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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 27, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are indicated in the table below, along with corresponding structure and/or lack thereof:
Claim limitation
Claim Numbers
Structure (PGPUB citation)
a control unit that is configured to cause the isolated converter to vary voltage at a direct-current input-output terminal of the first converter in accordance with power generated by a photovoltaic power generator
1
A processor with a memory [0028]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujii et al. JP 2020058232 A. (It is noted that the Fujii citations are taken from the machine translation, until a translation is obtained.)
Regarding claim 1, Fujii discloses a power conversion apparatus [fig. 1] comprising:
an isolated converter that is arranged between a rechargeable battery and a set of a first converter and a second converter [fig. 1; par. 67; 15A is an isolated converter “the insulated DC / DC unit 15A may be included in the power converter 10, or may be outside the power converter 10” arranged between battery 41 and DC/DC Converters 12A, 12B and 16], that is connected to the first converter, the second converter, and the rechargeable battery [fig. 1], and that is configured to bidirectionally convert voltage of direct-current power supplied from a connection destination [fig. 1; 15A converters electricity from various destinations 30A/30B/50 and supplies it to base station 20]; and
a control unit [pars. 72-74; control unit 17] that is configured to cause the isolated converter to vary voltage at a direct-current input-output terminal of the first converter in accordance with power generated by a photovoltaic power generator, the direct-current input-output terminal being connected to the isolated converter [pars. 71-74; 17 controls 15A to convert voltage to a particular level for the DC bus 14, based on the power produced by the photovoltaic panel 30, which varies voltage on the DC bus 11 through loading, thus varies voltage at converter 16 (the first converter with a DC input/output terminal on DC Bus 11)]
wherein the first converter is configured to convert alternating-current power supplied from a grid power line to direct-current power [fig. 1, converter 16 bidirectionally converters AC/DC; pars. 70-72],
the second converter is configured to convert voltage of direct-current power supplied from the photovoltaic power generator, and to supply the voltage-converted direct-current power to the direct-current input-output terminal of the first converter [fig. 1, second converters 12A/12B converter power from PV panels 30 to the level for DC bus 11, which can be supplied to converter 16; pars. 70-71, 74 & 76-77].
Regarding claim 2, Fujii discloses wherein, in response to the power generated by the photovoltaic power generator being lower than a threshold, the control unit is configured to cause the isolated converter to reduce the voltage at the direct-current input-output terminal of the first converter [par. 74; when the power generated by panel 30 is less than the supply amount to station 20 (a threshold) 17 continues to instruct the supply of power to 20 via 15A, thus causing the DC bus voltage to “drop”, reducing the voltage at the DC terminal of converter 16].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al. JP 2020058232 A in view of Zhou et al. US PGPUB 2017/0110969. (It is noted that the Fujii citations are taken from the machine translation, until a translation is obtained.)
Regarding claim 3, Fujii does not explicitly disclose wherein the isolated converter includes a switching element that performs a switching operation, and
wherein, in response to the power generated by the photovoltaic power generator being lower than the threshold, the control unit is configured to cause the isolated converter to reduce a switching frequency used in the switching operation.
However, Zhou discloses a PV power conversion system wherein the isolated converter includes a switching element that performs a switching operation, and wherein, in response to the power generated by the photovoltaic power generator being lower than the threshold, the control unit is configured to cause the isolated converter to reduce a switching frequency used in the switching operation [figs. 2-3; pars. 23, 40, 42, 47; if the voltage drops below a threshold, the switching frequency is reduced to maintain a particular voltage on the output of the DC/DC converter; the DC/DC converter 300 is an isolated converter with switching elements 302-308 (fig. 3)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujii to further include wherein the isolated converter includes a switching element that performs a switching operation, and wherein, in response to the power generated by the photovoltaic power generator being lower than the threshold, the control unit is configured to cause the isolated converter to reduce a switching frequency used in the switching operation for the purpose of maintaining a desired output voltage, as taught by Zhou (par. 47).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 4, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “wherein the isolated converter is a resonant converter, and wherein the control unit is configured to compare the switching frequency calculated on a basis of the reduced voltage at the direct-current input-output terminal of the first converter and a resonant frequency of the isolated converter, and to select a higher one of the calculated switching frequency and the resonant frequency as the switching frequency used in the switching operation” in combination with all the other elements recited in claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kang et al. et al. US PGPUB 2015/0200584 discloses a PV power conversion system which controls the switching frequency to maintain a stable output.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taelor Kim can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights