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 responsive to the RCE filed on 05/12/2026. The claims 1- 20 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1, 10, & 14 is/are in independent form.
In light of the received amendment to the specification dated 05/12/2026, the outstanding objections to the Specification are rendered moot, and therefore are withdrawn.
In light of the received amendment to the independent claims to delete “boundary limit module”, the outstanding claim interpretations of this phrase accordance to 112(f) is rendered moot and is withdrawn. For the same reasons, the outstanding 112(b) rejections are rendered moot and therefore are withdrawn as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I) Independent claims 1, 10, & 14:
As to outstanding 103 rejection, in substance, applicant argues that Jeong (KR20140095351 A, see prior provided FOR document on 02/13/2026) fails to teach determining limits based on a power output of at least one power generating device using a boundary limit function as required by amended limitation of the claim. It appears that applicant argues the “the input voltage of the input power source 100” (Jeong, para. 038) is not same as “power output of at least one power generating device”. Applicant challenges that Jeong fails to teach the limitation of “determining a range of safe operation based on a power output of at least one power generating device electrically coupled to the at least one power converter by computing, based on the power output of the at least one power generating device using a boundary limits function, an upper limit of safe operation and a lower limit of safe operation for
the adjusted at least one parameter” as recited in claim 1 and similarly in claims 10 & 14.
Specifically, applicant argues:
The Office Action acknowledges Siri and Fornage do not describe determining a range of safe operation based on a power output of at least one power generating device electrically coupled to at least one power controller. See Office Action at Pages 11-12.
Applicant submits that Jeong does not remedy the deficiencies of Siri and Fornage in describing or rendering obvious amended Claim 1. Jeong describes determining an upper limit value (Vdc.max) and a lower limit value (Vdc.min) for a DC bus based on an input voltage of an input power source. See Jeong, at paragraphs [0042]-[0043]. However, Jeong does not describe determining limits based on a power output of at least one power generating device using a boundary limits function, as recited in Claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that amended Claim 1 is patentable over Siri, Fornage, and Jeong.
See Remarks, page 11.
II) Dependent Claims:
The remaining arguments for the dependent claims, in substance, state that other references used for the dependent claims also fail to cure the deficiency of Siri, Fornage, and Jeong. That is, other references also fail to teach the limitation of “determining a range of safe operation based on a power output of at least one power generating device electrically coupled to the at least one power converter by computing, based on the power output of the at least one power generating device using a boundary limits function, an upper limit of safe operation and a lower limit of safe operation for the adjusted at least one parameter” See Remarks, pages 12- 15.
I) Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, under BRI, by relying on plain meaning per MPEP 2111.01 (I), Office interprets the claimed “boundary limit function” as logic/rules used by the controller 400 to determine both “the upper limit value Vdc.max” and “the lower limit value Vdc.min” since they define the boundary between upper level and lower level for the reference “the DC link voltage of the DC link unit 300” of the converter 200 (paras. 032-033). Examiner notes that applicant’s specification (see para. 027) does not give special definition (MPEP 2111.01, IV) for the phrase “boundary limit function”. The phrase is also no longer interpreted accordance to 112(f). Furthermore, applicant’s argument is also silent on stating why Jeong’s logic used by the controller 400 cannot read on “boundary limit function” since clearly sets boundary of upper and lower limit.
Secondly, Jeong (KR20140095351A)’s “input voltage of an input power source (S100)” of para. 042 means output power provided by the “input power source 100” to the converter 200 but not the power inputted to the power source 100. The “input power source (S100)” is not shown to receive power from any other power sources. Accordingly, PHOSITA would clearly understand “detecting an input voltage of an input power source (S100)” of Jeong as the power output of the power generating device (“the input power source 100” of fig. 4) which clearly meets the argued limitation of the claim. Therefore, contrary to applicant’s position, Jeong clearly teaches the amended and argued limitation of independent claim.
Jeong teaches:
[0038] The controller 400 may determine the upper limit value Vdc.max and the lower limit value Vdc.min of the reference DC link voltage based on the input voltage of the input power source 100.
[0042] Referring to FIG. 8, according to an embodiment, a control method of a power converter includes detecting an input voltage of an input power source (S100), and determining an upper limit value and a lower limit value of the reference DC link voltage based on the input voltage. And determining a reference DC link voltage based on an input power and a modulation index (S300), and controlling the duty of the converter control signal so that the DC link voltage reaches the reference DC link voltage. It is configured to include a step (S400). The configuration of the power converter refers to FIGS. 1 to 4. In addition, the structure of an air conditioner refers to FIG.
PNG
media_image1.png
472
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
II) Since applicant’s arguments against the independent claims are deemed not persuasive, remaining arguments with respect to dependent claims that basically state new references fail to cure the deficiency of Siri, Fornage, and Jeong are also rendered moot.
Accordingly, the outstanding 103 rejections are respectfully maintained as set forth below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 9- 12, 14, 17- 18, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siri (US 6369462 B1) in view of Fornage et al. (US 20100195357 A1), and further in view of Jeong et al. (KR20140095351A, see previously provided FOR document on 02/13/2026). Siri, Fornage, and Jeong are references of the record. The combination of Siri, Fornage, and Jeong are referred as SFJ hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, Siri teaches a renewable power system [“a parallel converter maximum power tracking system” of fig. 2] comprising: (fig. 2);
(1) a plurality of power generating devices [Fig. 2, “plurality of solar arrays 10a-n respectively parallel connected to input stabilizers 16a-n”] (see Fig. 2, Col. 5 lines 55- 60);
(2) a plurality of power converters [“respective converters 14a-n that are in turn coupled to a respective number of n maximum power trackers 22a-n”], each power converter of said plurality of power converters electrically coupled to at least one power generating device of said plurality of power generating devices and at least one of a load [item 12] and/or a main grid (Fig. 2, Col 5 lines 55- 60); and
(3) a plurality of controllers [“respective DC-DC converters 14a-n having respective individual maximum power trackers (MPT) 22a-n for controlling the respectively connected DC-DC converters 14a-n having a single common shared bus input (SB)”], each of said plurality of controllers comprising a processor coupled in communication with at least one power converter of said plurality of power converters (Col 5 lines 55- 60), said processor of each of said plurality of controllers configured to:
[a] detect a load power [“depending on the amount of power available and sourced from the respective arrays 10a-n and depending on the amount of power demand of the load 12”] of the at least one of the load and/or the main grid; [b] determine an available power [“The available power from the array 10 is shown to have maxima 106 and 108 on respective solar array power profile curves for respective 100% and 50% solar illumination intensities”] of said plurality of power generating devices (Fig. 7, Col 6 lines 10- 20, Col 11 lines 5- 10); and
[c] in response to the load power exceeding [“when the load demand is more than the available peak power”] the available power of said plurality of power generating devices, adjust [changing to operate in “a maximum power-tracking mode” from voltage regulation mode means increasing INCR (“providing the increment signal INCR indicating an increasing state”) until reaching maximum power] at least one parameter of said at least one power converter (Claim 1, Col 10 lines 20- 25, Col 6 lines 50-60, Col 11 lines 35-40);
…
control said at least one power converter based on the adjusted at least one parameter (Col 6 lines 55-57, Col 11 35-40, 60-065).
In summary, Siri teaches pluralities of controllers of a renewable power system adjusting of the at least one parameters of the of power parallel converters (items 14s of fig. 2) as part of the controlling the power converter to address the situation when the load demand is more than the available peak power from the sources 10a-n during power-tracking mode (fig. 2, Col. 6).
However, Siri does not teach determining whether such adjusting of the parameters can violate one or more dynamic safe operating limits or not and how to minimize the power loss across its power converters. More specifically, Siri may not teach its controllers to:
(1) determine a range of safe operation based on a power output of at least one
power generating device electrically coupled to said at least one power converter by; and computing, based on the power output of the at least one power generating device using a boundary limits function, an upper limit of safe operation and a lower limit of safe operation for the adjusted at least one parameter;
(2) determine if the adjusted at least one parameter is within the range of safe operation; when the adjusted at least one parameter is within the range of safe operation, control said at least one power converter based on the adjusted at least one parameter; and when the adjusted at least one parameter is not within the range of safe operation, deactivate said at least one power converter as claimed.
Fornage is directed to a renewable power system to provide power to a load/grid [“to power grid” that is coupled with load center 108] using pluralities of the inverters 102s coupled with pluralities of the power generating devices [PV modules 104s] (Fig. 1, [022]). Specifically, Fornage cures Siri’s 2nd deficiency. More specifically, Fornage teaches each of power controllers [monitoring modules 306] for pluralities of power converters [conversion modules 302] configured to:
determine [Step 414 of fig. 4] if the adjusted [“the corrected monitoring voltage is within required regulatory limits”] at least one parameter is within a range of safe operation; when the adjusted at least one parameter is within the range [“within required regulatory limits”] of safe operation, control [“alternatively, AC voltage regulation may be performed” based on the decision of the step 422] said at least one power converter based on the adjusted at least one parameter; and when the adjusted at least one parameter is not within the range of safe operation, deactivate [“If the result of such determination is no, the method400 proceeds to step 422, where the inverter is deactivated”] said at least one power converter ([024, 043-044, 050]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Fornage and Siri because they both related to control operating pluralities of the parallel power converters to supply power to a shared electric load using pluralities of the controllers and (2) modify the controllers of Siri to include 2nd missing limitation from Fornage. Doing so would allow the converters of the Siri to help operate the power system of Siri within regulatory compliance and mitigate potential safety hazards (Fornage [007, 021]).
Siri in view of Fornage teaches checking whether the adjusted at least one parameter of the power converters are within “a range of safe operation”.
However Siri in view of Fornage still does not allow its utilized range of safe operation (“to the regulatory limits” of Fornage in para. 050) to be adjustable based on power output of at least one power generating device (like outputs from item 10s of Siri to converter 14s) using boundary limits module. That is, Siri in view of Fornage fails to teach “determine a range of safe operation based on a power output of at least one
power generating device electrically coupled to said at least one power converter by; and computing, based on the power output of the at least one power generating device using a boundary limits function, an upper limit of safe operation and a lower limit of safe operation for the adjusted at least one parameter”.
Jeong teaches a power system comprising a power generating device [item 100] coupled with a power converter [item 200] to provide controlled power to at least a power load [item 600] using a controller [item 400] (Figs. 1, 4 [023]). Specifically, Jeong teaches a power system comprising a power controller configured to:
determine a range of safe operation based on a power output of at least one
power generating device [“input power source 100”] electrically coupled to said at least one power converter by computing, based on the power output [“power converter determines the upper limit value Vdc.max and the lower limit value Vdc.min of the reference DC link voltage based on the input voltage of the input power source (S200).” Here, the “input voltage of the input power source” means input voltage provided/outputted from the source 100 to the converter. Hence, the input voltage of the source 100 means output voltage of the source 100 for the converter 200 and this voltage is used to determine limit values for maximum and minimum Vdc] of the at least one power generating device using a boundary limits function [logic/rules used by the controller 400 to determine boundaries: with upper limit value and lower limit value], an upper limit of safe operation and a lower limit of safe operation for the adjusted at least one parameter ([033-038, 042, 043], Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Jeong and Siri in view of Fornage because they both related to using a power converter to convert power from a power generator before providing to an electric load and (2) modify the Siri in view of Fornage’s each controller to determine a range of safe operation including upper limit and lower limit by inputting power output of the power generating device (like items 10a, 10b) to a boundary limit function of each converter as in Jeong. Doing so would minimize switching and conduction loss and also increase the power efficiency of the converters 14s of Siri in view of Fornage (See Jeong, [014]). Accordingly, SFJ teaches each limitation of the claim and renders invention of the claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 4, SFJ further teaches/suggests the renewable power system of Claim 1, wherein in response to the load power exceeding the available power of said plurality of power generating devices, said processor is further configured to adjust one or more of a frequency reference and/or a voltage magnitude of said at least one power converter (Siri, Claim 1, Fig. 2, Col 9 lines 2- 7: “When the logic circuit 76 is in the increasing state, when the increment INCR signal is active and the decrement signal is inactive, the VIN array voltage is controlled to be increasing”).
Regarding claim 7, SFJ further teaches/suggests the renewable power system of Claim 1, wherein each of said plurality of power generating devices comprises one or more of a photovoltaic (PV) source [“an n plurality of solar arrays 10a-n respectively parallel connected to input stabilizers 16a-n and respective converters 14a-n”], , a wind source, and a battery source (Siri, Fig. 2, Col 6 lines 55- 60, Fornage Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, SFJ further teaches the renewable power system of Claim 1, wherein said processor of each of said plurality of controllers is further configured to determine a power setpoint [“predetermined set point is dynamically updated by the maximum power-tracking logic based on the sensed changes in the array power and the array voltage”] based on the available power of each of said plurality of power generating devices (Siri, Col 11 lines 60- 67 & Col 12 lines 1- 5).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 based on SFJ is incorporated. Thus, only in summary, Siri teaches a method for controlling a renewable power system [“the maximum power-tracking system is a paralleled converter maximum power-tracking system having an n plurality of solar arrays 10a-n respectively parallel connected to input stabilizers 16a-n”] including a plurality of power generating devices [“solar arrays 10a-n”], a plurality of power converters [“respective converters 14a-n that”], each power converter of the plurality of power converters electrically coupled to at least one power generating device of the plurality of power generating devices and at least one of a load [Load 12] and/or a main grid, and a plurality of controllers [“respective number of n maximum power trackers 22a-n”], each of the plurality of controllers including a processor coupled in communication with at least one power converter of the plurality of power converters, said method comprising: (Col 5 lines 50-65, Fig. 2);
detecting, by at least one processor [one of the MPT 22, “converter 14a-n has a respective MPT 22a-n”] of the pluralities of controllers, a load power of the at least one of the load and/or the main grid; determining, by the at least one processor, an available power of the plurality of power generating devices (Col. 6 lines 42- 51: “The MPT 22 tracks the power available from the solar array source 10 using the Io sense signal and senses the solar array voltage VIN signal, for controlling the converters 14a-n in either the maximum power-tracking mode or the voltage regulation mode for providing maximum power to the load 12 under varying amounts of available solar power and under varying amount of load demand.”, Claim 1); and
in response to the load power exceeding [“when the load demand exceeds the source powers”] the available power of the plurality of power generating devices, adjusting, by the at least one processor, at least one parameter of the at least one power converter (Fig. 2, claim 1, Col 10 lines 20- 25, Col 6 lines 40- 51);
…
controlling, by the at least one processor, the at least one power converter based on the adjusted at least one parameter (Col 11 35-40, 60-065).
However, Siri fails to teach checking whether the adjusted parameters is within a range of safe operation to take appropriate control actions and varying the safe operation range/limit based on the input power to the converter. That is, Siri fails to teach:
(1) determining a range of safe operation based on a power output of at least one power generating device electrically coupled to the at least one power converter by computing, based on the power output of the at least one power generating device using a boundary limits function, an upper limit of safe operation and a lower limit of safe operation for the adjusted at least one parameter; and
(2) determining by the at least one processor, if the adjusted at least one parameter is within the range of safe operation; when the adjusted at least one parameter is within the range of safe operation, controlling, by the at least one processor, the at least one power converter based on the adjusted at least one parameter; and when the adjusted at least one parameter is not within the range of safe operation, deactivating, by the at least one processor, the at least one power converter.
Fornage teaches the steps of: determining [Step S414], by the at least one processor, if the adjusted at least one parameter is within a range of safe operation; when the adjusted at least one parameter is within the range of safe operation, controlling, by the at least one processor, the at least one power converter based on the adjusted at least one parameter; and when the adjusted at least one parameter is not within the range of safe operation, deactivating [S422, “the inverter is deactivated”], by the at least one processor, the at least one power converter ([043-044, 050], Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Fornage and Siri because they both related to control operating pluralities of the parallel power converters to provide power to a shared load using pluralities of the controllers and (2) modify the controllers of Siri to include missing checking of adjusted parameters possible violation with safety rules limitations from Fornage. Doing so would allow the converters of the Siri to mitigate potential safety hazards while adjusting the parameters of the converters (Fornage [007]).
Siri in view of Fornage still fails to teach but Jeong teaches a method step comprising:
determining a range of safe operation [“determine the upper limit value Vdc.max and the lower limit value Vdc.min of the reference DC link voltage based on the input voltage of the input power source 100.” The input voltage of the power source 100 is provided as output to the converter 200] based on a power output of at least one power generating device electrically coupled to the at least one power converter by computing, based on the power output of the at least one power generating device using a boundary limits function, an upper limit of safe operation and a lower limit of safe operation for the adjusted at least one parameter ([033, 038, 042-043]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Jeong and Siri in view of Fornage because they both related to using a power converter to convert power from a power generator before providing to an electric load and (2) modify the Siri in view of Fornage’s each controller to determine a range of safe operation including upper limit and lower limit by inputting power output of the power generating device (like items 10a, 10b) to a boundary limit module as in Jeong. Doing so would minimize switching and conduction loss and also increases the power efficiency of the converters 14s of Siri in view of Fornage (See Jeong, [014]). Accordingly, SFJ teaches each limitation of the claim and renders invention thereof obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 11, SFJ further teaches the method of Claim 10, further comprising, in response to the load power exceeding the available power of the plurality of power generating devices, adjusting, by the at least one processor, a frequency reference and/or a voltage magnitude of the at least one power converter (Siri, Col 9 lines 31-35, “In the converter 14, the converter signal Vc is used to change the input impedance of the converter 14 that adjusts the VIN voltage that is the solar array output voltages +/-V”).
Regarding claim 12, SFJ further teaches the method of Claim 10, further comprising determining, by the at least one processor, a power setpoint based on the available power of each of the plurality of power generating devices (Siri, Col 11 lines 60- 67 & Col 12 lines 1- 5).
Regarding claim 14, SFJ further teaches invention of this claim for the similar reasons as set forth above in claims 1 & 10.
Regarding claim 17, SFJ further teaches the controller of Claim 14, wherein in response to the load power exceeding the available power of the at least one power generating device, said processor is further configured to adjust one or more of a frequency reference and/or a voltage magnitude of the at least one power converter (Siri, Col 9 lines 31-35).
Regarding claim 18, SFJ further teaches the controller of Claim 14, wherein the at least one power generating device includes one or more of a photovoltaic (PV) source, a wind source, and a battery source (Siri, Fig. 2 & Fornage Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, SFJ further teaches the controller of Claim 14, wherein said processor is further configured to determine at least one of a power setpoint and/or coefficients for power sharing based on the available power of a plurality of power generating devices, the plurality of power generating devices including the at least one power generating device electrically coupled to the power converter (Siri, Col 11 lines 60- 67 & Col 12 lines 1- 5).
Claim(s) 2- 3, & 15- 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SFJ, and further in view of Meng (US 20160159250 A1, reference of the record).
Regarding claims 2-3, SFJ further teaches the renewable power system of claim 1 as set forth above in claim 1 but fails to teach the remaining features of these claims. However, SFJ does not teach how its converters can coordinate operation thereof to meet the varying level of power demand using variable generated power from various power generating devices. That is, SFJ fails to teach using “decentralized communication network” or “without communication between said plurality of controllers” as claimed in these claims, but both of these deficiencies are cured by Meng.
Meng is directed to a renewable power system comprising pluralities of solar power generating devices capable of utilizing maximum power point tracking control and a pluralities of power converters each having controller with a processor (Fig. 3, [038]). Specifically, Meng teaches a renewable power system comprising
a decentralized communication network, wherein said plurality of controllers are configured to communicate though said decentralized [“the converters of the system may be controlled by the scheme of master-slave control, peer to peer control”. Peer to peer control scheme is understood as decentralized control in the art and is consistent with applicant’s description provided in para. 023 of the specification] communication network ([037, 049]);
wherein said processor of each of said plurality of controllers is configured to adjust the at least one parameter [“the scheme of master-slave control, peer to peer control, droop control, or hierarchical control”] to coordinate said plurality of power converters without communication between said plurality of controllers ([040, 049]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Meng and SFJ because they both related to coordinating operation of the converters of distributed power generating devices of a renewable power system and (2) modify the system of SFJ to utilize decentralized or non-communication scheme as in Meng. Meng teaches missing details for SFJ about how its converters can coordinate control on power generation to maintain power balance in its system (Meng [047]).
Regarding claims 15- 16, SFJ in view of Meng teaches inventions of these claims for the similar reasons as set forth above in claims 2-3 respectively.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SFJ as in claim 1, and further in view of Huang et al. [reference of the record] (CN 103547043 A, Publication Date: 2014-01-29).
Regarding claim 5, SFJ further teaches a renewable power system configured to provide power to an electric load 12 as discussed above. Siri’s power system of the fig. 2 can be considered an island grid because it has power sources 10n and a power load 12. Siri further teaches “can be used to supply power to a sixty-hertz utility grid” (Col 12 lines 35-40).
However, SFJ does not teach how its system couples/decouples with a utility grid. Thus, Siri fails to teach its system further comprising an island switch configured to selectively couple and decouple an island grid from the main grid.
Examiner takes the position that is well-known in the grid connected micro-grid art to utilize an island switch to implementing coupling and decoupling a microgrid (like Siri’s system of fig/ 2) with a larger power grid (utility grid). For example, Huang teaches a renewable power system comprising an island switch [“the island switch 12”] configured to selectively [“the signal transmitted to island the switch 12, control module opens the island switch 12”] couple and decouple an island grid [system block with power sources including “a plurality of photovoltaic power generation modules” 6 and “generating module 7”] from the main grid [“the online sub-module 11 is the operation of the three-phase power grid”] (Fig. 2, [042, 047]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Huang and SFJ because they both related to providing power from an island grid to a bigger/utility grid and (2) have the system of SFJ to utilize island switch as in Huang. Doing so would allow connecting or disconnecting of the SFJ’s power system (Fig. of fig. 2) with the “sixty-hertz utility grid” as needed such as when the grid is opening in unstable situation to protect the equipment of the Siri’s power system as can be clear to PHOSITA. As such, the combined teachings of SFJ and Huang teaches each element of the claim and renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SFJ in view of Grammatikakis et al (US 20140278332 A1, reference of record).
Regarding claim 6, SFJ teaches a renewable power system configured to provide power to an electric load 12 as discussed above. Siri’s power system of the fig. 2 can be considered an island grid because it has power sources 10n and a power load 12. Siri further teaches “can be used to supply power to a sixty-hertz utility grid” (Col 12 lines 35-40).
SFJ does not teach how its system couples/decouples with a utility grid. Thus, SFJ fails to teach plurality of unit transformers, wherein each power converter of said plurality of power converters is coupled to an island grid via one of said plurality of unit transformers.
However, using of the transformers to allow connecting of the a small micro-grid with a larger power grid is well-known in the art so that the voltage difference between these two grids can be addressed before allowing power flow therebetween.
Grammatikakis teaches a renewable power system comprising:
a pluralities of power converters and a plurality of unit transformers [“a plurality of transformers 24”], wherein each power converter of said plurality of power converters is coupled to an island grid [“a solar plant”] via one of said plurality of unit transformers (Fig. 1, [017-019]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Grammatikakis and SFJ because they both related to renewable power system providing power from low voltage microgrid to a larger voltage main-grid and (2) modify the system of SFJ to include transformers as in Grammatikakis. Doing so would allow the low voltage from the system of SFJ to be raised to be medium voltage (Grammatikakis, [019]). As such, SFJ further in view of Grammatikakis teaches each limitation of the claim and renders inventions of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Claim(s) 8 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SFJ and further in view of Liu (US 20130069438 A1, reference of record).
Regarding claim 8, SFJ teaches using its renewable power system to provide power to an electric load 12. Here, SFJ fails to clarify the type of the load being AC power grid although it mentions that its system “used to supply power to a sixty-hertz utility grid for more efficient power generation” (Col 12 lines 35- 37). That is, while SFJ does teach that is power system can be used to provide power to the main grid (‘sixty-hertz utility grid”) and also using pluralities of the DC-DC converters 14, it still fails to teach how the DC power from the “solar array sources 10a-n” can be converted into AC power source. Accordingly, SFJ does not teach
“wherein said plurality of power converters comprises at least one inverter”.
Liu teaches using of pluralities of power converters including some DC-DC converters and at least one DC-AC converter (inverter) to convert and transfer generated power at a solar plant into an electric grid (032], “A string voltage, V.sub.str, is output from each PV string 12, 14, 16, with an overall array or system voltage/power being routed to PV inverter 22 for inversion to an appropriate AC current for transmission to the power grid, for example”). That is, Liu teaches a renewable power system [“operation of PV system 10, and as shown in FIG. 3”] comprising:
a plurality of power generating devices [“a plurality of PV modules 17 that are connected in series.”] ([025]);
a plurality of power converters [“plurality of delta DC/DC converters 24” and “the DC link voltage determined by PV inverter 22 is provided to the DC/DC converters 24”. The inverter 22 convert DC power into AC power hence can be called a power converter], each power converter of said plurality of power converters electrically coupled to at least one power generating device of said plurality of power generating devices and at least one of a load and/or a main grid; and a plurality of controllers, each of said plurality of controllers comprising a processor [“Each delta DC/DC converter 24 also includes a controller 34 operationally connected thereto to control functioning of the DC/DC converter 24, so as to selectively vary a voltage output, V.sub.o, of the DC/DC converter 24 that provides "tuning" of respective PV string voltages”] coupled in communication with at least one power converter of said plurality of power converters, said processor configured to: (Fig. 3, [028- 032]);
adjust [“Upon execution of the power maximizing algorithm, the total power harvested form PV system 10 is 4600 W, indicated by reference numeral 64”] at least one parameter of said at least one power converter ([041, 045]). More specifically, Liu teaches a renewable power system comprising a pluralities of power converters, wherein said plurality of power converters comprises at least one inverter [“voltage/power being routed to PV inverter 22 for inversion to an appropriate AC current”. Hence, out of many converters, the system of Liu uses at least one of the converter as an inverter type of the converter] (Fig. 3, [026, 032]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Liu and SFJ because they both related to operating renewable power system with multiple converters having respective controllers to provide power to an electric load having variable power demand and (2) modify the system of SFJ to include an inverter type of the converter as in Liu. Doing so would allow the generated power in system of SFJ using its solar arrays 10s also can be provided to a power grid in a controlled manner (Liu [032]). Accordingly, the combined teachings of SFJ and Liu teach each element of the claim and render invention of the claim 8 obvious to the PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 19, SFJ in view of Liu teaches invention of this claim for the similar reasons as set forth above in claim 8.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SFJ and further in view of Rashidi et al. (US 20210091564 A1, reference of the record).
Regarding claim 13, SFJ teaches utilizing of the pluralities of the power sources [items 10s] via their respective converters 14s to provide power to its load 12 (Siri, Fig. 2). Siri further teaches/suggests that its power sources to have different power capacity.
However, SFJ fails to teach the system comprising determining, by the at least one processor, coefficients for power sharing based on the available power of each of the plurality of power generating devices.
Rashidi teaches a power system comprising: determining, by the at least one processor, coefficients [“the percentage share of the load current for each of the twice as powerful independent DC power systems would be 40% (e.g., a total of 80%)”] for power sharing based on the available power of each of the plurality of power generating devices ([017, 034]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Rashidi and SFJ because they both related to utilizing pluralities of the parallelly connected power sources to provide power to shared load(s) and (2) modify the method of SFJ to include the step of determining, by the processor, coefficients for power sharing based on the available power of each of the plurality of power generating devices as in Rashidi. Doing so management of the available power in the system of SFJ from various power sources can be further optimized (Rashidi [001]). Furthermore, Rashidi teaches one or more schemes that can be utilized to share the power/current from various parallel sources of SFJ.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Berroteran et al. (US 20210057915 A1) wind turbine power system may include a power converter having a dynamic power limiter ([014]).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 pm).
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights