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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-10, and 12-17 in the reply filed on 9/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-19, 21, 23-24 and 27-29 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/15/2025.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1,3, 5-6, 8, 9-10, 12-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 4-6, 7-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,799,285. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1,12-14 combined and Claims 5-6, 8, 9-10, 15-17 of the instant application and Claims 1-3 and Claims 4-6, 7-8 respectively of the Patent recite a method for starting a rapid shutdown system having same limitations except minor variations in the naming of some limitations (for example, “switching on” in place of “turning on”, “controlling” in place of “regulating”, “detected starting voltage” in place of “detected voltage outputted” etc.).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 3, 5, 9-10, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berg (US 2014/0137920, IDS Document).
Regarding Claim 1, Berg discloses a method for starting a photovoltaic rapid shutdown system (Figures 1-6), comprising:
regulating, by an inverter system (21, Figure 6) in the photovoltaic rapid shutdown system (7, Figures 1-2, 6), a voltage across a direct-current bus in the rapid shutdown system (voltage across 4, 10/DC +, 5, 11/DC -, Figures 1-2, 6,Paragraphs 27-29);
determining, by a photovoltaic rapid shutdown device connected to the direct-current bus in the photovoltaic rapid shutdown system based on a detected starting voltage of the photovoltaic rapid shutdown device, whether a change in the voltage across the direct-current bus meets a preset conduction condition (Figures 3-5, Paragraph 30, “….the testing device 14 generates a time-variable test voltage, so that pre-charged capacitors of the converter 21 are detected. If the switching element 16 is closed (S=1), the test voltage UP is disconnected (UP=0)…”); and
controlling the photovoltaic rapid shutdown device to be turned on, in response to a determination result that the change in the voltage across the direct-current bus already meets the preset conduction condition, the preset conduction condition is that the voltage across the direct-current bus forms a small pulse (Figures 3-5, Paragraphs 30-32, “….The testing device 14 then applies a small test voltage UP of, for example, 2 V to the voltage output 10 at instant t.sub.1. The converter described in FIG. 6 has an input capacitor. Thus, if the DC disconnector 20 is closed and the converter 21 is connected, the input capacitor of the converter 21 is charged via the test voltage….”).
Regarding Claim 3, Berg discloses the method for starting a photovoltaic rapid shutdown system according to Claim 1, wherein the small pulse is formed by short-circuiting the direct-current bus and stopping short-circuiting the direct-current bus (Figures 3-5, Paragraphs 30-32).
Regarding Claim 5, Berg discloses the method for starting a photovoltaic rapid shutdown system according to Claim 1, further comprising:
keeping the photovoltaic rapid shutdown device off in response to a determination result that the change in the voltage across the direct-current bus does not meet the preset conduction condition, after the determining, by the photovoltaic rapid shutdown device in the photovoltaic rapid shutdown system connected to the direct-current bus based on the detected starting voltage outputted of the photovoltaic rapid shutdown device, whether the change in the voltage across the direct-current bus meets the preset conduction condition (opening switching element 16, upon no-load and short-circuit detection, Figures 4-5, Paragraphs 31-32).
Regarding Claim 9, Berg discloses the method for starting a photovoltaic rapid shutdown system according to Claim 1, wherein the regulating, by the inverter system in the photovoltaic rapid shutdown system, the voltage across the direct-current bus in the rapid shutdown system comprises: regulating, by the inverter system, the voltage across the direct-current bus in a preset manner, so that the voltage across the direct-current bus changes in a preset pattern (Figures 1-5, Paragraphs 30-32).
Regarding Claim 10, Berg discloses the method for starting a photovoltaic rapid shutdown system according to Claim 9, wherein the regulating, by the inverter system, the voltage across the direct-current bus in the preset manner comprises:
short-circuiting the direct-current bus throughout a first period of time and stopping short- circuiting the direct-current bus throughout a second period of time alternately (Paragraphs 31-32, “….the test voltage Up does not have to be present continuously, but may also be applied periodically”).
Regarding Claim 15, Berg discloses the method for starting a rapid shutdown system according to Claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the rapid shutdown device based on a starting voltage of the rapid shutdown device instead of the voltage outputted by the rapid shutdown device, whether the change in the voltage across the direct-current bus meets the preset conduction condition (voltage at input to the shutdown device input to 15 providing a measure of the starting voltage and output of 15 provided to control unit 12, Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 16, Berg discloses the method for starting a photovoltaic rapid shutdown system according to Claim 9,wherein the regulating, by the inverter system, the voltage across the direct-current bus in a preset manner comprises:
converting the voltage across the direct-current bus throughout the first period of time, and stopping converting the voltage across the direct-current bus throughout the second period of time alternately (Figures 3-5, Paragraphs 30-32, “….the test voltage Up does not have to be present continuously, but may also be applied periodically”).
Regarding Claim 17, Berg discloses the method for starting a photovoltaic rapid shutdown system according to Claim 9, wherein the preset pattern is that the voltage across the direct-current bus has a preset value throughout the first period of time and is equal to a corresponding value throughout the second period of time, wherein the preset value is less than the corresponding value (Figures 3-5, Paragraphs 30-32, “….the test voltage Up does not have to be present continuously, but may also be applied periodically”).
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.
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.
Claims 6, 8, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg (US 2014/0137920, IDS Document) in view of Nie (CN 109617523, IDS Document, Figures and PE2E Translation used for reference).
Regarding Claim 6, Berg does not specifically disclose the method for starting a photovoltaic rapid shutdown system according to Claim 1, further comprising: before the regulating, by the inverter system in the photovoltaic rapid shutdown system, the voltage across the direct-current bus in the rapid shutdown system,
determining, by the photovoltaic rapid shutdown device, whether a detected state parameter of the photovoltaic rapid shutdown device meets a preset normal condition; outputting, by the photovoltaic rapid shutdown device, a preset starting voltage to the direct-current bus connected to the rapid shutdown device, in response to the state parameter already meeting the preset normal condition; and
detecting, by the inverter system, the voltage across the direct-current bus, and determining, by the inverter system, whether the detected voltage across the direct-current bus meets a start-up condition, wherein the voltage across the direct-current bus is regulated by the inverter system in response to the detected voltage across the direct-current bus already meeting the start-up condition.
Nie discloses a photovoltaic battery rapid turning off/start system/method (Figures 1-2), comprising a photovoltaic cell module (1, Figures 1-2) and a photovoltaic inverter (2, Figures 1-2), an output end of the photovoltaic battery module connected to an input end of the photovoltaic inverter, the photovoltaic cell module and the photovoltaic inverter connected to a main control circuit (1 and 2 connected to 3, Figures 1-2), the direct current generated by the photovoltaic cell module is converted to alternating current by the photovoltaic inverter, the main control module controls the output of the photovoltaic cell module and controls communication between photovoltaic cell module and the photovoltaic inverter (Claim 1),
the main control circuit including a main control module (340, Figures 1-2), a voltage detecting circuit (330, Figures 1-2), a power supply module (320, Figures 1, 2), the voltage detecting unit detects the voltage at both ends of the photovoltaic inverter and outputs it to the main control module (340, Figures 1-2), the main control module compares the received voltage across the photovoltaic inverter with the pre-set starting voltage in the main control module (Claims 6-7); if the voltage at both ends of the photovoltaic inverter is less than the pre-set the starting voltage, the first electric source module (320, Figures 1-2) sends the pulse signal to the first photovoltaic cell assembly (cell assembly 4 in photovoltaic module 1, Figure 1, Claims 6-7), wherein the voltage across the direct-current bus is regulated by the inverter system in a case that the detected voltage across the direct-current bus already meets the starting condition (Claims 6-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nie (by including additional parameters such as state parameter and stating condition) in the method of Berg for operating the system more efficiently and reliably.
Regarding Claim 8, combination of Berg and Nie discloses the method for starting a photovoltaic rapid shutdown system according to Claim 6, wherein the detecting, by the inverter system, the voltage across the direct-current bus, and determining, by the inverter system, whether the detected voltage across the direct-current bus meets the start-up condition comprises:
detecting, by the inverter system, the voltage across the direct-current bus (Nie, Claims 6-8 in the combination);
determining, by the inverter system based on the detected voltage across the direct-current bus, the number of the photovoltaic rapid shutdown device that has outputted the starting voltage to the direct- current bus (Nie, Claim 8 in the combination);
determining, by the inverter system, whether the number of the photovoltaic rapid shutdown device that has outputted the starting voltage is greater than or equal to a preset number (Nie, Claims 6-8 in the combination);
determining that the voltage across the direct-current bus already meets the start-up condition, in response to the number of the photovoltaic rapid shutdown device that has outputted the starting voltage being greater than or equal to the preset number (Nie, Claims 6-8 in the combination); and determining that the voltage across the direct-current bus does not meet the start-up condition in response to the number of the photovoltaic rapid shutdown device that has outputted the starting voltage being less than the preset number (Nie, Claim 8 in the combination).
Regarding Claim 12, Berg does not specifically disclose the method for starting a rapid shutdown system according to Claim 1, further comprising: before the regulating, by the inverter system in the rapid shutdown system, the voltage across the direct-current bus in the photovoltaic rapid shutdown system,
detecting, by the inverter system for each of direct-current buses in the photovoltaic rapid shutdown system, a voltage across the direct-current bus;
determining, by the inverter system for each of the direct-current buses, whether the voltage across the direct-current bus meets a preset abnormal condition; and sending an alarm by the inverter system, and regulating by the inverter system the voltage across the direct-current bus according to the preset abnormal condition, directly operating the inverter system without regulating the voltage across the direct-current bus, or stopping operating the inverter system, in response to at least one direct-current bus among the direct-current buses whose voltage already meeting the preset abnormal condition, wherein the voltage across the direct-current bus is regulated by the inverter system in response to voltages respectively across all the direct-current buses not meeting the preset abnormal condition.
Nie discloses a photovoltaic battery rapid turning off/start system/method (Figures 1-2), comprising a photovoltaic cell module (1, Figures 1-2) and a photovoltaic inverter (2, Figures 1-2), an output end of the photovoltaic battery module connected to an input end of the photovoltaic inverter, the photovoltaic cell module and the photovoltaic inverter connected to a main control circuit (1 and 2 connected to 3, Figures 1-2), the direct current generated by the photovoltaic cell module is converted to alternating current by the photovoltaic inverter, the main control module controls the output of the photovoltaic cell module and controls communication between photovoltaic cell module and the photovoltaic inverter (Claim 1),
the main control circuit including a main control module (340, Figures 1-2), a voltage detecting circuit (330, Figures 1-2), a power supply module (320, Figures 1, 2), the voltage detecting unit detects the voltage at both ends of the photovoltaic inverter and outputs it to the main control module (340, Figures 1-2), the main control module compares the received voltage across the photovoltaic inverter with the pre-set starting voltage in the main control module (Claims 6-7); if the voltage at both ends of the photovoltaic inverter is less than the pre-set the starting voltage, the first electric source module (320, Figures 1-2) sends the pulse signal to the first photovoltaic cell assembly (cell assembly 4 in photovoltaic module 1, Figure 1, Claims 6-7), wherein the voltage across the direct-current bus is regulated by the inverter system in a case that the detected voltage across the direct-current bus already meets the starting condition (Claims 6-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nie in the method of Berg for operating the system more efficiently and reliably.
Regarding Claim 13, combination of Berg and Nie discloses the method for starting a rapid shutdown system according to Claim 12, wherein the regulating by the inverter system the voltage across the direct-current bus according to the preset abnormal condition comprises: limiting a pulse width to be within a preset range and short-circuiting the direct-current bus throughout the first period of time and stopping short-circuiting the direct-current bus throughout the second period of time, in response to the voltage across the direct-current bus that already meets the preset abnormal condition being less than a first preset voltage (Berg, Figures 3-5. Paragraphs 30-32).
Regarding Claim 14, combination of Berg and Nie discloses the method for starting a photovoltaic rapid shutdown system according to Claim 13, wherein the directly operating the inverter system without regulating the voltage across the direct- current bus comprises: keeping the photovoltaic rapid shutdown device connected to the direct-current bus off without short- circuiting the direct-current bus, in response to the voltage across the direct-current bus that already meets the preset abnormal condition being greater than a second preset voltage, wherein the second preset voltage is greater than or equal to the first preset voltage (Berg, Figures 3-5. Paragraphs 30, 32,Paragraph 31, “…a current and voltage curve in which a no-load condition is detected. The photovoltaic module 1 operates at an operating point UAP, IAP. The voltage and current values are monitored by the measuring device 13. At instant t.sub.1, the measuring device 13 then detects that the voltage UA has risen to the no-load voltage UL and the current IA has dropped to IL…”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments toward Berg reference and limitation of detecting starting voltage, examiner respectfully notes that Berg discloses detecting starting voltage as described in Paragraph 30 and in Figures 3-5 and notes that element 15 is connected across the terminals that receives starting voltage, output to control and evaluation unit 12 and based on the starting voltage to provide output to control the switch 16 and the detected voltage by the measuring device 13 corresponds to the starting voltage.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments toward double patenting rejection, please see the response to arguments toward amended limitations of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, toward dependent Claims 3, 5, 6, 8 -10, 12 -14, 16, and 17, please see the response to arguments toward Claim 1 above. depend from claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Freibe et al. (US 2014/0191589) discloses a method for starting a rapid shutdown system (Figures 1-8), comprising: regulating, by an inverter system in the rapid shutdown system (comprising inverter 30), a voltage across a direct-current bus in the rapid shutdown system (regulating by inverter 30, voltage across PV+, PV-, Figures 1, 3-8); determining, by a rapid shutdown device connected to the direct-current bus in the rapid shutdown system based on a detected voltage outputted by the rapid shutdown device, whether a change in the voltage across the direct-current bus meets a preset conduction condition (rapid shut-down device 20 comprising switches 29, Figures 1, 3-8); and switching the rapid shutdown device on, in response to a determination result that the change in the voltage across the direct-current bus already meets the preset conduction condition, (filter 26 connected to DC- bus and output 26 is inputted to evaluation unit 27, Figure 1, threshold switch 281 connected across the DC+ and DC- bus and output of 281 to drive unit 28, Figure 5, Paragraph 37, “….the evaluating unit 27 is configured to determine the level of signal at the output of filter 26 with respect to earth potential PE, and switch the switching element 29 based on the magnitude of the level….”);
Yan et al. (US 2018/0227012) discloses a method for starting a rapid shutdown system (Figures 1-9), comprising:
regulating, by an inverter system in the rapid shutdown system (comprising 102, Figures 1, 3), a voltage across a direct-current bus in the rapid shutdown system (regulating by 102, voltage across L1+, L1-, Figures 1-5);
determining, by a rapid shutdown device (103 comprising switches 105, Figures 1, 3, switches 904, Figure 9) connected to the direct-current bus in the rapid shutdown system based on a detected voltage outputted by the rapid shutdown device, whether a change in the voltage across the direct-current bus meets a preset conduction condition (comprising voltage detection unit detecting voltage across L1+, L1-, Figure 3, voltage detection unit 604, Figure 8, Figure 9); and sending an acknowledgement response message, in response to a determination result that the change in the voltage across the direct-current bus already meets the preset conduction condition (Abstract);
Zhu et al. (US 2017/0207620, Zhu ‘620) and Zhu et al. (US 11,532,935, Zhu ‘935) discloses a method a of rapid shutdown system comprising an inverter system and photovoltaic module and a rapid shutdown device to control the power flow between the photovoltaic module and the inverter.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-6002. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Crystal L Hammond can be reached at (571)270-1682. 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.
/LUCY M THOMAS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2838, 8/18/2026
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights