DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings received on 23 May 2023 are accepted.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Recommended Design Capacitance for Power Supply Capacitor.”
Claim Interpretation
Specification figure 2 is described in Specification paragraph 30 as “In the power supply system 1, power is supplied and distributed from a power supply 20 and a capacitor 25 connected parallel to each other.” However, figure 2 shows the power supply and capacitor are connected in series. This is a contradiction which raises some level of confusion for how the disclosure is supposed to be interpreted.
Claim 1 recites similar terminology as Specification paragraph 30. Claim 1 recites “a power supply and a capacitor connected parallel to each other to a plurality of load devices.” While this language is identical to Specification paragraph 30’s description of figure 2, claim 1 is instead interpreted according to the actual claim language recited. Accordingly, Examiner interprets the power supply and capacitor as actually “connected parallel to each other” as stated by the claim language itself.
Claim Interpretation – §112(f)
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:
Claim 1:
a first obtainer configured to … (No corresponding structure found in Specification!)
a second obtainer configured to … (No corresponding structure found in Specification!)
a calculator configured to … (No corresponding structure found in Specification!)
an outputter configured to … (No corresponding structure found in Specification!)
The obtainers, calculator, and outputter are specifically excluded from being interpreted as software per se. See MPEP §2181(II)(B) fourth to last paragraph.
Specification paragraph 28 lists various components of a computer. However, no part of the computer is linked to any of the particular functions recited by the claim. MPEP §2181(II)(C) states:
C. The Supporting Disclosure Clearly Links or Associates the Disclosed Structure, Material, or Acts to the Claimed Function
The structure disclosed in the written description of the specification is the corresponding structure only if the written description of the specification or the prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See B. Braun Medical Inc., v. Abbott Laboratories, 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1900 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
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 § 112
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 limitations “obtainers, calculator, and outputter” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Specification paragraph 28 lists various components of a computer. However, no part of the computer is linked to any of the particular functions recited by the claim. MPEP §2181(II)(C) states:
C. The Supporting Disclosure Clearly Links or Associates the Disclosed Structure, Material, or Acts to the Claimed Function
The structure disclosed in the written description of the specification is the corresponding structure only if the written description of the specification or the prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See B. Braun Medical Inc., v. Abbott Laboratories, 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1900 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Dependent claims 2-13 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. A design assist device for assisting with designing of a power supply system to supply and distribute power …, the design assist device comprising:
…
a calculator configured to calculate time-series data about a current flowing through the capacitor based on the configuration information obtained by the first obtainer and the operation pattern information about each of the plurality of load devices obtained by the second obtainer, and calculate, based on the time-series data about the current, a recommended capacitance being a capacitance recommended for the capacitor; and
The preamble recitation “for assisting with designing…” is a recitation of performing design evaluations, judgments, and/or opinion. Designing of the power supply system corresponds with mental design processes.
Calculating a recommended capacitance can be performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Time series data about the current and operation patterns can be considered mentally.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
from a power supply and a capacitor connected parallel to each other to a plurality of load devices through a power supply path combining a plurality of power cables
a first obtainer configured to obtain configuration information representing an overall configuration of the power supply path;
a second obtainer configured to obtain operation pattern information representing an operation pattern of each of the plurality of load devices;
…
an outputter configured to output at least information about the recommended capacitance for the capacitor.
The power supply, capacitor, and load devices connection arrangement corresponds with a recitation of field of use. Generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a field of use fails to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Obtaining configuration information is a recitation of data gathering recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Obtaining operation pattern information is a recitation of data gathering recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Outputting information about the recommended capacitance corresponds with mere outputting of the result of the abstract idea recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under See MPEP §2106.05(h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
These data gathering examples and output transmitting are encompassed by the generic recitation of data gathering recited by the claim. Accordingly, the claim recitation here is at least as abstract as the examples given in the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
2. The design assist device according to claim 1, wherein
the power supply system includes the power supply being a direct current power supply, and the plurality of load devices each including a load machine, an electric motor configured to drive the load machine, and an inverter configured to control the electric motor,
…
the calculator generates time-series data about the current flowing into each of the plurality of load devices based on the operation pattern information about each of the plurality of load devices and calculates the time-series data about the current flowing through the capacitor based on the time-series data generated for each of the plurality of load devices and the configuration information.
A direct current system and electric motors and inverters are capable of being considered mentally and/or with the aid or pen and paper.
Calculating time series current information based on load devices and operation pattern information is information capable of being considered mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 2 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
the second obtainer obtains a set of command values to be input into the inverter in chronological order as the operation pattern information about each of the plurality of load devices when each of the plurality of load devices is operated, and
Obtaining command values for an inverter (i.e. settings) as operation pattern information is a generic recitation of gathering respective information recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 2 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
These data gathering examples are encompassed by the generic recitation of data gathering recited by the claim. Accordingly, the claim recitation here is at least as abstract as the examples given in the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 3 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
3. The design assist device according to claim 2, wherein
the calculator calculates at least one of a maximum value of a current flowing from the capacitor or a maximum value of a current flowing into the capacitor as a maximum current value of the capacitor based on the time-series data for each of the plurality of load devices and the configuration information, and
calculates the recommended capacitance for the capacitor based on the time-series data about the current flowing through the capacitor and the maximum current value.
Calculating a maximum value of current based on time series data for the load devices is a consideration which can be done mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
Calculating a recommendation is mental processes in the form of evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. Calculating a recommended capacitance based on the currents and maximum current values is an evaluation capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 3 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 3 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 4 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
4. The design assist device according to claim 1, wherein
the calculator calculates, as an electric charge quantity recommended for the capacitor, an integrated value of a current in a predetermined period based on the time-series data about the current flowing through the capacitor, and
calculates the recommended capacitance for the capacitor as the electric charge quantity divided by a difference between an allowable voltage and an initial voltage of the capacitor, and
the allowable voltage is a voltage value in a range of voltage variation allowable for the capacitor to maintain the operation pattern of each of the plurality of load devices.
Integrating a value of current and dividing a charge quantity by a difference are recitations of mathematical operations written in prose. Mathematical formulae written in prose for performing mathematical calculation are a recitation of mathematical concepts. Combining a mathematical concept with mental process steps is a combination of abstract ideas which remains an abstract idea.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 4 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 5 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
5. The design assist device according to claim 4, wherein the calculator calculates an integrated value of a current flowing into the capacitor or an integrated value of a current flowing from the capacitor in the predetermined period as the electric charge quantity.
The calculated value being for a respective time period is capable of being conducted mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 5 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 5 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 6 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
6. The design assist device according to claim 4, wherein
the calculator calculates the recommended capacitance as the electric charge quantity divided by a difference between a lowest value or a highest value of the range of voltage variation allowable for the capacitor and the initial voltage of the capacitor.
The electric charge quantity divided by a difference value is mathematical formulae recited in prose. Mathematical formulae written in prose for performing mathematical calculation are a recitation of mathematical concepts. Combining a mathematical concept with mental process steps is a combination of abstract ideas which remains an abstract idea.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 6 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 6 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 7 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
7. The design assist device according to claim 6, wherein
the calculator calculates the recommended capacitance as the electric charge quantity divided by a difference between the lowest value of the range of voltage variation allowable for the capacitor and the initial voltage of the capacitor when the electric charge quantity is positive, and
calculates the recommended capacitance as the electric charge quantity divided by a difference between the highest value of the range of voltage variation allowable for the capacitor and the initial voltage of the capacitor when the electric charge quantity is negative.
The electric charge quantity divided by a difference value is mathematical formulae recited in prose. Mathematical formulae written in prose for performing mathematical calculation are a recitation of mathematical concepts. Combining a mathematical concept with mental process steps is a combination of abstract ideas which remains an abstract idea.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 7 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 7 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 8 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
8. The design assist device according to claim 6, wherein
the calculator calculates an integrated value of a current flowing into the capacitor and an integrated value of a current flowing from the capacitor in the predetermined period, and
calculates the recommended capacitance for the capacitor using a greater value of the integrated value of the current flowing into the capacitor divided by the difference between the highest value of the range of voltage variation allowable for the capacitor and the initial voltage of the capacitor, or the integrated value of the current flowing from the capacitor divided by the difference between the lowest value of the range of voltage variation allowable for the capacitor and the initial voltage of the capacitor.
Calculating an integrated value of current flowing into the capacitor and an integrated value of current flowing from the capacitor can both be performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
Calculating the recommended capacitance for the capacitor using the greater of two values is a recitation of a mathematical operation. Each of the two values described further recites mathematical formulae in prose. Mathematical formulae written in prose for performing mathematical calculation are a recitation of mathematical concepts. Combining a mathematical concept with mental process steps is a combination of abstract ideas which remains an abstract idea.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 8 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 8 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 9 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
9. The design assist device according to claim 4, wherein
the plurality of load devices operate cyclically, and
the predetermined period is a period of a cycle of an operation of the plurality of load devices or a partial period of the cycle.
Cyclical loads are capable of being considered. Different periods of cyclical periods are capable of being considered mentally.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 9 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 9 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 10 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
10. The design assist device according to claim 4, wherein
the plurality of power cables include a first power cable commonly connecting the plurality of load devices to the capacitor, and the calculator calculates the allowable voltage based on a voltage generated by an internal resistance of the first power cable.
Power cables connecting to a plurality of load devices and an internal resistance of the cable are capable of being considered mentally.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 10 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 10 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 11 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
11. The design assist device according to claim 4, wherein
the calculator calculates the allowable voltage based on a voltage generated by an internal resistance of each of the plurality of power cables.
Basing an allowable voltage by respective properties including an internal resistance of the power cables are considerations and calculations which can be performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 11 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 11 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 12 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
12. The design assist device according to claim 1, wherein
the outputter suggests, to a user, using a branch connector incorporating the capacitor to distribute and supply power to each of the plurality of load devices from the power supply and the capacitor.
Suggesting use of a branch connected corresponds with an evaluation, judgment, or opinion that use of a branch connected might be recommended. Making suggestions to a user is further recitation of mental processes.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 12 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 12 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 13 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 13 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
13. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a design assist program for causing a computer to operate as the design assist device according to claim 1.
The non-transitory computer readable medium is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 13 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under See MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1 and 12
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by JP 3,907,127 清水 正明 et al. [herein “JP’127”].
For all citations to JP’127 the page numbering refers to the pages of the attached English translation.
Claim 1 recites “1. A design assist device for assisting with designing of a power supply system to supply and distribute power from a power supply and a capacitor connected parallel to each other to a plurality of load devices through a power supply path combining a plurality of power cables.” JP’127 figure 2 shows a capacitor (11) connected in parallel with a motor drive circuit (13) and motor (14). See also JP’127 page 4 last paragraph. The motors correspond with load devices.
JP’127 page 4 second paragraph disclose:
A capacitor power supply design support system according to the present invention provides information for evaluating a capacitor power supply designed according to a load pattern based on the design data of the capacitor power supply and the data of the load pattern.
Claim 1 further recites “the design assist device comprising: a first obtainer configured to obtain configuration information representing an overall configuration of the power supply path.” JP’127 page 4 second paragraph disclose:
A capacitor power supply design support system according to the present invention provides information for evaluating a capacitor power supply designed according to a load pattern based on the design data of the capacitor power supply and the data of the load pattern. Based on the design data including the load pattern data and the rated specifications of the capacitor power supply, analysis data including information on the current, voltage, charge / discharge amount, power loss, and temperature rise of the capacitor power supply is obtained in time series, and further based on the analysis data. By obtaining the evaluation data including information related to the capacity design and evaluation of the capacitor power supply, and outputting the analysis data and the evaluation data, the time series load pattern data and the design data including the rated specifications of the capacitor power supply are met. Analysis data and evaluation data are provided as design support data for the capacitor power supply
The design data and rated specifications correspond with obtained configuration information of the power supply path.
Claim 1 further recites “a second obtainer configured to obtain operation pattern information representing an operation pattern of each of the plurality of load devices.” JP’127 page 4 second paragraph disclose:
A capacitor power supply design support system according to the present invention provides information for evaluating a capacitor power supply designed according to a load pattern based on the design data of the capacitor power supply and the data of the load pattern. Based on the design data including the load pattern data and the rated specifications of the capacitor power supply, analysis data including information on the current, voltage, charge / discharge amount, power loss, and temperature rise of the capacitor power supply is obtained in time series, and further based on the analysis data. By obtaining the evaluation data including information related to the capacity design and evaluation of the capacitor power supply, and outputting the analysis data and the evaluation data, the time series load pattern data and the design data including the rated specifications of the capacitor power supply are met. Analysis data and evaluation data are provided as design support data for the capacitor power supply
The time series load pattern data corresponds with obtained operation pattern information.
