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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasgupta et al. (2022/0261023).
Regarding independent claims 1, 6, and 16, and part of claim 2, Dasgupta teaches (Fig. 1) a DC system, device, and method for droop control in a DC system comprising a DC source (140, 142), a DC bus (120) and at least two DC application devices (150/152 and/or 160/162), each application device having a droop curve which determines a power demand of the respective device in relation to voltage provided, the DC source providing a DC voltage over the DC bus to each application device, the method comprising: ([0024], [0029], [0030])
each of the at least two application devices performing a plurality of voltage measurements during a plurality of different load conditions; ([0058]-[0060]; via system controller 110; iteratively performs voltage measurements at various levels of (i.e. first and second) load conditions and corresponding DC source provided operational voltages to the DC bus) and
each of the at least two application devices adjusting its respective power demand in relation to voltage provided settings of the droop curve in accordance with the plurality of voltage measurements ([0045], [0046]; “droop control scheme”),
wherein each of the at least two application devices calibrates a de-activation voltage threshold and re-activation threshold voltage based on the plurality of voltage measurements, wherein each of the at least two application devices shuts down or reduces its power demand when its DC bus voltage falls below the de-activation threshold voltage ([0046], [0132]-[0135]); and
each of the at least two application devices starts demanding full power when its DC bus voltage rises above the re-activation threshold voltage ([0105]); and
each of the at least two application devices adjusting its respective power demand to between 0% and 100% in response to the voltage on the DC bus falling between the de-activation voltage threshold and the re-activation threshold voltage ([0046]).
Dasgupta teaches performing a plurality of voltage measurements (iteratively) during a plurality of different load conditions and corresponding DC source provided operational voltage levels to the DC bus (i.e. various levels of power drawn by a load, and even mentions a no load condition; [0058]-[0060]), but fails to explicitly teach two of the plurality of load conditions being a no load condition and a maximum load condition. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have two of the plurality of different load conditions referenced in Dasgupta to be a no load condition and a maximum load condition, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (i.e. performing a voltage measurement during a plurality of different load conditions/power demand levels), discovering the optimum or workable ranges (i.e. no load condition and maximum load condition) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Dasgupta also fails to explicitly teach each application device adjusting their own set points in accordance with first and second voltage measurements performed (instead of Dasgupta’s system controller 110). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the functions performed in Dasgupta’s system controller be split into the two controllers (154/164) of the application devices and have the system controller removed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, Dasgupta teaches each of the at least two application devices starts operating under the second load condition in response to the maximum operation voltage is detected on the DC bus ([0131], [0132]; when bus voltage is above a threshold (max operation voltage), the application device starts operating under the second load condition).
Regarding claim 3, Dasgupta teaches detecting, by each application device, a trigger pattern, the trigger pattern (based on the output bus voltage magnitude level without coordination/communication with the central/system controller) indicating droop level of the first load condition and of the second load condition ([0061], [0064], [0140]);
wherein each of the at least two application devices:
starts operating according to the droop level of the first load condition in response to detecting the trigger pattern ([0133]); and
starts operating according to the droop level of the second load condition in response to detecting a voltage on the DC bus of the maximum operational voltage ([0132]).
Regarding claims 7, 10, and 13, Dasgupta teaches each of the at least two DC application devices adjusts its respective power demand to 100% in response to the voltage of the DC bus equaling the second voltage measurement ([0134]).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasgupta et al. (2022/0261023) as applied to claims 1, 5-7, 10, and 13 above, and further in view of Lepper et al. (2021/0354585). Dasgupta teaches the method, DC system, and DC operated application device as described above.
Regarding claim 8, 11, and 14, Dasgupta fails to explicitly teach taking into consideration the losses in the supply line between the DC source and the DC application devices. Lepper teaches a similar invention (Fig. 2) to that of Dasgupta. Lepper teaches taking into consideration the losses in the supply line (7) by measuring the voltage at the DC source (at 5 and 6) and measuring the voltage at the DC load/application device (at 9 and 10) ([0013]-[0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate the voltage difference (as described in Lepper) during the second voltage measurement, in Dasgupta’s invention, and use this knowledge to know the losses in the supply line for each application device, and adjust the respective power demand at all times (including at the deactivation threshold; [0133] of Dasgupta) with this voltage difference (between the DC source operating voltage and the voltage that is received at an application device) in mind, so that the droop control can be operated correctly by knowing the exact voltage that is received at all times at the application devices based on the voltage provided by the DC source to the DC bus.
Regarding claims 9, 12, and 15, Dasgupta teaches adjusting its respective power demand to between 0% and 100% in response to the voltage on the DC bus falling between the second voltage measurement and the first voltage measurement ([0132]-[0135]).
Dasgupta fails to explicitly teach the adjusting being linearly. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the power demand in a linear fashion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner believes that Dasgupta teaches the control of every aspect of an application device’s power demand being based on the plurality of voltage measurements, including the claimed first and second measurements. Dasgupta’s plurality of voltage measurements helps create each application device’s droop curve, and the droop curve is then used to adjust each application device’s power demand based on the voltage on the DC bus. The voltage measurements create the initial power demand control scheme for each application device, so how each application device is controlled is based on the first and second voltage measurements.
Regarding the Lepper reference and the combination with Dasgupta, Dasgupta teaches an extended DC supply line and calculating de-activation and re-activation threshold voltages based on the plurality of voltage measurements, and Lepper teaches the idea of taking into account the losses in a supply line. The combination would lead to taking into consideration the losses on the extended DC supply line of Dasgupta’s invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRU M PARRIES whose telephone number is (571)272-8542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday from 9:00am to 6:00pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rexford Barnie, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
DMP
5/26/2026
/DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights