshold (¶ [0022], less than 50% or another threshold percent) and disable, responsive to detecting the bounce event, the power electronic component (¶ [0045], controller may disconnect the rectifier until the voltage overshoot is no more than a designated voltage threshold).
However, Kumar does not explicitly state a hotel load converter (HLC) disposed in the railway car, the HLC structured to be electrically coupled with the pantograph, the HLC comprising a power electronic component configured to perform alternating current (AC/AC) conversion; controller structured to be electrically coupled with the HLC; identify, at an input of the HLC, a frequency of the voltage of the electric power; the frequency satisfies a frequency threshold.
Löfren teaches a hotel load converter (HLC) disposed in the railway car (¶ [0025], auxiliary converter, used for the heating/cooling system of the vehicle and for electrical appliances, such as through sockets arranged in said vehicle. This is a preferred application of a voltage source converter of this type), the HLC structured to be electrically coupled with the pantograph, the HLC comprising a power electronic component configured to perform alternating current (AC/AC) conversion on the electric power received via the contact wire from the railway car and a frequency of the voltage of the electric power (¶ [0033],see also FIG. 1 which includes AC-supply line 2 used in said vehicle, carrying a single phase alternating voltage 25 kV and 50 Hz, and vehicle has a transformer 3 for transforming the voltage… to sockets arranged in the track-bound vehicle, such as for connection of computers, and to lighting, heating and other appliances); controller structured to be electrically coupled with the HLC (¶ [0033], converter control device 8).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Kumar the hotel load converter (HLC) disposed in the railway car, the HLC structured to be electrically coupled with the pantograph, the HLC comprising a power electronic component configured to perform alternating current (AC/AC) conversion on the electric power received via the contact wire from the railway car and a frequency of the voltage of the electric power and controller structured to be electrically coupled with the HLC as taught by Löfren.
One would be motivated to modify Kumar in view of Löfren for the reasons stated in Löfren paragraph [0009], more robust methods and systems to optimize the switching of the current.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kumar, and Löfren disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Kumar does not explicitly state the HLC is further configured to provide the electric power to a load on the railway car, wherein the load comprises at least one of: an entertainment system, a kitchen appliance, a refrigeration system, a heating system for the railway car.
Löfren teaches the HLC is further configured to provide the electric power to a load on the railway car, wherein the load comprises at least one of: an entertainment system, a kitchen appliance, a refrigeration system, a heating system for the railway car (¶¶ [0025], [0033], claim 9).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Kumar the HLC is further configured to provide the electric power to a load on the railway car, wherein the load comprises at least one of: an entertainment system, a kitchen appliance, a refrigeration system, a heating system for the railway car as taught by Löfren.
One would be motivated to modify Kumar in view of Löfren for the reasons stated in Löfren paragraph [0009], more robust methods and systems to optimize the switching of the current.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kumar, and Löfren, in view of MATSUMOTO, US 8504230, herein further known as Matsumoto.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kumar, and Löfren disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Kumar does not explicitly state responsive to disabling the power electronic component, an instantaneous direct current (DC) link voltage at the input of the HLC; and set the power electronic component to a reference voltage using the instantaneous DC link voltage to continue operations of the power electronic component.
Matsumoto teaches responsive to disabling the power electronic component, an instantaneous direct current (DC) link voltage at the input of the HLC; and set the power electronic component to a reference voltage using the instantaneous DC link voltage to continue operations of the power electronic component (Background/Summary paragraphs 4 and 5, he AC electric motor vehicle loses overhead power because of pantograph bounce…).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Kumar the responsive to disabling the power electronic component, an instantaneous direct current (DC) link voltage at the input of the HLC; and set the power electronic component to a reference voltage using the instantaneous DC link voltage to continue operations of the power electronic component as taught by Matsumoto.
One would be motivated to modify Kumar in view of Matsumoto for the reasons stated in Matsumoto, more robust methods and systems which supplies electric power to a vehicle even during a loss of overhead power such as pantograph bounce or section passage, to continuously operate effectively.
Claim(s) 3-4, 8, 15, 22, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kumar, and Löfren, in view of WOLFF, US 20210316678, herein further known as Wolff.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kumar, and Löfren disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Kumar does not explicitly state determine, responsive to disabling the power electronic component, that a root-mean- squared (RMS) voltage is greater than a RMS voltage threshold and that the frequency is less than or equal to a second frequency threshold; and execute, responsive to determining that the RMS voltage is greater than the RMS voltage threshold.
Wolff teaches determine, responsive to disabling the power electronic component, that a root-mean- squared (RMS) voltage is greater than a RMS voltage threshold and that the frequency is less than or equal to a second frequency threshold; and execute, responsive to determining that the RMS voltage is greater than the RMS voltage threshold (¶ [0040]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Kumar the determine, responsive to disabling the power electronic component, that a root-mean- squared (RMS) voltage is greater than a RMS voltage threshold and that the frequency is less than or equal to a second frequency threshold; and execute, responsive to determining that the RMS voltage is greater than the RMS voltage threshold as taught by Wolff.
One would be motivated to modify Kumar in view of Wolff for the reasons stated in Wolff paragraph [0006-0007], more robust methods and systems which functions in a reliable manner and that differs from those that are currently available.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kumar, and Löfren disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Kumar does not explicitly state determine, responsive to disabling the power electronic component, that a root-mean- squared (RMS) voltage drops to less than a RMS voltage threshold and that the frequency becomes within a target range, within a period of time; and resume, responsive to determining that the RMS voltage drops to less than the RMS voltage threshold and that the frequency becomes within the target range within the period of time.
Wolff teaches determine, responsive to disabling the power electronic component, that a root-mean- squared (RMS) voltage drops to less than a RMS voltage threshold and that the frequency becomes within a target range, within a period of time; and resume, responsive to determining that the RMS voltage drops to less than the RMS voltage threshold and that the frequency becomes within the target range within the period of time (¶ [0040]).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Kumar the determine, responsive to disabling the power electronic component, that a root-mean- squared (RMS) voltage drops to less than a RMS voltage threshold and that the frequency becomes within a target range, within a period of time; and resume, responsive to determining that the RMS voltage drops to less than the RMS voltage threshold and that the frequency becomes within the target range within the period of time as taught by Wolff.
One would be motivated to modify Kumar in view of Wolff for the reasons stated in Wolff paragraph [0006-0007], more robust methods and systems which functions in a reliable manner and that differs from those that are currently available.
Regarding claim 8, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claims 1 and 4. The controller in claim 8 can clearly perform on the system of claims 1 and 4. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 4 above.
Furthermore, Kumar discloses a rectifier (¶¶ [0045-0047]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kumar, Löfren, and Wolff, disclose all elements of claim 8 above.
Kumar discloses further the railway car (¶ [0018], rail vehicle systems (e.g., trains)).
Regarding claim 22, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claims 1 and 4. The bounce circuit in claim 22 can clearly perform on the system of claims 1 and 4. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 1 and 4 above.
Regarding claim 26, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claim 15. The bounce circuit in claim 26 can clearly perform on the system of claim 15. Therefore, claim 26 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 15 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 9-14, and 23-25, 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights