DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an amendment/arguments filed on 2/18/2026 which was in response to the office action mailed on 12/17/2025 (hereinafter the prior office action).
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-15 and 17-21 is/are pending.
Claims 5, 7 and 16 are allowed.
No claim(s) is/are amended.
Claim(s) 6 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 and 8 is/are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 2/18/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in Pg. 7 in “Remarks” regarding claim 1 that Divan’s Para. 267 does not teach linearly shifting the bandcenter down, because Divan’s changing of bandwidth does not teach Applicant’s shifting of the bandcenter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees Para. 267 of Divan describes Fig. 18 where the voltage band shifts down, i.e. the bandcenter also shifts down. Thus, Para. 267 of Divan teaches Applicant’s linearly shifting down of the bandcenter.
Applicant further states in Pg. 8 in “Remarks” regarding claim 1 that the prior art does not explain that shifting down the bandcenter based on leading vars when var flow is leading.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Divan discloses in Para. 129 that VAR is compensated based on proximate voltage being higher/lower than set point; further, Divan discloses in Para. 144 that var flow is leading based on proximate voltage value compared to set point, where VAR compensation is to compensate for detected leading VAR. Thus, VAR is compensated based on leading VAR. As supported in Para. 270 of Divan, the VAR compensation is done in relation to the linear shifting down of the bandcenter as taught in Fig. 18 of Divan.
Applicant further states in Pg. 8 in “Remarks” regarding claim 1 that the motivation to combine Divan with Labuschagne being to improve system capacity utilization is irrelevant to the portions of Divan (i.e. Para. 129, 144 and 267) used in rejecting claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Divan’s portions includes Para. 73 teaching the monitoring limitation of claim 1. This is done in the context of system capacity utilization improvement. The rest of the portions of Divan mentioned by Applicant also promote better utilization of the system capacity, as also intended by Applicant as per the filed Specification.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to improve system capacity utilization found in Divan’s Para. 73 allows Divan to modify Labuschagne to achieve Applicant’s claim 1.
Applicant further states in Pg. 9-10 in “Remarks” regarding claim 2 that Labuschagne (including the cited Fig. 4) does not disclose that the band 152 is shifted outside the in-band area, and that there is no shifting of the bandcenter taking place in Fig. 4, because in Labuschagne, the bandwidth and bandcenter remain the same, i.e. the in-band area 152 is static and is not changed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Labuschagne discloses in Fig. 4 that operation is performed within a maximum upper band and a minimum lower band. Operation can be normally in band 152, while temporarily can be shifted to the out of band (OOB) regions. When in OOB, the system bandwidth is shifted from within in band 152 to OOB regions, thus, the bandcenter is also shifted up along with the entire band in which the operation is temporarily taking place while in the OOB regions. Of course the in band 152 is static because it is defined from 118V to 122V. That has nothing to do with controlling the system to operate temporarily above 122V, thereby shifting the bandcenter up.
Applicant further states in Pg. 10 in “Remarks” regarding claim 3 that Labuschagne does not disclose linearly shifting corresponding upper and lower band edge voltages, rather only one of the band edge voltages is affected in Labuschagne.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because of the rationale as described above in relation to claim 2.
Applicant further states in Pg. 11 in “Remarks” regarding claim 4 that Labuschagne discloses controlling to keep voltage within original band when voltage outside original band is detected, and that the bandcenter remains at 120V as in Fig. 4, but that it does not teach temporarily designating the bandcenter as the upper band edge voltage.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because of the rationale as described above in relation to claim 2.
Applicant further states in Pg. 11 in “Remarks” regarding claim 12 that as for the reasons above, where the in-band and OOB regions in Labuschagne’s Fig. 4 are static and always present, they do not teach Applicant’s claimed response to voltage reduction command to designate the bandcenter as the upper band.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because claim 12 depends on claim 4, whose voltage reduction command affecting the system is already taught by the combination of Labuschagne and Divan. Fig. 4 of Labuschagne is cited for the additional limitations of temporary disabling and designating of bands as recited in claim 12.
Applicant further states in Pg. 12 in “Remarks” regarding claim 13 that Labuschagne’s cited Fig. 4 does not disclose bands being established based on voltage reduction command.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because of the rationale as described above in relation to claim 12.
Applicant further states in Pg. 8 in “Remarks” regarding claim 8 the same arguments as above. Examiner respectfully refers back to the response to those arguments above.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labuschagne (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0222421) (hereinafter “Labuschagne”) in view of Divan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0138260) (hereinafter “Divan”).
Regarding claim 1, Labuschagne teaches a method for varying voltage within a power distribution system, (Para. 28 - - voltage is controlled, i.e. varied, in a power system)
the method employing a controller for determining and storing upper and lower band edge voltages, a bandcenter between the upper and lower band edge voltages, and a bandwidth, (Fig. 4 - - upper and lower band edge voltages, a bandcenter and a bandwidth are determined/stored)
the method including the steps of:…and operating the controller to maintain the voltage within upper and lower band edge voltages. (Fig. 4 - - operation is performed within upper and lower band, where upper and lower band can be shifted down to the 2nd OOB region with the new upper and lower bands)
But Labuschagne does not explicitly teach monitoring, by way of the controller, a volt-ampere reactive (var) flow while in a voltage reduction mode;
determining, by way of the controller, whether the var flow is leading;…based on an amount of leading vars when the var flow is leading;
linearly shifting, by way of the controller, the bandcenter down
However, Divan teaches monitoring, by way of the controller, a volt-ampere reactive (var) flow while in a voltage reduction mode; (Para. 73 - - VAR is monitored during voltage reduction)
determining, by way of the controller, whether the var flow is leading;…based on an amount of leading vars when the var flow is leading; (Para. 129 - - VAR is compensated based on proximate voltage being higher/lower than set point; Para. 144 - - var flow is leading based on proximate voltage value compared to set point, where VAR compensation is to compensate for detected leading VAR)
linearly shifting, by way of the controller, the bandcenter down (Para. 267 - - band is changed, i.e. shifted)
Labuschagne and Divan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain controlling of voltage sources.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Labuschagne, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Divan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve system capacity utilization, as suggested by Divan (Para. 73).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Labuschagne and Divan teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Labuschagne further teaches linearly shifting, by way of the controller, the bandcenter up (Fig. 4 - - operation is performed within upper and lower band, where upper and lower band can be shifted down to the 2nd OOB region with the new upper and lower bands and thus a new bandcenter as well as bandwidth)
Divan further teaches determining, by way of the controller, whether the var flow is lagging;… based on the var flow when the var flow is lagging. (Para. 129 - - VAR is compensated based on proximate voltage being higher/lower than set point; Para. 144 - - var flow leading can be decreased, i.e. to the point of lagging, based on proximate voltage value compared to set point, where VAR compensation is to compensate for detected leading VAR; Para. 156 - - lagging power factor is detected)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Labuschagne and Divan teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Labuschagne further teaches wherein the bandcenter is midway between the upper and lower band edge voltages, (Fig. 4 - - bandcenter is determined as midway between upper and lower band edge voltages)
wherein linearly shifting the bandcenter down includes linearly shifting the corresponding upper and lower band edge voltages. (Fig. 4 - - operation is performed within upper and lower band, where upper and lower band can be shifted down to the 2nd OOB region with the new upper and lower bands and thus a new bandcenter as well as bandwidth)
Regarding claim 4, Labuschagne teaches a system for controlling applied voltages (Para. 28 - - voltage is controlled, i.e. varied, in a power system)
comprising: a power distribution system…and a controller configured to: establish upper and lower band edge voltages; establish a bandcenter that is midway between the upper and lower band edge voltages; control operation…to maintain the applied voltage between the upper and lower band edge voltages; (Fig. 4 - - upper and lower band edge voltages, a bandcenter and a bandwidth are determined/stored)
…disable the upper band edge voltage and designate the bandcenter as the upper band edge voltage; control…to operate in set increments to reduce the applied voltage to a level that is between the redesignated bandcenter and the lower band edge voltage; and reestablish the bandcenter to be midway between the upper and lower band edge voltages after the switches are operated. (Fig. 4 - - temporarily bandwidth is changed to redesignate bandcenters to the 1st OOB or the 2nd OOB)
But Labuschagne does not explicitly teach including switches for selectively lowering or raising an applied voltage;…control of the switches
temporarily disable
However, Divan teaches including switches for selectively lowering or raising an applied voltage;… (Para. 66 - - switches are controlled)
temporarily disable (Para. 199 - - wait or delay for a duration before acting, i.e. temporarily disable)
control of the switches to operate in set increments to reduce the applied voltage (Para. 73 - - VAR is monitored during voltage reduction)
Labuschagne and Divan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain controlling of voltage sources.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Labuschagne, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Divan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve system capacity utilization, as suggested by Divan (Para. 73).
Regarding claim 8, Labuschagne teaches a power distribution system comprising: a power source generating an output voltage having a designated upper band edge, a lower band edge, and a bandcenter; (Fig. 4 - - upper, lower and bandcenter)
a voltage transforming device electrically connected to said power source and operable to control one or more aspects of the output voltage; and a controller in communication with said voltage transforming device wherein said controller is operable to disable the upper band edge of the output voltage and redesignate the bandcenter as a new upper band edge or, alternatively, disable the lower band edge of the output voltage and redesignate the bandcenter as a new lower band edge. (Fig. 4 - - temporarily bandwidth is changed to redesignate bandcenters to the 1st OOB or the 2nd OOB)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Labuschagne and Divan teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Labuschagne further teaches wherein the controller is configured to receive a voltage reduction command, wherein the controller temporarily disables the upper band edge voltage and designates the bandcenter as the upper band edge voltage in response to the voltage reduction command. (Fig. 4 - - temporarily bandwidth is changed to redesignate bandcenters to the 1st OOB or the 2nd OOB)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Labuschagne and Divan teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Labuschagne further teaches wherein the upper and lower band edge voltages are established based on the voltage reduction command. (Fig. 4 - - upper and lower bands are established)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Labuschagne and Divan teaches all the limitations of the base claim(s).
Labuschagne further teaches wherein the switches configure a load tap changing transformer. (Fig. 2 - - LTC is configured)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7 and 16 are allowed.
Claim(s) 9-11, 14 and 17-21 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim(s) and any intervening claim(s).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,672,298 by Rohatyn, which discloses power factor correction (Title/Abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights