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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of 6/30/2026, 7/2/2026, and 7/6/2026 has been entered and considered. Upon entering amendment, claims 1, 9 have been amended. Accordingly claims 1-10 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 with respect to the amended language in claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that “in the present application… by using the capacitors, the charging current can be greater, the charging speed can be higher, and the load can be protected better.” (Remarks, bridging paragraph, pgs.8 and 9). The examiner notes that the benefits of using capacitors such as “charging current can be greater”, “charging speed can be higher” and better load protection are directed to unclaimed subject matter. “It is not proper to read limitations appearing in the specification into the claim when these limitations are not recited in the claim” (emphasis added). See in re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2s 1671, 1674 (Fed.Cir. 1994); Intervet America Inc. v. Kee-Vet Lab. Inc., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed.Cir. 1989).
Applicant then argues that the amended language “In the case that no other energy storage devices are externally connected, according to the overall capacity value of the first energy storage device and the second energy storage device, the uninterruptible power supply can achieve full- power backup operation for 100ms or above” is not taught by the prior art (Remarks, pg.9). The examiner respectfully disagrees, because claim 1 recites “in the case that no other energy storage devices are externally connected…”, which is a recitation of a hypothetical scenario/conditional event that is not always required/occurring (i.e., not a positive recitation). That is, the phrase “in a case that” introduces a merely hypothetical circumstance rather than positively defining a structural or functional limitation of the claimed system. It is therefore unclear whether the absence of externally connected energy storage devices is intended to be a mandatory condition of the claimed system, or merely an example of an operating scenario that is not required. Accordingly, because the prior art, in particular Hjort (2005/0168073) teaches externally connected energy storage devices, the “in a case that…” hypothetical/conditional phrase of the amended language does not apply to the prior art. The “in a case that” becomes an empty phrase that carries no patentable weight. Thus, applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended language are not considered persuasive.
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 1-10 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 recites “…wherein the first energy storage device and the second energy storage device each comprise a plurality of capacitors connected in parallel” followed by the amended language that “the first energy storage device and the second energy storage device are configured as a battery of the uninterruptible power supply...” It is unclear what applicant intends with “configured as a battery”. That is, the claim recites the energy storage devices are each a plurality of capacitors in parallel but then recites that the energy storage devices are “configured as a battery” without defining how they are configured as a battery. How are capacitors that contain two metallic plates separated by a dielectric medium be configured as a battery that is an electrochemical device? Does applicant intend the energy storage devices to be configured to have a size similar to that of a battery? Or for the energy storage devices to be configured to have an operation of a battery? Or for the energy storage devices to be configured with positive and negative terminals similar to that of a battery? For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood (see rejections below).
Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “…according to the overall capacity value…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the aforementioned recitation. It should be “…according to an overall capacity value…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “…wherein an overall capacity value…” This should instead recite “the overall capacity value” since overall capacity value has already been recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hjort (2005/0168073 A1) in view of Giuntini (2022/0239142 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Hjort (fig.5) teaches an energy storage circuit for an uninterruptible power supply, comprising:
a first converter unit (items 202, 213), comprising a first rectifying unit (202, pars [33-34]; first rectifying unit read on by rectifying diode 202) and a first boosting unit (213, pars [33-34]), connected between a positive DC bus (“DC+”) and a ground (midpoint node between 218 and 220 connected to unlabeled ground, which is structurally identical to applicant’s “GND” in fig.2. Therefore, Hjort meets the language as presented), and configured to receive an AC power from an external power supply (pars [32, 34]; external “AC1” power supply), rectify and boost the AC power (pars [33-34]; AC power is rectified and boosted), and then supply power to the positive DC bus (pars [33-34]);
a second converter unit (items 204, 215), comprising a second rectifying unit (204, pars [33-34]; rectifying diode 204) and a second boosting unit (215, pars [33-34]), connected between a negative DC bus (“DC- “) and the ground (see fig.5), and configured to receive the AC power from the external power supply (pars [32, 34]), rectify and boost the AC power (pars [33-34]), and then supply power to the negative DC bus (pars [33-34]);
a first energy storage device (218), connected between the positive DC bus (DC+) and the ground (see fig.5), and used to store electrical energy from the first converter unit (pars [33-34]; capacitor 218 structurally satisfies the structure of the first energy storage device, it is connected between the claimed positive DC+ bus and ground, and the first converter unit provides positive voltage across capacitor 218 and thus stores electrical energy from it);
a second energy storage device (220), connected between the negative DC bus (DC-) and the ground (see fig.5), and used to store electrical energy from the second converter unit (pars [33-34]; capacitor 220 structurally satisfies the structure of the second energy storage device, it is connected between the claimed negative DC- bus and ground, and the second converter unit provides negative voltage across capacitor 220 and thus stores electrical energy from it); and
an inverter (not shown, par [32]; read on by the output DC ports 209, 211 coupled to a “DC to AC converter (not shown) that provide output AC power from the UPS”. It is also shown in fig.8, 319) for receiving electrical energy from the positive DC bus and the negative DC bus and inverting the electrical energy into AC power (par [32]; inverting DC from the positive DC bus and negative DC bus into output AC power) to a load (pars [2, 32]; the recitation of “a load” is not positively claimed /not given its own paragraph. However, UPS provides power to a load and thus the output AC power from the UPS is provided to a load);
wherein the first energy storage device (218) and the second energy storage device (220) each comprise a capacitor (see fig.5, pars [33-34]);
wherein, the first energy storage device and the second energy storage device are configured as a battery of the uninterruptible power supply (see fig.5, par [34]; the first and second energy storage devices are configured as a battery in that structurally the storage devices/capacitors 218, 220 store energy like a battery. Additionally, the storage devices/capacitors are configured as a battery as they have positive and negative terminals like a battery);
wherein, in the case that no other energy storage devices are externally connected (Hjort, fig.5, Hjort teaches other energy storage devices in batteries DC+ and DC-; thus, the “in the case that” hypothetical scenario is not triggered/applies. This is because “in the case that” is conditional and is not a positive recitation), according to the overall capacity value of the first energy storage device and the second energy storage device, a full-power backup time for the uninterruptible power supply is above 100ms (this recitation is tied to the “in the case that” hypothetical and conditional scenario that does not apply since Hjort teaches other energy storage devices externally connected).
While Hjort teaches each first energy storage device (218) and second energy storage device (220) comprises a capacitor, Hjort does not teach a plurality of capacitors connected in parallel.
Giuntini (fig.1), however, teaches it is known in the art to have a plurality of capacitors connected in parallel (par [37]; see 108 and/or 109).
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 teachings of Hjort’s first energy storage device and second energy storage device each comprising a capacitor to that of Giuntini so that each of Hjort’s first and second energy storage devices would have a plurality of capacitors connected in parallel. The motivation would have been to increase the total capacitance, which enables more energy to be stored. Additionally, the motivation would have been to improve reliability and flexibility by using multiple capacitors instead of a single capacitor.
Examiner Note: Applicant is further referred to Higaki (5,045,989), fig.3, Col.4, lines 15-18; the midpoint between capacitors 4, 5 is connected to ground, which is the same ground symbol as in Hjort. Higaki is not a modifying reference; it is just used to further show Hjort’s ground symbol is ground.
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein an overall capacity value of the first energy storage device and the second energy storage device (Hjort, fig.5, pars [33-34], Giuntini, par [37], see rejection of claim 1; the combination teaches the claimed structure of the first energy storage device and the second energy storage device, which have an overall capacity value) is expressed as:
PNG
media_image1.png
161
357
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein C is the overall capacity value of the first energy storage device and the second energy storage device (Hjort, fig.5, pars [33-34], Giuntini, par [37], see rejection of claim 1; the overall capacity value is present within the structure of the first and second energy storage devices), U is a voltage between the positive DC bus and the negative DC bus (Hjort, fig.5, pars [33-34], Giuntini, par [37]; Hjort teaches the positive DC+ bus and the negative DC-bus and thus teaches a voltage U present between the DC+ and DC-), P is an output power of the uninterruptible power supply (Hjort, fig.5, pars [32-34], Giuntini, par [37]; “output AC power” P “from the UPS”), T is power backup time (Hjort, fig.5, pars [32-34], Giuntini, par [37]; the combination teaches the claimed structure of claim 1 and therefore has a power backup time T), and Eeff is an efficiency of the uninterruptible power supply (Hjort, fig.5, pars [32-34], Giuntini, par [37]; Modified teaches an uninterruptible power supply and thus has an efficiency).
The equation recited in claim 3 is mathematical expression of the claimed structure of the energy storage circuit taught by the combination in claim 1. The formula is not a limiting structural or functional limitation and is therefore considered as being not further limiting. Since the combination of Hjort in view of Giuntini teaches the claimed structure of claim 1, the combination reads on the expression presented in claim 3. It is further noted the expression is never used for anything. It is just an observation/statement.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination teaches an uninterruptible power supply (Hjort, par [32], 200) comprising the energy storage circuit for an uninterruptible power supply of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), and the uninterruptible power supply storing electrical energy by only using the energy storage circuit (Hjort, pars [32-34], Giuntini, fig.1, par [37]; Examiner Note: the claim recites “comprising” and does not prohibit batteries from being a part of the energy storage circuit. Thus, the combination’s UPS stores electrical energy by only using the energy storage circuit).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hjort (2005/0168073 A1) in view of Giuntini (2022/0239142 A1) in further view of Wang (2019/0029086 A1).
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the capacitors are electrolytic capacitors with withstand voltage values (Hjort, fig.5, pars [33-34], Giuntini, par [37]; Modified Hjort teaches the first energy storage device to have a plurality of capacitors connected in parallel and the second energy storage device to have a plurality of capacitors connected in parallel. Giuntini further teaches the capacitors are electrolytic capacitors which obviously have withstand voltage values).
While the combination teaches the claimed structure of the plurality of electrolytic capacitors connected in parallel with withstand voltage values, the combination does not explicitly disclose voltage values higher than a peak value of the external power supply.
Wang, however, teaches it is known in the art for an electrolytic capacitor to have a voltage value higher than a peak value of the external power supply (par [8]; an electrolytic capacitor having withstand voltage higher than an input alternating current peak value. Mains supply of 220V with a peak value of 373V and an electrolytic capacitor with the withstand voltage of 400V or above should be used).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of modified Hjort’s electrolytic capacitors to have withstand voltage values higher than a peak value of the external power supply as taught within Wang. The motivation would have been to provide a safety margin against voltage spikes, improve reliability, and handle peak AC voltages.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hjort (2005/0168073 A1) in view of Giuntini (2022/0239142 A1) in further view of Lee (2022/0385100 A1).
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose a discharging circuit configured to discharge the first energy storage device and the second energy storage device when the uninterruptible power supply is powered off.
Lee (fig.2), however, teaches it is known in the art to have a discharging circuit (150) configured to discharge a first energy storage device (top capacitor of 210) and a second energy storage device (bottom capacitor of 210) when the uninterruptible supply is powered off (pars [83, 86-89]; discharge 210 through discharging circuit 150 when the UPS is powered off).
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 teachings of Hjort in view of Giuntini to further include a discharging circuit, as taught within Lee, to discharge the combination’s first and second energy storage devices when the uninterruptible power supply is power off. The motivation would have been to discharge the high voltage of the first and second energy storage devices, which would prevent damage or accidents due to the high voltage of the energy storage devices (Lee, par [89]).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hjort (2005/0168073 A1) in view of Giuntini (2022/0239142 A1) in further view of Matsui (5,982,050).
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose the energy storage circuit further comprises a discharge completion indicating circuit for indicating that the energy storage device complete discharge.
Matsui (fig.8), however, teaches it is known in the art to have a discharge completion indicating circuit (items 48, 44, 46 forms the “discharge completion indicating circuit”) for (intended use) indicating that energy storage device (10 and/or 40) complete discharge (Col.8, lines 21-24, 43-52 and related discussion; the discharge completion circuit include LED 46 provides a visual indication in accordance with the discharge).
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 teachings of the combination to further include a discharge completion indicating circuit, as taught within Matusi, for the first and second energy storage devices in the combination of references. The motivation would have been to suppress useless discharge and to conserve electric energy for a long time and to easily visually recognize the discharged state of the first and second energy storage devices including when they completely discharge (Matusi, Col.8, lines 43-52).
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 7 and further teaches wherein the discharge completion indicating circuit comprises a third resistor (Matsui, fig.8, item 48), a voltage stabilizing diode (Matsui, fig.8, item 44; Zener diodes are obviously regarded as voltage stabilizers and it is noted the claim only provides a label/nomenclature by using in “voltage stabilizing” for the diode), and a light emitting diode (Matsui, fig.8, item 46) that are connected in series (Matsui, fig.8, Col.8, lines 21-24) between the positive DC and the negative DC bus (Hjort, fig.5, see rejection of claim 1, Giuntini, fig.1, see rejection of claim 1, and Matsui, fig.8; the combination teaches modifying Hjort in view of Giuntini’s system to connect the discharge completion indicating circuit of Matsui in parallel to the combination’s energy storage devices so that it is between the combination’s positive DC bus and the negative DC bus).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hjort (2005/0168073 A1) in view of Giuntini (2022/0239142 A1) in further view of Dejonge (2020/0037408 A1).
Regarding Claim 9,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly disclose the boosting unit is a flyback circuit.
Dejonge, however, teaches it is known in the art for the boosting unit (130) to be a flyback circuit (par [12]; the boost converter 130 may comprise any suitable converter circuit, such as, for example, a flyback converter).
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 each of the first boosting unit and the second boosting unit of the first and second converter units to be flyback converters. The motivation would have an obvious matter of design choice, since applicant has not disclosed that implementing the boosting unit as a flyback circuit solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose besides the functionality of boosting taught by the prior art. Thus, one skilled in the art would have obviously realized the plethora of options available to implementing the boosting unit including the flyback converter circuit and would have readily selected the flyback converter circuit as is well-known and well-desired in the art.
Conclusion
Claims 5-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 5, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the limitations “wherein the discharging circuit comprises a first resistor, a second resistor and a switching device, the switching device comprises a power supply end connected to an internal power supply of the uninterruptible power supply, a first switch and a second switch, the switching device is used to turn off the first switch and the second switch when the internal power supply is on a high level, and turn on the first switch and the second switch when the uninterruptible power supply is powered off and the internal power supply is reduced to be lower than a threshold; and the positive DC bus is connected to the ground via the first resistor and the first switch, and the negative DC bus is connected to the ground via the second resistor and the second switch.”
Claim 6 depends on claim 5 and is therefore indicated as allowable for similar reasons.
Contact Information
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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 at (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 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.
/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/Menatoallah Youssef/SPE, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights