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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/19/2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "Common DC bus", "Common AC bus", "inverter", "inverter input connectors", "inverter output connector", "controller mechanically coupled to the housing", "DC load", "decentralized control signals", "centralized control signals", "cooling device mechanically coupled to the housing and electrically coupled to the controller", "communication device mechanically coupled to the housing and electrically coupled to the controller", "mounting hardware coupled to the housing", "overcurrent and overvoltage protection circuit", "panel door", "sensor coupled to the panel door", "switch coupled to the common DC bus" must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Furthermore, components that lack a label or reference numeral can fail to identify the subject matter.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/577,626 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to converting DC power through an inverter to a grid by using controllers.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In light of the applicant’s specification and applicant’s drawings, there appears to be two different embodiments being claimed in claim 1 and a plurality of controllers which makes the claims confusing, matter of fact, four controllers are being claimed in claim 1. For purposes of examination, the examiner would analyze the claims as using a centralized and local controllers coupled to inverters and a grid.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. Furthermore, claim 1 is an omnibus type claim.
Claim 4 contains the trademark/trade name "Bluetooth". Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a communication standard and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Gerhardinger et al. (US 2014/0327314 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Gerhardinger teaches a housing to house the panels (202 of fig. 11 and see fig. 1c), inverters (206, 213s) are electrically coupled to the solar panels housing, a common DC bus labeled DC BUS (204), a common AC Bus (grid line) coupled to the grid via a transformer, inverters (206), local controllers (MPPTs, 207) and the centralized controller (PLC, 209) wherein the centralized controller (209) communicates with the local controllers via the DC bus or the inverter box. Gerhardinger teaches in (see para 0072, 0052-54) a circuit that uses the voltage and current to predict a maximum power point for the inverters to operate with.
Regarding claim 2, Gerhandinger teaches the common enclosure of claim 1, further comprising a cooling device (32 and para 39) mechanically coupled to the housing and electrically coupled to the MMPT controller.
Regarding claim 3, Gerhandinger teaches the common enclosure of claim 1, further comprising a communication device (para 39, 64 and 70) mechanically coupled to the housing and electrically coupled to the controller.
Regarding claim 7, Gerhandinger teaches the common enclosure of claim 1, further comprising an overcurrent (para 43) and overvoltage (para 45) protection circuit electrically coupled to the common DC bus and the common AC bus.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerhardinger et al. (US 2014/0327314 A1) and further in view of Yoscovich et al. (US Pat 9,853,565).
Regarding claim 4, Gerhandinger teaches the common enclosure of claim 1, but is silent on the teaching of the communication device includes a Bluetooth communication device.
However, Yoscovich teaches of a communication device being a Bluetooth communication device (see Yoscovich col 14:18-22).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gerhandinger to include the Bluetooth communication from Yoscovich to eliminate the need of communication cables or as a backup in the case the communication wires becomes damaged.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerhardinger et al. (US 2014/0327314 A1) and further in view of Sanders et al. (US 2017/0005515 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Gerhandinger teaches the common enclosure of claim 1, but is silent on the teaching of the housing is weather resistant.
However, Sanders teaches of an enclosure being weather resistant (see Sanders para 90).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gerhandinger to include the weather resistant design of Sanders to allow the solar power equipment to survive being outside with the solar panels.
Regarding claim 6, Gerhandinger teaches the common enclosure of claim 1, but is silent on the teachings of the mounting hardware.
However, Sanders teaches the use of mounting hardware coupled to the housing (see Sanders para 94).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerhardinger et al. (US 2014/0327314 A1) and further in view of Cosley et al. (US 2012/0176732 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Gerhandinger teaches the common enclosure of claim 1, but is silent on a panel door, door sensor or being able to disconnect power when the door is opened.
However, Cosley teaches a panel door rotatably coupled to the housing (see Cosley fig 3 element 108); a sensor coupled to the panel door and configured to sense the opening of the panel door (see Cosley fig 3 element 120 and para 53); and a switch coupled to the common DC bus, wherein the controller is electrically coupled to the sensor and the switch, and is configured to open the switch to disrupt power flow through the common DC bus (see Cosley para 53).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gerhardinger to include the door safety sensor from Cosley to add a layer of safety when people are working on the equipment. Door safety sensors can be found on many industrial devices.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerhardinger et al. (US 2014/0327314 A1), and further in view of Patarroyo et al. (US 2022/0077688 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Gerhandinger teaches the common enclosure of claim 1, wherein the centralized controller executes a polynomial droop control algorithm.
However, Patarroyo teaches a polynomial droop control method (68-70 and polynomial equations 28-29 as a polynomial is a mathematical expression consisting of variables and coefficients).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gerhandinger to include the droop control method of Patarroyo to reduce the need for communication between energy sources when the load changes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA J SWEET whose telephone number is (571)272-6776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 4:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/JOSHUA JAMES SWEET/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836