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 .
Claims 1, 3-7, 9 -12 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12 are rejected below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3-20-26 has been entered.
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, 3-4, 9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppenheimer (U.S. PG Pub. 2015/0333499) in view of Clark (U.S. 2020/0064385) in view of Martin (U.S. PG Pub. 2015/0349393).
As to claim 1 Oppenheimer teaches an arrangement, comprising: an energy generator (element 18) a voltage distribution line that runs from the energy generator an energy consumer and a transformer substation at a predefined location (fig 1 element 16/18 to 24 to 26 to 32)), wherein the transformer substation comprises a line voltage regulator[0015], which simultaneously controls the voltage of the voltage distribution line at said predefined location of the transformer substation and also supplies at least one low voltage electricity consumer with low voltage[0015].
Oppenheimer teaches most the claimed invention of claim, but does not teach all of the limitations of claim 1, however, this is an obvious variation as taught by Clark.
As to claim 1 Clark teaches, at least one renewable energy source adding additional voltage to the voltage distribution line [0014, element 123 provides medium voltage to a distribution line 101), wherein the at least one renewable energy source is arranged between the transformer substation and the energy consumer [0074, 0114].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date to include the teachings of Clark into the system and methods of Oppenheimer. The motivation to combine is that customer that have their own solar system can supply green energy to the distribution system [0072].
Oppenheimer in view of Clark teach most the claimed invention of claim, but does not teach all of the limitations of claim 1, however, this is an obvious variation as taught by Martin as follows:
Martin teaches supplies at least one electricity consumer with a low voltage[0035], wherein the line voltage regulator controls medium voltage in the voltage distribution line and wherein the line voltage regulator comprises the a feeder transformer comprising an input that is coupled to the voltage distribution line (lines between elements 13 and 17) [0035] and an output that supplies the low voltage to the at least one low voltage electricity consumer; (element 20) [0035]. Martin shows that a singular transformer station can send low and medium voltage to low and medium customers (see elements 17, 16, and 20 in the lower corner of fig. 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Martin into the system and method of Oppenheimer in view of Clark. The motivation to combine is that using a solar farm allows for even more solar (renewable) energy to be used than what a single home’s solar system could supply. Furthermore, Martin teaches generation units (for example, of solar power plant type 18) may also directly provide power to a secondary transformer substation 17 then on to the user [0035].
Claims 11 and 12 are patentable similar to claim 1 with the exception of a plurality of transformers, which can be seen in Clark and Martin in fig. 1.
As to claim 3, Oppenheimer teaches wherein the electricity consumer receives low voltage, wherein low voltage is in the range of 50 V to 300 V[0015].
As to claim 4, Oppenheimer teaches wherein medium voltage is in the range of 50 V to 36 kV[0015].
As to claim 9, Oppenheimer teaches characterized in that wherein the renewable energy source comprises a generator using wind energy and/ or a generator using solar energy[0014] .
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppenheimer (U.S. PG Pub. 2015/0333499) in view of Clark (U.S. 2020/0064385) in view of Martin (U.S. PG Pub. 2015/0349393) in view of Carlen (U.S. PG Pub.2016/0077534).
Oppenheimer in view of Clark and Martin teaches most of the claimed invention, but fails to teach the limitations of claims 5-7. However, this is an obvious variation as taught by Carlen as follows:
As to claim 5, Carlen teaches wherein the line voltage regulator comprises a booster transformer [0012], wherein the booster transformer adds an additional voltage to the voltage distribution line depending of a drop of voltage in the voltage distribution line[0014] and wherein the feeder transformer (9) is electrically connected with the booster transformer via a tap changer and/ or an electrical circuit[0012].
As to claim 6, Carlen teaches wherein the booster transformer comprises a first coil winding [0012 – primary winding] and a second coil winding [0012 – secondary] wherein the first coil winding induces the additional voltage in the second coil winding and/ or wherein the second coil winding is connected in series with the voltage distribution line a connector[0020].
As to claim 7, Carlen teaches wherein the first coil winding of the feeder transformer is electrically connected with the voltage distribution line and induces a voltage in the second coil winding of the feeder transformer, wherein the second coil winding of the feeder transformer is electrically connected with the first coil winding of the booster transformer via a tap changer and/ or an electrical circuit (fig. 1 elements 16 and 20)[0037].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Carlen into the system and methods of Oppenheimer modified by Clark and Martin. The motivation to combine is that Carlen teaches the invention provides a compact voltage regulation unit, which is easy to integrate in a distribution network as well in close proximity of a transformer as in a larger distance of a distribution substation[0013].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppenheimer (U.S. PG Pub. 2015/0333499) in view of Clark (U.S. 2020/0064385) in view of Martin (U.S. PG Pub. 2015/0349393) in view of Daley (U.S. PG Pub. 2017/0294846).
Oppenheimer in view Clark and Martin teaches most of the claimed invention, but fails to teach the limitations of claim 10. However, this is an obvious variation as taught by Daley as follows:
As to claim 10, Daley teaches wherein the transformer substation is retrofitted by the line voltage regulator[0169].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to include the teachings of Daley into the system and methods of Oppenheimer modified by Clark and Martin. The motivation to combine is that Daley teaches that a system can be retrofit into an existing system therefore saving money rather than needing a new system [0169].
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended the claims to remove the limitations that were the reasons for the 35 USC 112 rejection. The claims are now rejected in view of the previous combination with a previously cited, but not used reference Martin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119