Claim 1 further recites “a calculator configured to calculate time-series data about a current flowing through the capacitor based on the configuration information obtained by the first obtainer and the operation pattern information about each of the plurality of load devices obtained by the second obtainer, and calculate, based on the time-series data about the current, a recommended capacitance being a capacitance recommended for the capacitor.” JP’127 page 4 second paragraph disclose:
A capacitor power supply design support system according to the present invention provides information for evaluating a capacitor power supply designed according to a load pattern based on the design data of the capacitor power supply and the data of the load pattern. Based on the design data including the load pattern data and the rated specifications of the capacitor power supply, analysis data including information on the current, voltage, charge / discharge amount, power loss, and temperature rise of the capacitor power supply is obtained in time series, and further based on the analysis data. By obtaining the evaluation data including information related to the capacity design and evaluation of the capacitor power supply, and outputting the analysis data and the evaluation data, the time series load pattern data and the design data including the rated specifications of the capacitor power supply are met. Analysis data and evaluation data are provided as design support data for the capacitor power supply
The analysis data corresponds with calculated time series data about the current of the capacitor.
JP’127 page 7 third paragraph disclose:
In the capacitor power supply, when the number of modules in series is increased, the use starting voltage increases and current loss can be reduced. Further, when the number of parallel is increased, the storage capacity is increased and the internal resistance can be reduced. That is, the number of series can be increased within a range where the withstand voltage of the motor or the power converter on the output side is allowed, and the number of series-parallel can be increased within a range where the volume, weight, and cost are allowed. According to the above processing, it is possible to find an optimum capacitor power supply within an allowable range by repeating while increasing / decreasing the number of modules in series and the number of parallel to predetermined load data.
The number of modules and storage capacity of the capacitor corresponds with a capacitance for the capacitors.
JP’127 page 8 fourth paragraph disclose:
As described above, the design support system according to the present embodiment outputs analysis data and evaluation data according to load data, capacitor data, and condition settings, and whether or not the combination of each load and capacitor power supply is suitable. Therefore, it is possible to repeatedly output analysis data and evaluation data while updating load data, capacitor data, and condition settings as variables, and obtain an optimal capacitor power solution.
The optimal capacitor power solution corresponds with a recommended capacitance for the capacitor.
Claim 1 further recites “and an outputter configured to output at least information about the recommended capacitance for the capacitor.” JP’127 page 8 fourth paragraph disclose:
As described above, the design support system according to the present embodiment outputs analysis data and evaluation data according to load data, capacitor data, and condition settings, and whether or not the combination of each load and capacitor power supply is suitable. Therefore, it is possible to repeatedly output analysis data and evaluation data while updating load data, capacitor data, and condition settings as variables, and obtain an optimal capacitor power solution.
The optimal capacitor power solution corresponds with a recommended capacitance for the capacitor. Repeatedly outputting the respective analysis data to obtain an optimal capacitor power solution corresponds with outputting information about the recommended capacitance.
Claim 12 further recites “12. The design assist device according to claim 1, wherein the outputter suggests, to a user, using a branch connector incorporating the capacitor to distribute and supply power to each of the plurality of load devices from the power supply and the capacitor.” JP’127 page 8 fourth paragraph disclose:
As described above, the design support system according to the present embodiment outputs analysis data and evaluation data according to load data, capacitor data, and condition settings, and whether or not the combination of each load and capacitor power supply is suitable. Therefore, it is possible to repeatedly output analysis data and evaluation data while updating load data, capacitor data, and condition settings as variables, and obtain an optimal capacitor power solution.
The optimal capacitor power solution corresponds with a recommendation to use the capacitor to distribute and supply power to the respective load devices connected with the power solution.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 3
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’127 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent 7,439,631 B2 Endou [herein “Endou”].
Claim 2 further recites “2. The design assist device according to claim 1, wherein the power supply system includes the power supply being a direct current power supply, and the plurality of load devices each including a load machine, an electric motor configured to drive the load machine, and an inverter configured to control the electric motor.” JP’127 figure 2 shows a capacitor (11) connected in parallel with a motor drive circuit (13) and motor (14). See also JP’127 page 4 last paragraph. The motors correspond with load machines. The motor drive circuit corresponds with an electric motor configured to drive the load machine.
JP’127 does not explicitly disclose an inverter; however, in analogous art of power supply systems, Endou figure4 and column 5 lines 58-64 teaches:
a capacitor 21, which typifies a power type power supply device, is connected between the system voltage lines 26 and 27 in parallel with the above-described serially connected body formed by the storage cell 22 and voltage controller 23. The system voltage lines 26 and 27 are connected to the input terminals of the inverter 30.
The inverter 30 corresponds with an inverter configured to control an electric motor (40). See further Endou column 6 lines 16-17.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine JP’127 and Endou. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use an inverter connected to a motor into the system of capacitor power supply design for the advantageous purpose of “to provide a high efficiency hybrid power supply system that permits a power type power supply device such as a capacitor to be utilized effectively, and that makes it possible to even the burden on an energy type power supply device such as a storage cell.” See Endou column 2 lines 31-35.
Claim 2 further recites “the second obtainer obtains a set of command values to be input into the inverter in chronological order as the operation pattern information about each of the plurality of load devices when each of the plurality of load devices is operated.” Endou column 6 lines 15-17 teach “together with an operation signal that represents an operating state of the load (the inverter 30 and the motor 40) which is inputted by an external circuit.” Operation signal corresponds with a command signal to be input into the inverter as operation pattern information about the load devices when the load devices are operated.
Claim 2 further recites “and the calculator generates time-series data about the current flowing into each of the plurality of load devices based on the operation pattern information about each of the plurality of load devices and calculates the time-series data about the current flowing through the capacitor based on the time-series data generated for each of the plurality of load devices and the configuration information.” JP’127 page 4 second paragraph disclose:
A capacitor power supply design support system according to the present invention provides information for evaluating a capacitor power supply designed according to a load pattern based on the design data of the capacitor power supply and the data of the load pattern. Based on the design data including the load pattern data and the rated specifications of the capacitor power supply, analysis data including information on the current, voltage, charge / discharge amount, power loss, and temperature rise of the capacitor power supply is obtained in time series, and further based on the analysis data. By obtaining the evaluation data including information related to the capacity design and evaluation of the capacitor power supply, and outputting the analysis data and the evaluation data, the time series load pattern data and the design data including the rated specifications of the capacitor power supply are met. Analysis data and evaluation data are provided as design support data for the capacitor power supply
The analysis data corresponds with calculated time series data about the current of the capacitor.
Claim 3 further recites “3. The design assist device according to claim 2, wherein the calculator calculates at least one of a maximum value of a current flowing from the capacitor or a maximum value of a current flowing into the capacitor as a maximum current value of the capacitor based on the time-series data for each of the plurality of load devices and the configuration information.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a maximum value of a current flowing from the capacitor.”
JP’127 page 6 fourth paragraph disclose “Minimum value, end voltage, remaining charge capacity corresponding to those voltages, maximum discharge amount (= capacity power supply capacity-minimum remaining charge capacity), capacitor power supply utilization rate, temperature rise value, margin rate, etc.” A maximum discharge amount corresponds with a maximum value of current flowing from the capacitor.
Claim 3 further recites “and calculates the recommended capacitance for the capacitor based on the time-series data about the current flowing through the capacitor and the maximum current value.” JP’127 page 7 third paragraph disclose:
In the capacitor power supply, when the number of modules in series is increased, the use starting voltage increases and current loss can be reduced. Further, when the number of parallel is increased, the storage capacity is increased and the internal resistance can be reduced. That is, the number of series can be increased within a range where the withstand voltage of the motor or the power converter on the output side is allowed, and the number of series-parallel can be increased within a range where the volume, weight, and cost are allowed. According to the above processing, it is possible to find an optimum capacitor power supply within an allowable range by repeating while increasing / decreasing the number of modules in series and the number of parallel to predetermined load data.
The number of modules and storage capacity of the capacitor corresponds with a capacitance for the capacitors.
JP’127 page 8 fourth paragraph disclose:
As described above, the design support system according to the present embodiment outputs analysis data and evaluation data according to load data, capacitor data, and condition settings, and whether or not the combination of each load and capacitor power supply is suitable. Therefore, it is possible to repeatedly output analysis data and evaluation data while updating load data, capacitor data, and condition settings as variables, and obtain an optimal capacitor power solution.
The optimal capacitor power solution corresponds with a recommended capacitance for the capacitor.
Dependent Claims 4-11
Claims 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’127 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pant, M.D., et al. “On-Chip Decoupling Capacitor Optimization Using Architectural Level Prediction” IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Sys., vol. 10, no. 3 (2002) [herein “Pant”].
Claim 4 further recites “4. The design assist device according to claim 1, wherein the calculator calculates, as an electric charge quantity recommended for the capacitor, an integrated value of a current in a predetermined period based on the time-series data about the current flowing through the capacitor.” JP’127 does not explicitly disclose an integrated value of current over a predetermined period; however, in analogous art of capacitor optimization, Pant page 322 left column fourth paragraph teaches “The average power supply current is the time integral of charge transferred throughout a clock cycle.” The time integral of charge transferred corresponds with an integrated value of current. The clock cycle corresponds with a predetermined period.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine JP’127 and Pant. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use power supply ripple estimation into the system of capacitor power supply design for the advantageous purpose “to determine the values and placement of the capacitors.” See Pant page 322 right column second paragraph.
Claim 4 further recites “and calculates the recommended capacitance for the capacitor as the electric charge quantity divided by a difference between an allowable voltage and an initial voltage of the capacitor; and the allowable voltage is a voltage value in a range of voltage variation allowable for the capacitor to maintain the operation pattern of each of the plurality of load devices.” Pant page 322 column break teaches:
If n is the fraction of power-supply ripple that the circuit can tolerate, i.e., the allowable voltage swing is
δ
V
=
n
V
d
d
, then the amount of decoupling capacitance required to maintain the power supply within a given ripple specification can be calculated as
C
=
δ
Q
δ
V
=
I
2
f
c
n
V
d
d
The amount of decoupling capacitance corresponds to a recommended capacitance. Dividing by the allowable voltage swing (
n
V
d
d
) corresponds to dividing by a difference of an allowable voltage and an initial voltage.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine JP’127 and Pant. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use power supply ripple estimation into the system of capacitor power supply design for the advantageous purpose “to determine the values and placement of the capacitors.” See Pant page 322 right column second paragraph.
Claim 5 further recites “5. The design assist device according to claim 4, wherein the calculator calculates an integrated value of a current flowing into the capacitor or an integrated value of a current flowing from the capacitor in the predetermined period as the electric charge quantity.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “an integrated value of a current flowing from the capacitor in the predetermined period as the electric charge quantity.”
JP’127 does not explicitly disclose an integrated value of current over a predetermined period; however, in analogous art of capacitor optimization, Pant page 322 left column fourth paragraph teaches “The average power supply current is the time integral of charge transferred throughout a clock cycle.” The time integral of charge transferred corresponds with an integrated value of current flowing from the capacitor. The clock cycle corresponds with a predetermined period.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine JP’127 and Pant. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use power supply ripple estimation into the system of capacitor power supply design for the advantageous purpose “to determine the values and placement of the capacitors.” See Pant page 322 right column second paragraph.
Claim 6 further recites “6. The design assist device according to claim 4, wherein the calculator calculates the recommended capacitance as the electric charge quantity divided by a difference between a lowest value or a highest value of the range of voltage variation allowable for the capacitor and the initial voltage of the capacitor.” JP’127 does not explicitly disclose an integrated value of current over a predetermined period; however, in analogous art of capacitor optimization, Pant page 322 column break teaches:
If n is the fraction of power-supply ripple that the circuit can tolerate, i.e., the allowable voltage swing is
δ
V
=
n
V
d
d
, then the amount of decoupling capacitance required to maintain the power supply within a given ripple specification can be calculated as
C
=
δ
Q
δ
V
=
I
2
f
c
n
V
d
d
The amount of decoupling capacitance corresponds to a recommended capacitance. Dividing by the allowable voltage swing (
n
V
d
d
) corresponds to dividing by a difference an initial voltage and swings to a highest or lowest value of the range of voltage variation allowable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine JP’127 and Pant. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use power supply ripple estimation into the system of capacitor power supply design for the advantageous purpose “to determine the values and placement of the capacitors.” See Pant page 322 right column second paragraph.
Claim 7 further recites “7. The design assist device according to claim 6, wherein the calculator calculates the recommended capacitance as the electric charge quantity divided by a difference between the lowest value of the range of voltage variation allowable for the capacitor and the initial voltage of the capacitor when the electric charge quantity is positive, and calculates the recommended capacitance as the electric charge quantity divided by a difference between the highest value of the range of voltage variation allowable for the capacitor and the initial voltage of the capacitor when the electric charge quantity is negative.” JP’127 does not explicitly disclose an integrated value of current over a predetermined period; however, in analogous art of capacitor optimization, Pant page 322 column break teaches:
If n is the fraction of power-supply ripple that the circuit can tolerate, i.e., the allowable voltage swing is
δ
V
=
n
V
d
d
, then the amount of decoupling capacitance required to maintain the power supply within a given ripple specification can be calculated as
C
=
δ
Q
δ
V
=
I
2
f
c
n
V
d
d
Pant page 322 left column equation teaches:
δ
Q
=
I
2
f
c
The sign on this quantity controls the swing of the respective voltages swing as positive or negative and thus provides the behavior of the voltage swing going in a positive or negative direction respectively.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine JP’127 and Pant. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use power supply ripple estimation into the system of capacitor power supply design for the advantageous purpose “to determine the values and placement of the capacitors.” See Pant page 322 right column second paragraph.
Claim 8 further recites “8. The design assist device according to claim 6, wherein the calculator calculates an integrated value of a current flowing into the capacitor and an integrated value of a current flowing from the capacitor in the predetermined period, and calculates the recommended capacitance for the capacitor using a greater value of the integrated value of the current flowing into the capacitor divided by the difference between the highest value of the range of voltage variation allowable for the capacitor and the initial voltage of the capacitor, or the integrated value of the current flowing from the capacitor divided by the difference between the lowest value of the range of voltage variation allowable for the capacitor and the initial voltage of the capacitor.” JP’127 does not explicitly disclose an integrated value of current over a predetermined period; however, in analogous art of capacitor optimization, Pant page 322 column break teaches:
If n is the fraction of power-supply ripple that the circuit can tolerate, i.e., the allowable voltage swing is
δ
V
=
n
V
d
d
, then the amount of decoupling capacitance required to maintain the power supply within a given ripple specification can be calculated as
C
=
δ
Q
δ
V
=
I
2
f
c
n
V
d
d
The phrasing voltage swing corresponds with an absolute value of a change. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a swing is mathematically represented by the greater of the respective positive or negative swing values.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine JP’127 and Pant. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use power supply ripple estimation into the system of capacitor power supply design for the advantageous purpose “to determine the values and placement of the capacitors.” See Pant page 322 right column second paragraph.
Claim 9 further recites “9. The design assist device according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of load devices operate cyclically, and the predetermined period is a period of a cycle of an operation of the plurality of load devices or a partial period of the cycle.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a period of a cycle of an operation.”
JP’127 does not explicitly disclose an integrated value of current over a predetermined period; however, in analogous art of capacitor optimization, Pant page 322 left column fourth paragraph teaches “The average power supply current is the time integral of charge transferred throughout a clock cycle.” The time integral of charge transferred corresponds with an integrated value of current. The clock cycle corresponds with a predetermined period of a cycle.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine JP’127 and Pant. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use power supply ripple estimation into the system of capacitor power supply design for the advantageous purpose “to determine the values and placement of the capacitors.” See Pant page 322 right column second paragraph.
Claim 10 further recites “10. The design assist device according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of power cables include a first power cable commonly connecting the plurality of load devices to the capacitor, and the calculator calculates the allowable voltage based on a voltage generated by an internal resistance of the first power cable.” JP’127 does not explicitly disclose an integrated value of current over a predetermined period; however, in analogous art of capacitor optimization, Pant page 322 column break teaches:
If n is the fraction of power-supply ripple that the circuit can tolerate, i.e., the allowable voltage swing is
δ
V
=
n
V
d
d
, then the amount of decoupling capacitance required to maintain the power supply within a given ripple specification can be calculated as
C
=
δ
Q
δ
V
=
I
2
f
c
n
V
d
d
The amount of decoupling capacitance corresponds to a recommended capacitance. Dividing by the allowable voltage swing (
n
V
d
d
) corresponds to dividing by a difference of an allowable voltage and an initial voltage.
Pant page 320 left column section IIA second paragraph teaches:
For the experiments conducted in this paper, the power-distribution grid was modeled as a rectangular mesh network of resister-inductor-capacitor (RLC) elements, with each segment represented by an equivalent SPICE RLC model, as shown in Fig. 2.
Pan figure 2 shows respective resistors at each link. The power-distribution grid being modeled as this mesh network of Pant figure 2 corresponds with basing the respective allowable voltages on the internal resistances of each mesh link respectively.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine JP’127 and Pant. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use power supply ripple estimation into the system of capacitor power supply design for the advantageous purpose “to determine the values and placement of the capacitors.” See Pant page 322 right column second paragraph.
Claim 11 further recites “11. The design assist device according to claim 4, wherein the calculator calculates the allowable voltage based on a voltage generated by an internal resistance of each of the plurality of power cables.” JP’127 does not explicitly disclose an integrated value of current over a predetermined period; however, in analogous art of capacitor optimization, Pant page 322 column break teaches:
If n is the fraction of power-supply ripple that the circuit can tolerate, i.e., the allowable voltage swing is
δ
V
=
n
V
d
d
, then the amount of decoupling capacitance required to maintain the power supply within a given ripple specification can be calculated as
C
=
δ
Q
δ
V
=
I
2
f
c
n
V
d
d
The amount of decoupling capacitance corresponds to a recommended capacitance. Dividing by the allowable voltage swing (
n
V
d
d
) corresponds to dividing by a difference of an allowable voltage and an initial voltage.
Pant page 320 left column section IIA second paragraph teaches:
For the experiments conducted in this paper, the power-distribution grid was modeled as a rectangular mesh network of resister-inductor-capacitor (RLC) elements, with each segment represented by an equivalent SPICE RLC model, as shown in Fig. 2.
Pan figure 2 shows respective resistors at each link. The power-distribution grid being modeled as this mesh network of Pant figure 2 corresponds with basing the respective allowable voltages on the internal resistances of each mesh link respectively.
Pant page 320 right column third paragraph teaches “The currents drawn by these sources directly reflect the switching activity of the functional blocks.” The switching activity of each block reflects the resistances of each respective link in the mesh.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine JP’127 and Pant. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use power supply ripple estimation into the system of capacitor power supply design for the advantageous purpose “to determine the values and placement of the capacitors.” See Pant page 322 right column second paragraph.
Dependent Claim 13
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’127 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent 8,108,163 B2 Kashiwakura [herein “Kashiwakura”].
Claim 13 further recites “13. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a design assist program for causing a computer to operate as the design assist device according to claim 1.” JP’127 does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing design program; however, in analogous art of designing power supplies, Kashiwakura column 17 claim 2 teaches a “program embodied in a non-transitory computer-readable medium.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine JP’127 and Kashiwakura. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use computer implementation into the system of capacitor power supply design for the advantageous purpose “suited to application to analysis of power supply.” See Kashiwakura column 1 lines 16-17.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grainger, J.J. & Lee, S.H. “Optimum Size and Location of Shunt Capacitors for Reduction of Losses On Distribution Feeders” IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus & Sys., vol. PAS-100, no. 3 (1981)
teaches
Page 1107 teaches maximizing savings by solving for optimum location and capacitor bank sizes.
Grbovic, P. “Ultra-capacitor based regenerative energy storage and power factor correction device for controlled electric drives” Thesis, Ecole Centrale de Lille (2010) English.
§3, Ultra-Capacitor selection and design for regenerative electric drives.
Solero, L., et al. “Design of Multiple-Input Power Converter for Hybrid Vehicles” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1007-1016 (2005)
Page 1011 “Voltage ripple in dc-link is the parameter used for MIPEC output capacitance sizing, however it must be ensured that selected capacitor tolerates RMS value of the output ripple current [8].”
US 6075331 A Ando; Masao et al.
Managing energy of electric power supply systems
US 11069488 B2 Johnson; Scottie et al.
Hybrid energy storage device
US 8718845 B2 Onsager; Michael Gordon et al.
Energy management system for heavy equipment
US 10717366 B1 Jaksic; Marko et al.
High-frequency direct current bulk capacitors with interleaved busbar packages
US 6703697 B2 Leahy; Anne et al.
Electronic package design with improved power delivery performance
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 27 June 2026
Prosecution Insights