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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/22/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-23, 25 and 27-28 depend 1, which is directed to an invention (or a method of detecting an operating state of a photovoltaic panel) that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 23 is directed to a method for detecting an operating state of a photovoltaic panel, or non-elected invention according the restriction requirement 11/06/2019.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-23, 25 and 27-28 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim interpretation
It is noted that claims 9, 24, and 26 are directed to a “system”, which does not clearly set forth the statutory category to which the invention belongs to. It has been determined that the claims are directed to an apparatus and the appropriate principles for interpreting claims for that particular category of invention have been applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As amended, claim 9 recites the limitation “load the modulated signal onto a direct current voltage” in lines 7-8. The limitation is not supported in the originally filed disclosure. On the contrary, Applicant shows the modulation chip (60) is directly connected to the direct current bus (or the line connecting the photovoltaic panel 30 to the invertor 110 in fig. 2), or the modulated is loaded to the direct current bus according to the circuitry shown in fig. 2, not being loaded to a direct current voltage.
As amended, claim 9 recites “wherein the control device is further configured to detect, in the detect, in a cycle of the communication, the direct-current voltage in the first time period to obtain a first voltage value of the direct-current voltage without the modulated signal, wherein the demodulating is performed in the second time period of the cycle; and detect, in the cycle of the communication, the direct-current voltage in the third time period to obtain a second voltage value of the direct-current voltage without the modulated signal, and determine whether a difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value is greater than a preset threshold; determine, in response to the difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value being greater than the preset threshold, that the state parameter of the photovoltaic panel is not successfully transmitted to the control device; and determine, in response to the difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value being less than or equal to the preset threshold, that the state parameter of the photovoltaic panel is successfully transmitted to the control device” in lines 37-50. Applicant has no support for the claimed method steps in the originally filed disclosure. More specifically, Applicant has no support for a control device comprising a demodulator to perform the method steps as claimed.
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected on the same ground as claim 9.
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 9, 24 and 26 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.
As amended, claim 9 recites “a direct-current voltage of the direct current bus” in line 8. It is unclear what is being referred to as “a direct-current voltage of the direct current bus”. It is also unclear if “a direct current voltage” is the same as or different from “a state parameter” recited line 6.
As amended, claim 9 recites “load the modulated signal onto a direct current voltage” in line 8. It is not clear what is to be encompassed by the term “load the modulated signal onto a direct current voltage”. For the purpose of this office action, the limitation “load the modulated signal onto a direct-current voltage of the direct current bus” is construed as “load the modulated signal onto the direct current bus” as Applicant shows the modulation chip (60) is connected to the direct current bus (or the line connecting the photovoltaic panel 30 to the invertor 110 in fig. 2).
As amended, claim 9 recites the limitation “detect, in a cycle of the communication, the direct-current voltage in the first time period to obtain a first voltage value of the direct-current voltage without the modulated signal, wherein the demodulating is performed in the second time period of the cycle; and detect, in the cycle of the communication, the direct-current voltage in the third time period to obtain a second voltage value of the direct-current voltage without the modulated signal, and determine whether a difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value is greater than a preset threshold; determine, in response to the difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value being greater than the preset threshold, that the state parameter of the photovoltaic panel is not successfully transmitted to the control device; and determine, in response to the difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value being less than or equal to the preset threshold, that the state parameter of the photovoltaic panel is successfully transmitted to the control device” in lines 37-50. It is unclear what is being claimed as a whole, because the terminologies are inconsistently used from lines 5-11, e.g. it is unclear if “voltage” recited in lines 37-50 is the same as or different from “signal” or “state parameter” recited in lines 5-11.
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected on the same ground as claim 9.
Claims 9, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. As amended, claim 9 claims a photovoltaic electrical system (see the preamble of claim 9) and also recites steps of a method to detect an operating state of a photovoltaic panel (see claim 1). This claim is an omnibus type claim.
For the purpose of this office action, the recitations directed to the method of detecting an operating state of the photovoltaic panel recited in lines 33-50 are construed as the intended use of the photovoltaic electrical system.
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.
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) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yang et al. (CN 203339729 U; hereinafter “Yang”, see the machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, Yang discloses a photovoltaic electrical system comprising:
A photovoltaic device (see the annotated partial translation below) comprising a photovoltaic panel (1-3 in the partial translation below) and a modulator (see the first power carrier conversion unit 9 in the annotated partial translation below, [0011]); and
a control device (see the annotated partial translation below) comprising a demodulator (see the annotated partial translation below, [0012]);
wherein the photovoltaic device is connected to the control device via a direct current bus (see the annotated partial translation below).
PNG
media_image1.png
714
809
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yang et al. teaches the photovoltaic device (see annotated partial translation above) comprising a photovoltaic array combiner box including a monitoring unit to real-time monitor the current signal and the current output to output voltage signal and transmit the current signal and voltage signal to the first power carrier conversion unit (see [0044]). Yang et al. also teaches the first power carrier conversion unit is used to modulate the current signal and voltage signal onto the power cable to transmit the current signal and voltage signal through the power cable (see [0011]). As such, the photovoltaic device of Yang is configured to detect an operating state (current signal or current output) of the photovoltaic panel to obtain a state parameter (current output of the photovoltaic panel, modulate state parameter of the photovoltaic panel through the modulator to obtain a modulated signal, and load the modulated signal onto a direct-current voltage of the direct current bus as claimed.
Yang discloses the control device includes a second power carrier conversion unit (see annotated partial translation above) that is used to demodulate the current signal and voltage signal from the power cable and output the demodulated current signal and voltage signal through the inverter room communication unit (see [0012]). As such, the control device of Yang is configured to detect the modulated signal outputted from the direct current bus and demodulate the modulated signal through the demodulator to obtain the state parameter of the photovoltaic panel as claimed.
Yang discloses all the structural limitations as claimed, and even the same connections – e.g. modulator connected directly to the bus and the demodulation connected directly to the bus (See Figure 2 of Applicant’s disclosure and annotated partial translation below). Therefore, the reference is deemed to be anticipatory. The recitation of “each cycle of communication between the photovoltaic device and the control device comprises a first time period, a second time period, and a third time period, which are successive in the above-listed sequence” is directed to an inherent characteristic/property of real-time monitoring. In real-time monitoring, there is a first time period (or the time before a modulated signal of the alarm to be detected – e.g. the past), a second time period (or the time the modulated signal of the alarm to be detected – or the present at which the modulated signal is detected), and a third time period (or the time the modulated signal is moved on to be demodulated and transmitted).
Yang disclosed all the structural limitations as described above. Recitations regarding how to detect an operating state as recited in lines 33-50 are directed to toward intended use of the photovoltaic electrical system/apparatus. Said recitations do not differentiate the apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim; so long as the disclosed apparatus is capable of performing the process limitations, the limitations are deemed to have been met. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” The apparatus of Yang is fully capable of being used to detect an operating state of the photovoltaic panel, because Yang explicitly teaches using the photovoltaic electrical system/apparatus to detect and alert/alarm (see [0013-0016], [0059-0062], fig. 4, [0069-0076], [0078], [0082]).
Alternatively, Yang does not explicitly disclose the intended use of operating the system/apparatus in step by step and word by word as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have used the system/apparatus of Yang to detect the operating state of the photovoltaic panel in step by step and word by word as claimed, because such use would involve nothing more than an intended use of the system/apparatus and because Yang explicitly teaches using the system/apparatus to detect/monitor an operating state such as alert/alarm of the photovoltaic panel.
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.
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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 203339729 U; hereinafter “Yang”) in view of Khazeni et al. (US 2009/0277496).
Regarding claim 24, Yang discloses a photovoltaic electrical system as in claim 9 above, and teaches the photovoltaic device comprising an alarm unit with an alarm threshold preset for outputting an alarm when the value of the current signal and/or voltage signal monitored in real time by the monitoring unit exceeds the alarm threshold, signal to modulator (or the first power carrier conversion unit); the modulator (or first power carrier conversion unit) is used to modulate the alarm signal onto the direct current bus (or the power cable) to transmit the alarm signal through the direct current bus (or the power cable) and the demodulator (or the second power carrier conversion unit) is used to demodulate the alarm signal from the power cable and output the demodulated alarm signal through the direct current bus (or the power cable), and preferably including a communication processing unit (see [0010-0016]), the demodulator (or the second power carrier conversion unit 9) is connected to monitoring center (12, see annotated partial translation above) and the monitoring center is used to send a request signal to one or more of the photovoltaic power generation unit (see [0026]). As such, the photovoltaic electrical system of Yang comprises a first sensor (or the alarm unit or the communication processing unit) configured to detect the operating state of the photovoltaic panel to obtain the state parameter (e.g. alarm) of the photovoltaic panel; and a first controller (or also the monitoring unit or processing unit).
Yang does not teach including a first sensor and a first controller such that the first controller configured to receive the state parameter of the photovoltaic panel and control the photovoltaic panel based on the state parameter of the photovoltaic panel.
Khazeni teaches photovoltaic collectors which track the position of the sun (abstract, [0056 and figs. 8A-C). Khazeni teaches a position sensor can be used (sun position sensing element 70) to determine which way to rotate the photovoltaic panel so that the most direct sunlight is received on the panel during the day and over the course of the year (¶ 0096). Khazeni additionally teaches the position sensing element can provide the information for angular adjustment to an actuator or mechanism for making adjustments to the panel (¶¶ 0096 and 0110).
The devices of Yang and Khazeni are analogous references in the field of photovoltaic systems. 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 the device of Yang and include a sensor to determine the position of the sun, and an actuator/mechanism for making angular adjustments to the panel, in order to allow for the most direct sunlight to be received on the photovoltaic panel during the day and over the course of the year, as taught above by Khazeni. The modification would necessarily result in a first sensor being a position sensor (see Khazeni above), the position sensor configured to detect a position state parameter of the photovoltaic panel (see Khazeni above), and a first controller (actuator/mechanism for angular adjustment) that is capable of adjusting a position of the photovoltaic panel based on the position state parameter of the photovoltaic panel as claimed. Thus, the modification would necessarily result in the device of modified Yang including the aforementioned sensor and controller as claimed.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 203339729 U; hereinafter “Yang”) as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 26, Yang discloses photovoltaic electrical system as in claim 9, and teaches the control device comprising the second power conversion unit (9) configured to detect an output signal of the direct current bus (see the annotated partial translation above), an inverter room communication unit (10) configured to obtain a determine result and transmit the determine result to the control/monitoring center (12), wherein the communication between the second power conversion unit (9), the inverter room communication unit (10) and the control/monitoring center (12, see arrows in annotated partial translation above).
Yang does not explicitly teach using a second sensor configured to detect an output signal of the direct current bus; a second controller, configured to determine, based on the output signal of the direct current bus, whether the state parameter of the photovoltaic panel is successfully transmitted to the control device, to obtain a determine result; and an upper computer, configured to receive the determination result, and monitoring a state of the photovoltaic panel based on the determination result as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic electrical system of Yang by incorporating a second sensor in addition to the second power conversion unit with demodulating function and using a second controller as the inverter room communication unit to obtain a determination result and determine whether the state parameter of the photovoltaic panel is successfully transmitted, because Yang teach detecting an output signal of the direct current bus (by the second power conversion unit) and using inverter room communication unit to transmit a valid signal from the direct current bus. Such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have used a computer as (or in) the control/monitoring center to receive the determination result (or the signal from the second controller being used as the inverter room communication unit) and monitor a state of the photovoltaic panel based on the determination result, because such modification would involve nothing more than use of known device for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The computer being used as (or in) the control/monitoring center corresponds to the claimed computer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9, 24 and 26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that recited references do not teach the newly added steps of detecting an operating state of the photovoltaic panel. The examiner replies that Applicant does not disclose the steps to be the configuration of the controller. On the contrary, Applicant discloses Fig. 5 (which show the time periods) is a variation of a voltage ON A DIRECT CURRENT BUS with a carrier waver (emphasis added, see [0028] of Applicant’s specification), or a property/characteristic of including a modulator that creates a carrier wave); not a configuration of the control device comprising a demodulator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached on 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
