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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, filed September 9, 2025, with respect to the rejection under Faria have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection citing Faria has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, and based on the breadth added to the claims with the amendments, the art rejection below only cites to Shelter. The Applicants’ comments regarding Shelter are not persuasive.
First (Remarks, page 8), the Applicants are attempting to define the metes and bounds of the claimed mains mode (both bypass and inverter output switches are closed) by using a term from the prior art reference (i.e. overload). The claim must stand on its own and cannot be defined by a term used by a third party. If the Applicants intend for their mains mode to be selected (or not) under certain conditions, then those conditions must be supported by their specification.
Furthermore, the Applicants’ specification states, “In the UPS with bypass power sharing function … this significantly improves loading capacity of the UPS, and even can continuously support up to 200% overload.” (pre-grant publication paragraph 36, emphasis added – unclear why different language appears in the original specification, page 8, lines 12-15). While this section appears under the “bypass mode” heading, it clearly refers to the functionality of providing power from both branches (inverter and bypass) during overload times. Thus, it is applicable to the mains mode. No comments have been provided to explain how the claimed mains mode can include a overload, but Shelter cannot. Thus, Shelter’s overload is not prohibited by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language (given definitions provided by the specification).
Also, the following three analyses have not been addressed or rebutted. Thus, they are maintained.
1) Shelter discloses that the “pulse parallel” mode can be selected manually (par 298). A person deciding that they want to transfer sources (to thereby cause both branches to simultaneously power the load) can be at any time, including a non-overload time.
2) The Examiner repeats the interpretation that the Applicants appear to be claiming the same functionality as taught by Shelter, just doing it more often. Taking a known functionality, with its obviously observable benefits, and making it longer, does not appear to overcome the prior art. It is unclear how rewriting the claim as a method explicitly distinguishes the claimed mains mode over the prior art.
3) The load isn’t claimed. If there is no load, then “overload” (or non-overload) does not carry any patentable weight.
The Examiner notes that, in the obviousness rejection, the Bush economy mode modifies at least part of the Shelter normal mode so that there is at least one non-overload time when both bypass/UPS switches are closed to provide the load with power from both branches. Thus, even without Shelter’s manual transfer, the combination teaches the closing of both switches.
Second (Remarks, page 9), the Applicants’ comments regarding Faria’s bypass only providing reactive power is persuasive and the reference is withdrawn. While Bush discloses an economy mode in which harmonics are canceled, the reference does not disclose anything about reactive power. Thus, Bush’s bypass and inverter both provide real power.
The Applicants do not separately argue against the art rejections of the dependent claims.
The Examiner notes that the claim amendments appear to add significant breadth to the claims. Namely:
“the uninterruptible power supply works in a mains mode when the mains power is normally supplied” and “the control method further comprises: in the mains mode and under non-overload conditions…”.
The claim defines two possibilities for the mains mode. First, there is a broad introduction. Then, the underlined language indicates that the mains mode can also have a sub-mode (both switches closed). The claim appears to suggest that the mains mode does not always have to operate under the overload condition with both switches closed. There are other undefined switch configurations possible for the mains mode.
For example, Shelter operates in the mains mode when the grid power is normal. And, when the user wants to transfer sources and activates the manual transfer (par 298), the paralleling of the two branches is a sub-mode within the mains mode.
“thereby enabling the bypass branch and the inverter branch to synchronously and jointly provide the first output current”
“Enabling” is a hypothetical. This amendment removes the active language that was previously presented (“the bypass branch and the inverter synchronously and jointly provide the first output current”) and, instead, frames these features as possibilities for what is “enabled” by closing both switches. Just because something is “enabled” does not require that it happens. Thus, the claim no longer explicitly requires any synchronization (the joint provision of power is redundant to the closing of both switches).
Neither Shelter nor Bush disclose that their actions prohibit any synchronization. Thus, the references teach that synchronization is “enabled”.
“wherein the inverter is controlled to adjust …”.
This passive voice phrasing does not explicitly recite any distinct method steps. It is descriptive of something that happens to the inverter – not within the scope of the claim. Thus, it is not required to be cited to in the prior art. It is unclear why the Applicants added “is controlled” here, when the rest of the claim has been amended to recite distinct “controlling” language – the different language here suggests that the Applicants intend for this phrase to be interpreted differently than “controlling”.
The Examiner notes that without synchronization being explicitly claimed, the Applicants’ comments regarding Faria appear to be directed to unclaimed subject matter.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because the phrase “rather than enabling the inverter branch to separately provide the first output current” appears to be incorrect. The underlined term should be “individually” or some other term to indicate the inverter branch is the only source for the first output current.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelter (US 2003/0048006). While the claims are now directed to a “method”, the Examiner notes that there are no method steps – rather claims list broad “works in” or “controlling” limitations without indicating when/why they would be carried out.
With respect to claim 1, Shelter discloses a control method for a UPS with bypass power sharing function (fig 1, 7; par 52-75, 107-112, 116, 247, 298-302), the UPS comprising:
an input (1) configured to be connected to mains;
an output (at load 6) configured to be connected to a load (6);
a first current sensor (44) disposed at the output and configured to sense a first output current at the output;
a bypass branch (containing 5) connecting the input and the output and comprising a first switch (5) configured to control conduction and disconnection of the bypass branch;
an inverter branch comprising:
a rectifier (2) having a first terminal connected to the input;
an inverter (4) having a first terminal connected to a second terminal of the rectifier and a second terminal connected to the output;
a second current sensor (45) disposed between the second terminal of the inverter and a node between the bypass/inverter branches, and configured to sense a second output current produced by the inverter;
a second switch (“output contactor” of par 298-300; not shown in the figures) configured to control conduction and disconnection of the inverter branch; and
an energy storage device (3) connected to a node between the rectifier and the inverter,
wherein, the control method comprises the controlling the UPS so that:
the UPS works in a mains mode when the mains power is normally supplied (par 52);
the UPS works in a battery mode when the main power fails (par 53, last sentence); and
the UPS works in a bypass mode when the inverter branch fails (par 53, first 2 sentences);
the control method further comprises:
in the mains mode and under non-overload conditions (par 298 – the user initiate the transfer at any time), controlling both the first/second switch to be turned on continuously (par 298-300 during any of the transitions; and/or par 302 during the pulse parallel mode), thereby enabling (this is a description of hypothetical future actions – not distinctly claimed method steps) the bypass branch and the inverter branch to synchronously (not claimed – Shelter appears to disclose this anyway at par 300) and jointly (redundant to the two switches being closed) provide the first output current, rather than enabling the inverter branch to separately [i.e. alone] provide the first output current (the inverter branch was providing the first output current by itself, then the user decided to manually trigger a source transfer to cause both switches to be closed – par 298),
wherein the inverter is controlled (this passive voice appears to be descriptive of something that happens outside the scope of the claim) to adjust the second output current based on the first output current sensed by the first current sensor, so that the first output current is equal to a current value required by the load (this is not distinctly claimed functionality – if it can be used to describe the claim, then it can also be used to describe Shelter, which discloses the exact same structure),
wherein an amplitude of the first output current is equal to a sum of an amplitude of the second output current and an amplitude of a current of the bypass branch (obvious application of Kirchhoff’s Current Law – see also Shelter par 298-300 and 302);
in the bypass mode, controlling the first switch to be turned on and the second switch to be turned off (par 53, par 300 – see analysis in the next paragraph),
in the battery mode, controlling the first switch to be turned off and the second switch to be turned on, thereby enabling the energy storage device to provide the first output current through the inverter (par 53),
controlling the UPS to switch from the mains mode to the bypass mode when the inverter fails (par 53), wherein during a switching event from the mains mode to the bypass mode, the first switch is controlled to be kept on (par 300, “bypass is turned on”) and the second switch is controlled to be turned off (par 300, “finally the output contactor is opened”).
Shelter discloses a UPS with an inverter branch and a bypass branch. Both branches contain switches. The inverter branch contains an “output contactor” that is clearly described as controlling the (dis)connection of the inverter to the output. Even though it is not shown in the figures, Shelter discloses the second switch.
Shelter discloses the UPS “works in” the three recited modes. These modes obviously include the associated first/second switch states (on, off) to provide power in the proper directions.
At any time during the Shelter mains mode, the user can activate the manual transfer of sources which will result in the inverter branch and bypass branch both being closed and simultaneously providing the first output current to the load (par 298-300). As discussed above, the claim recites the broad limitation of a mains mode and then recites that the mains mode “further comprises” a sub-mode in which the two branches are both closed. The claim does not recite when/why this sub-mode would be selected, only that it is during “non-overload” times. First, the Shelter user can select the transfer at any time and it is not limited to any overloads. Second, the Applicants’ specification appears to suggest that overloads are an acceptable time for selecting both branches (pg-pub par 36). Third, the load isn’t claimed and there is no explicit definition, within the claim, to indicate what is normal or overload.
This rejection is under the rules of obviousness (instead of anticipation), as the reference is interpreted as being able to achieve the same benefits (what is “enabled” and “is controlled”).
With respect to claim 4, Shelter discloses the uninterruptible power supply supports a battery mode when the mains is faulty (par 53), wherein the output current of the uninterruptible power supply is provided by using the energy storage battery device (par 53).
With respect to claim 6, Shelter discloses the energy storage battery device comprises a rechargeable battery (par 52; see also the double-arrowed lines in fig 3).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelter in view of Narla (US 2018/0269829).
With respect to claim 8, Shelter discloses a rechargeable battery, but does not expressly disclose it is connected through a first DC/DC converter. Narla discloses a UPS (fig 2) comprising an inverter branch with a storage battery (210) connected to a DC bus through a first DC/DC converter (212).
Shelter and Narla are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely battery-based UPS systems. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Shelter to include a first DC/DC converter, as taught by Narla. The motivation for doing so would have been to regulate the voltage charging the battery and the voltage being discharged from the battery onto the DC bus.
The combination teaches the control method comprises controlling the first DC/DC converter to convert the DC power from the energy storage device and then provides the converted DC power to the (Shelter) inverter in the (Shelter) battery mode.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelter in view of Haj-Maharsi (US 2019/0280492).
With respect to claim 9, Shelter discloses the energy storage device, but does not expressly disclose an energy storage power module. Haj-Maharsi discloses a UPS that can be retrofitted to include an energy storage power module (fig 2, item 30; par 31-32) having a first terminal (right side of 30) connected to the energy storage battery and a second terminal (left side of 30) connected to a power grid (1) and controlling the energy storage device to provide electrical energy of the energy storage device for the power grid (par 30, “to enable providing voltage to the power distribution grid”).
Shelter and Haj-Maharsi are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely UPS systems. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Shelter to include the energy storage power module and its connection to the grid/mains, as taught by Haj-Maharsi. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow bidirectional power flow (grid-battery) when the UPS was not designed with this functionality.
The Examiner notes that the specification and claims refer to a “power source” and a “power grid”, but neither component is clearly defined in the application file. Thus, they may be interpreted as the same or different sources.
With respect to claim 10, the combination teaches the mains mode comprises an off-peak power consumption mode (Shelter par 52) and a peak consumption mode (Haj-Maharsi par 31), the control method comprises:
in the off-peak power consumption mode, controlling the UPS such that the energy storage device is charged from the power source (Shelter par 52); and
in the peak power consumption mode, controlling the UPS such that the energy storage device supplies power to the power grid by using the energy storage power module (Haj-Maharsi, par 31, “Bidirectional converter 30 is configured to [] allow voltage from the energy storages devices to charge the power distribution grid.”).
With respect to claim 11, the combination teaches in the peak power consumption mode, controlling the UPS such that the energy storage device and the mains are together used for supplying the power to the load (see explanation below).
Shelter discloses using the grid to power the load. When combined with Haj-Maharsi, the UPS battery can be discharged into the grid. This could obviously result in the situation where the grid-to-load power includes some power from the battery/device.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite specific switch control. Claim 11, however, only broadly refers to “controlling the UPS such that” a consequence happens. The claim does not recite what method steps are actually carried out in claim 11 to make the energy storage device and mains provide power together. The Examiner’s interpretation (that the combination teaches some battery power can make it to the grid, where it will come back to power the load) has not been addressed or rebutted. Thus, it is presumed to be correct.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelter in view of Haj-Maharsi and in further view of Narla.
Haj-Maharsi discloses the energy storage power module comprises a current converter (inverter 30), but does not expressly disclose a second DC/DC converter. Narla (figure 1; par 26) teaches that a battery-to-grid inverter can include both an inverter (120) and a DC/DC converter (118), wherein a first terminal of the current converter is configured to be connected to the power source (AC grid 106), a second terminal of the current converter is connected to a first terminal of the second DC/DC converter, and a second terminal of the second DC/DC converter is connected to the energy storage device (114).
Haj-Maharsi and Narla are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely battery power inverters for supplying AC power to a power grid. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Haj-Maharsi’s module to include a DC/DC converter, as taught by Narla. The motivation for doing so would have been to convert the battery voltage into a voltage appropriate (or more suitable) for the grid.
Conclusion
The references in the attached PTO-892 form disclose control methods for UPS’s with bypass switches. They disclose the bypass switch can be manually operated. This suggests the ability of a user to purposefully initiate the functionality, during a UPS mains mode, in which both the inverter branch and bypass branch provide output current/power to the load.
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Rex Barnie can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836