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 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3-2-26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5, 7-9, 12-14, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenzel (U.S. PG Pub. 20200106385) in view of Ruiz (U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0204720) in view of Sham (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0122258) in view of Chongfuangprinya (U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0070945).
As to claims 1, 9 and 14, Wenzel teaches an electric power transmission system, comprising: an electric power generator configured to generate an output electric power (element 102); a first inverter having first input terminals and first output terminals (element 104), wherein the first input terminals are electrically coupled to the electric power generator (fig. 1) and the first output terminals are electrically coupled to one or more load elements (element 104 and 218), the first inverter configured to supply alternating current (AC) electric power to the one or more load elements (element 116, 218)[0056], wherein the first inverter comprises a first inverter controller communicably coupled to the electric power generator and the one or more load elements(element 214); and a second inverter having second input terminals and second output terminals (element 109), wherein the second input terminals are configured to be electrically coupled to the first output terminals of the first inverter and the second output terminals are configured to be electrically coupled to an electric power grid (fig. 1), wherein the second inverter comprises a second inverter controller communicably coupled to the first inverter controller (fig. 3 element 214) and configured to: receive, at the second inverter, at least a first portion of a total generated output electric power from the first inverter [0055].
Wenzel teaches most of the claimed invention, but doesn’t teach that the energy from the second inverter is sent to the grid. However, this is an obvious variation as taught by Ruiz as follows:
As to claims 1, 9 and 14, Ruiz teaches transmit, through the second inverter, the received first portion of the total generated output electric power to the electric power grid (see fig. 6 elements 40, and 252). Examiner notes that the storage system is DC and therefore to send the energy to the grid an inverter must be used to convert to AC.
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 Ruiz into the system and methods of Wenzel. The motivation to combine is that Ruiz teaches that energy can be sold back to the grid [0042, 0051].
Wenzel in view of Ruiz teaches most of the claimed invention, but doesn’t teach all the claimed invention. However, this is an obvious variation as taught by Sham as follows:
As to claims 1, 9 and 14 Sham teaches wherein the second input terminal (element 160) is configured to be electrically coupled (fig. 1) to the first output terminals of the first inverter (element 155) indirectly through a power storage device (element 115).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Wenzel in view of Ruiz with Sham since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). Specifically, connecting the inverters as taught in Wenzel and Ruiz via a battery. It is also noted that this does not seem to have a purpose other than the represent structure.
Wenzel in view of Ruiz and Sham teaches most of the claimed invention, but doesn’t teach all the claimed invention. However, this is an obvious variation as taught by Chongfuangprinya as follows:
As to claims 1, 9 and 14 Chongfuangprinya teaches an electronic device communicably coupled to both the first inverter controller and the second inverter controller, wherein the electronic device is configured to: display information related to transmission of electric power to the electric power arid; and transmit an instruction to the second inverter controller to regulate a quantity of the electric power to be transmitted to the electric power grid [0033].
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 Chongfuangprinya into the system and methods of Wenzel in view of Ruiz and Shame. The motivation to combine is that Chongfuangprinya teaches Application module 220 performs aggregation of solar inverter operational insights for access by grid operators, and allows operators or utility enterprise systems to command and control solar inverters[0033].
As to claims 3, 13 and 16, Wenzel teaches wherein the second inverter is configured to be in an indirect electrical connection with the electric power generator via the first inverter (fig.1 elements 102, 104, 109).
As to claims 5, 12 and 18, Wenzel teaches wherein the second inverter controller is further configured to determine a cumulative output electric power transmitted from the second inverter to the electric power grid during a predetermined period of time [0085].
As to claims 7 and 20, Wenzel teaches wherein the electric power generator is a renewable electric power generator configured to generate a direct current (DC) electric power, and wherein the electric power generator is at least one of photovoltaic-based, and wind-based electric power generation sources (element 102).
As to claim 8, Wenzel teaches wherein the second inverter is a plug-in inverter (element 109).
Claim(s) 2, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenzel (U.S. PG Pub. 20200106385) in view of Ruiz (U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0204720) in view of Sham (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0122258) in view of Chongfuangprinya (U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0070945) in view of Das (U.S. PG Pub. 2023/0259086).
Wenzel in view of Ruiz, Chongfuangprinya and Sham teaches most of the claimed invention, but doesn’t teach all of the limitations of claims 2, 10 and 15. However, this is an obvious variation as taught by Das as follows:
As to claims 2, 10 and 15, Das teaches wherein the first inverter controller is configured to: determine the total generated output electric power from the electric power generator; determine a total required electric power based on a cumulative of respective electric power requirements of the one or more load elements; and divert at least the first portion of the total generated output electric power from the first inverter to the second inverter when the total generated output electric power is greater than the total required electric power [0100].
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 Das into the system and methods of Wenzel in view of Ruiz, Chongfuangprinya and Sham. The motivation to combine is that Das teaches that energy can be stored if there is excess energy [0100]. This allows for selling or using the energy at a later time.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenzel (U.S. PG Pub. 20200106385) in view of Ruiz (U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0204720) in view of Sham (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0122258) in view of Chongfuangprinya (U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0070945) in view of Headley (U.S. PG Pub. 20220239251).
Wenzel in view of Ruiz, Chongfuangprinya and Shame teaches most of the claimed invention, but doesn’t teach all of the limitations of claims 4 and 7. However, this is an obvious variation as taught by Headley as follows:
As to claims 4 and 17, Headley teaches wherein the second inverter has a lower electric power capacity than that of the first inverter[0027].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Wenzel in view of Ruiz, Chongfuangprinya and Shame with Headley since the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). Here the substituted would just be using different capacity inverters within the system specifically a lower capacity inverter for the second inverter. The lower inverter does not seem to work any differently than that of combination so one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the substitution to work the same in a predicable manner.
Claim(s) 6, 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenzel (U.S. PG Pub. 20200106385) in view of Ruiz (U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0204720) in view of Sham (U.S. PG Pub 2021/0122258) in view of Chongfuangprinya (U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0070945) in view of Paciura (U.S. PG Pub. 2020/0280188).
Wenzel in view of Ruiz, Chongfuangprinya and Sham teaches most of the claimed invention, but doesn’t teach all of the limitations of claims 6, 11 and 19. However, this is an obvious variation as taught by Paciura as follows:
As to claims 6, 11 and 19, Paciura teaches further comprising a power storage device configured to be electrically coupled to a battery port of the first inverter, wherein the second input terminals of the second inverter are configured to be electrically coupled to the first output terminals of the first inverter further through the power storage device (fig. 3., 7A, 7C, [0055]).
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 Paciura, into the system and methods of Wenzel modified by Ruiz, Chongfuangprinya and Sham. The motivation to combine is that Paciura teaches that a second inverter can synchronize an energy storage output with the an AC voltage for powering loads [0055].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, filed 3-2-26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of in view of Chongfuangprinya. Examiner would also like to note that elements 104 and 109 would have their own controllers to receive and implement signals and element 214 would not be the only controller present as alleged. If Applicant’s inverter controllers have specialized elements Examiner suggests amending the claims to show this.
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 at 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