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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
BST side and INV side of Claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 17, 19, and 20
The voltage intervals/values are not clearly labeled in the drawings (e.g. if the intervals are the values of Figs. 3 & 5, then each should be labeled according to the claimed values, e.g. with a label or legend)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: using the word “voltage interval” for a voltage value instead of “voltage value”. In English, an interval would refer to either a duration or a range of values, not a single value as described in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 13 describe “operating states of an inverter”. Earlier in the claim, the applicant claims a DC/AC converter [which is typically identified as being an inverter by those of o]. The drawing of Fig. 1 identifies both the DC/DC converter 104 and the DC/AC converter. Emend Claim 1 to clearly identify the inverter with the two converters claimed.
Claims 1-20 recite “voltage interval[s]”. The specification seems to make clear that this term is more of a value than an interval (see e.g. ¶[106] of the published specification). Emend to clarify the language.
Claims 4 & 17 recite “the compensation power is equal to the load power minus the maximum photovoltaic power plus the maximum discharging power”. Clarify the claim so that whether [a] the maximum discharging power is added to the maximum photovoltaic power or [b] the maximum discharging power is added to the load power. ¶’s [99, 100] of the published specification seems to indicate option [b].
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner Note on Potential Double Patenting
While note double patenting rejectable at the moment, examiner notes to applicant to be aware of USPN 12341172 and US application 18523408. They currently do not reach the threshold of double patenting. However, when drafting further responses, please keep these two in consideration of potential double patenting in future actions.
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 2-5 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility. The applicant has claimed that the power between components is equal to each other. The issue with this limitation is that unlike ideal converters and other ideal components, circuitry, esp. converters and other non-wire components are not 100% efficiency. That fact means that the power flowing through a converter [i.e. claimed converters DC/DC converter and DC/AC converter of the claimed inverter will expend power.
To further clarify:
Claims 2 & 15: “the photovoltaic output power of the photovoltaic direct current source is equal to a sum of the load power and the maximum charging power” (P102= P108+P110)
Claims 3 & 16: “the charging power of the energy storage battery is equal to the maximum photovoltaic power minus the load power” (P108=P102-P110)
Claims 4 & 17: “the compensation power is equal to the load power minus the maximum photovoltaic power plus the maximum discharging power” (P114=P110-[P102+P108] or P114=P110+P108-P102)
Claims 5 & 18: “the discharging power of the energy storage battery is equal to the maximum photovoltaic power minus the load power” (P108=P108-P110)
However, as previously noted, efficiency losses in the converters would prevent it from equaling that value. Therefore, like a perpetual energy/motion machine, the claiming of equal to powers would not work [i.e. inoperable], and therefore lacks utility.
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 2, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 17, 19, and 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The applicant has claimed “a busbar support tape [BST] side” and “an inverter [INV] side”. However, the disclosure does not make the features of these elements clear.
Fig. 1 shows the inverter as being 120, which includes [104, 106, 122]. Which would mean the INV side could mean any internal or external electrical component.
Fig. 1 does not clearly demonstrate a BST side, and the word tape does not appear in the specification other than to define the acronym. “Busbar support tape also” does not seem to be a term used in the prior art. So, the clarity of the terms referring to it are also unclear.
Even if assuming the applicant means the BST side to mean the bus, the comparison between “the reference value of the busbar voltage on the BST side” and (a)“the reference value of the busbar voltage for charging of the energy storage battery”, (b) “the reference value of the busbar voltage for discharging of the energy storage battery”, (c) “the reference value of the busbar voltage on the INV side” does not appear to support that interpretation, as the voltage of the bus [aka a node constituting the busbar without components between 104/106/108] would generally be assumed to have generally the same voltage. Or at the very least, if the battery voltage 108 and the DC/AC are directly connected in parallel as shown in Fig. 1, then they should generally have the same voltage.
¶[69] of the published specification seems to have the best definition of these terms, which defines “The inverter 120 includes a DC/DC converter 104 and a DC/AC converter 106. The DC/DC converter 104 is located on a BST side of the inverter 120, that is, corresponds to a direct current-to-direct current conversion part of the inverter 120. The DC/AC converter 106 is located on an INV side of the inverter 120, that is, corresponds to a direct current-to-alternating current conversion part of the inverter 120. It should be understood that the DC/DC converter 104 and the DC/AC converter 106 may be integrated into one device, or may be a plurality of separate devices.”
Thus, for purposes of examination, the examiner will assume
BST side means the DC/DC converter [104] connection to the busbar node [i.e. the side opposite from the solar array 102]
INV side means the DC/AC converter [106] connection to the busbar node [i.e. the DC side of the DC/AC converter]
If the applicant agrees with this interpretation, emend the claims to match this definition.
Claims 2-5 and 15-18 recite:
Claims 2 & 15: “the photovoltaic output power of the photovoltaic direct current source is equal to a sum of the load power and the maximum charging power” (P102= P108+P110)
Claims 3 & 16: “the charging power of the energy storage battery is equal to the maximum photovoltaic power minus the load power” (P108=P102-P110)
Claims 4 & 17: “the compensation power is equal to the load power minus the maximum photovoltaic power plus the maximum discharging power” (P114=P110-[P102+P108] or P114=P110+P108-P102)
Claims 5 & 18: “the discharging power of the energy storage battery is equal to the maximum photovoltaic power minus the load power” (P108=P108-P110)
The term “equal to” here does not make sense and are therefore unclear, as the power losses in the converters would prevent the equivalence claimed. The issue is the powers are not the same [contiguous], and they are not even on the same node (which would have the better case for equivalent power in vs power out in an ideal system). This invention is not a simulation [e.g. an ideal converter], and so 100% efficiency would not be possibly in a real converter, as one of ordinary skill in the art understands.
For purposes of examination, it will be assumed the applicant meant the power sources/drains are used to provide the power together in the way claimed. If the applicant has support for approximately equivalent [or an acknowledgement of the power lost in the converters, which the drawing itself would not be enough], that may be another path. However, absent explicit support in the specification, the applicant will most likely have to delete this language from the claims.
Claims 2-5, 9, and 15-18 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claims are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
The description of the operating states in claims 2-5, 9, 15-18 are not clearly written, and appear replete with grammatical errors.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue et al (USPGPN 20150001932).
Independent Claim 1, Inoue discloses a method (Figs. [4-18]) for controlling a busbar voltage of a photovoltaic system (system of Figs. [1-3]) comprising a DC/DC converter (13, 17) and a DC/AC converter (21), the method comprising:
performing, by the DC/DC converter connected to a photovoltaic direct current source (1), maximum power point tracking (MPPT, by 141 of 14, ¶[86]) on an input power from the photovoltaic direct current source, wherein the DC/DC converter, the DC/AC converter, and an energy storage battery (2 via 17) are connected (applicant did not claim direct connection) via a busbar (busbar/bus 25), a load connected to the DC/AC converter has a load power (4), and the energy storage battery has a maximum charging power and a maximum discharging power (inherent to any battery); and
controlling the busbar voltage to be in a plurality of different discontinuous voltage intervals based on different results of comparison between a maximum photovoltaic power and the load power, the maximum charging power, and the maximum discharging power (¶’s [76-84, 40, 62, 109, 133 esp. 77-79, 82-84, 109], Figs. [5-17, esp. 5, 6], where state of being able to be charged/discharged means concern about maximum charging/discharging power is being based on the control),
wherein the plurality of different discontinuous voltage intervals correspond to different operating states of an inverter (Figs. 5-17, [esp. 5, 6], ¶’s [77, 78], where it is noted that the inverter of the applicant’s invention refers to all the converters [21, 17, 13] as shown by Fig. 1 of the applicant’s disclosure, meaning that different operations of each converters correspond to different operating states, and
the “different discontinuous voltage intervals” refers to each change of operation, e.g. for Fig. 6, discharge control is one control, charge control is another, etc. similar for Fig. 5, MPPT control is one control, voltage control is another).
Independent Claim 14, Inoue discloses a photovoltaic system (system of Figs. [1-3], performing method of Figs. [4-18]), comprising:
a DC/DC converter (13, 17);
a busbar (busbar/bus 25);
an energy storage battery (2 via 17);
a photovoltaic direct current source (1);
a DC/AC converter (21), wherein the DC/DC converter, the DC/AC converter, and the energy storage battery are connected via the busbar (Fig. 1), the DC/DC converter is connected to the photovoltaic direct current source and performs maximum power point tracking (MPPT, by 141 of 14, ¶[86]) on an input power from the photovoltaic direct current source, a load connected to the DC/AC converter has a load power (4), and the energy storage battery has a maximum charging power and a maximum discharging power (inherent to any battery); and
a busbar voltage controller (14, 18, 22), configured to:
control a busbar voltage to be in a plurality of different discontinuous voltage intervals based on different results of comparison between a maximum photovoltaic power and the load power, the maximum charging power, and the maximum discharging power (¶’s [76-84, 40, 62, 109, 133 esp. 77-79, 82-84, 109], Figs. [5-17, esp. 5, 6], where state of being able to be charged/discharged means concern about maximum charging/discharging power is being based on the control),
wherein the plurality of different discontinuous voltage intervals correspond to different operating states of an inverter (Figs. 5-17, [esp. 5, 6], ¶’s [77, 78], where it is noted that the inverter of the applicant’s invention refers to all the converters [21, 17, 13] as shown by Fig. 1 of the applicant’s disclosure, meaning that different operations of each converters correspond to different operating states, and
the “different discontinuous voltage intervals” refers to each change of operation, e.g. for Fig. 6, discharge control is one control, charge control is another, etc. similar for Fig. 5, MPPT control is one control, voltage control is another).
Dependent Claims 2 & 15, Inoue discloses the controlling the busbar voltage comprises:
controlling the busbar voltage to operate in a first voltage interval when the maximum photovoltaic power is greater than the load power, and the maximum photovoltaic power minus the load power is greater than the maximum charging power (¶[101]),
wherein the first voltage interval corresponds to a reference value of the busbar voltage on a busbar support tape (BST) side (MPPT- control-mode/voltage-control-mode would meet this requirement); and
when one of the different operating states of the inverter is a state corresponding to the reference value of the busbar voltage on the BST side, the energy storage battery is in a charging state, a charging power of the energy storage battery reaches the maximum charging power (see Figs. [8, 12, 13] which demonstrates a battery being charged), and a photovoltaic output power of the photovoltaic direct current source is less than the maximum photovoltaic power (see voltage control mode vs MPPT mode, where Figs. [4, 18] demonstrates the voltage control mode photovoltaic power is less than the MPPT maximum power),
wherein the photovoltaic output power of the photovoltaic direct current source is equal to a sum of the load power and the maximum charging power (see 112[b] interpretation, met as described above).
Dependent Claims 4 and 17, Inoue discloses controlling the busbar voltage comprises:
controlling the busbar voltage to operate in a third voltage interval when the maximum photovoltaic power is less than the load power, and the maximum photovoltaic power minus the load power is less than the maximum discharging power, wherein:
the third voltage interval corresponds to a reference value of the busbar voltage on an inverter (INV) side, and
when one of the different operating states of the inverter is a state corresponding to the reference value of the busbar voltage on the INV side, the energy storage battery is in a discharging state, a discharging power of the energy storage battery reaches the maximum discharging power, a photovoltaic output power provided by the photovoltaic direct current source reaches the maximum photovoltaic power, and the load obtains a compensation power from an alternating current grid (¶[66]),
wherein the compensation power is equal to the load power minus the maximum photovoltaic power plus the maximum discharging power (see 112[b] interpretation, met as described above).
Claims 1, 4, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al (USPGPN 20170366023).
Independent Claim 1, Tanaka discloses a method (Figs. [2-5B, 7-19]) for controlling a busbar voltage of a photovoltaic system (Figs. [1, 6]) comprising a DC/DC converter (5, 9a-9c) and a DC/AC converter (7), the method comprising:
performing, by the DC/DC converter connected to a photovoltaic direct current source (4), maximum power point tracking (MPPT, ¶’s [35-38, 56, esp. 38]) on an input power from the photovoltaic direct current source, wherein the DC/DC converter, the DC/AC converter, and an energy storage battery (8a-8b) are connected via a busbar (applicant did not claim direct connection, 6), a load connected to the DC/AC converter has a load power (6), and the energy storage battery has a maximum charging power and a maximum discharging power (inherent to batteries that they have charging and discharging power available); and
controlling the busbar voltage to be in a plurality of different discontinuous voltage intervals based on different results of comparison between a maximum photovoltaic power and the load power, the maximum charging power, and the maximum discharging power (¶’s [55-57, 82-84, 87-90] target/reference voltage comparisons, Figs. [7, 10-17, esp. 7, 10, 12, 14, 17]),
wherein the plurality of different discontinuous voltage intervals correspond to different operating states of an inverter (1, where it is noted that the inverter of the applicant’s invention refers to all the converters [21, 17, 13] as shown by Fig. 1 of the applicant’s disclosure, meaning that different operations of each converters correspond to different operating states;
see esp. ¶’s [82-84], where the operations by the converters represent different discrete modes of operations which cause different voltage intervals).
Independent Claim 14, Tanaka discloses a photovoltaic system (Figs. [1, 6] controlling method of Figs. [2-5B, 7-19]), comprising:
a DC/DC converter (5, 9a-9c);
a busbar (bus/busbar 6);
an energy storage battery (8a-8c);
a photovoltaic direct current source (4);
a DC/AC converter (7), wherein the DC/DC converter, the DC/AC converter, and the energy storage battery are connected via the busbar (Figs. [1, 6]), the DC/DC converter is connected to the photovoltaic direct current source and performs maximum power point tracking (MPPT, ¶’s [35-38, 56, esp. 38]) on an input power from the photovoltaic direct current source, a load connected to the DC/AC converter has a load power (3), and the energy storage battery has a maximum charging power and a maximum discharging power (inherent to batteries that they have charging and discharging power available); and
a busbar voltage controller (10, 12, 13, 14, 15], configured to:
control a busbar voltage to be in a plurality of different discontinuous voltage intervals based on different results of comparison between a maximum photovoltaic power and the load power, the maximum charging power, and the maximum discharging power (¶’s [55-57, 82-84, 87-90] target/reference voltage comparisons, Figs. [7, 10-17, esp. 7, 10, 12, 14, 17]),
wherein the plurality of different discontinuous voltage intervals correspond to different operating states of an inverter (1, where it is noted that the inverter of the applicant’s invention refers to all the converters [21, 17, 13] as shown by Fig. 1 of the applicant’s disclosure, meaning that different operations of each converters correspond to different operating states;
see esp. ¶’s [82-84], where the operations by the converters represent different discrete modes of operations which cause different voltage intervals).
Dependent Claims 4 and 17, Tanaka discloses controlling the busbar voltage comprises:
controlling the busbar voltage to operate in a third voltage interval when the maximum photovoltaic power is less than the load power, and the maximum photovoltaic power minus the load power is less than the maximum discharging power, wherein:
the third voltage interval corresponds to a reference value of the busbar voltage on an inverter (INV) side, and
when one of the different operating states of the inverter is a state corresponding to the reference value of the busbar voltage on the INV side, the energy storage battery is in a discharging state, a discharging power of the energy storage battery reaches the maximum discharging power, a photovoltaic output power provided by the photovoltaic direct current source reaches the maximum photovoltaic power, and the load obtains a compensation power from an alternating current grid (¶[72]),
wherein the compensation power is equal to the load power minus the maximum photovoltaic power plus the maximum discharging power (see 112[b] interpretation, met as described above).
Claims 1-5, 9, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al (CN 111130430 A)
Independent Claim 1, Liu discloses a method for controlling a busbar voltage of a photovoltaic system (Fig. 2) comprising a DC/DC converter (3 DC-DC converters of Fig. 2, ¶[22]) and a DC/AC converter (DC-AC converter of Fig. 2, ¶[22]),
the method (Figs. [1, 3-5]) comprising:
performing, by the DC/DC converter connected to a photovoltaic direct current source (solar panel in marked up Fig. 2), maximum power point tracking (MPPT, ¶[27]) on an input power from the photovoltaic direct current source, wherein the DC/DC converter, the DC/AC converter, and an energy storage battery (battery in marked up Fig. 2) are connected via a busbar (busbar/bus in marked-up Fig. 2), a load connected to the DC/AC converter has a load power (AC load in marked up Fig. 2, ¶[25]), and the energy storage battery has a maximum charging power and a maximum discharging power (inherent to any battery, ¶’s [27, 29]); and
controlling the busbar voltage to be in a plurality of different discontinuous voltage intervals based on different results of comparison between a maximum photovoltaic power and the load power, the maximum charging power, and the maximum discharging power (¶’s [27-31]), wherein the plurality of different discontinuous voltage intervals correspond to different operating states of an inverter (use of the different converters would lead to different voltage levels/intervals, as one of ordinary skill in the art, see esp. ¶[22] with bidirectional converters).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Independent Claim 14, Liu discloses a photovoltaic system (Fig. 2, performing the method of Figs. [1, 3-5]), comprising:
a DC/DC converter (3 shown in Fig. 2);
a busbar (busbar/bus in marked-up Fig. 2);
an energy storage battery (battery in marked up Fig. 2);
a photovoltaic direct current source (solar panel in marked up Fig. 2);
a DC/AC converter (DC-AC converter of Fig. 2, ¶[22]), wherein the DC/DC converter, the DC/AC converter, and the energy storage battery are connected via the busbar, the DC/DC converter is connected to the photovoltaic direct current source and performs maximum power point tracking (MPPT, ¶[27]) on an input power from the photovoltaic direct current source, a load connected to the DC/AC converter has a load power (AC load in marked up Fig. 2, ¶[25]), and the energy storage battery has a maximum charging power and a maximum discharging power (inherent to any battery, ¶’s [27, 29]); and
a busbar voltage controller (DSP+FPGA, ¶[22]), configured to:
control a busbar voltage to be in a plurality of different discontinuous voltage intervals based on different results of comparison between a maximum photovoltaic power and the load power, the maximum charging power, and the maximum discharging power (¶’s [27-31]), wherein the plurality of different discontinuous voltage intervals correspond to different operating states of an inverter (use of the different converters would lead to different voltage levels/intervals, as one of ordinary skill in the art, see esp. ¶[22] with bidirectional converters).
Dependent Claims 2 and 15, Liu discloses controlling the busbar voltage comprises:
controlling the busbar voltage to operate in a first voltage interval when the maximum photovoltaic power is greater than the load power, and the maximum photovoltaic power minus the load power is greater than the maximum charging power, wherein the first voltage interval corresponds to a reference value of the busbar voltage on a busbar support tape (BST) side; and when one of the different operating states of the inverter is a state corresponding to the reference value of the busbar voltage on the BST side, the energy storage battery is in a charging state, a charging power of the energy storage battery reaches the maximum charging power, and a photovoltaic output power of the photovoltaic direct current source is less than the maximum photovoltaic power (¶[28]),
wherein the photovoltaic output power of the photovoltaic direct current source is equal to a sum of the load power and the maximum charging power (see 112[b] interpretation, met as described above).
Dependent Claims 3 and 16, Liu discloses controlling the busbar voltage comprises:
controlling the busbar voltage to operate in a second voltage interval when the maximum photovoltaic power is greater than the load power, and the maximum photovoltaic power minus the load power is less than the maximum charging power, wherein: the second voltage interval corresponds to a reference value of the busbar voltage for charging of the energy storage battery, and when one of the different operating states of the inverter is a state corresponding to the reference value of the busbar voltage for charging of the energy storage battery, the energy storage battery is in a charging state, a charging power of the energy storage battery is less than the maximum charging power, and a photovoltaic output power provided by the photovoltaic direct current source reaches the maximum photovoltaic power (¶[27]),
wherein the charging power of the energy storage battery is equal to the maximum photovoltaic power minus the load power (see 112[b] interpretation, met as described above).
Dependent Claims 4 and 17, Liu discloses controlling the busbar voltage comprises:
controlling the busbar voltage to operate in a third voltage interval when the maximum photovoltaic power is less than the load power, and the maximum photovoltaic power minus the load power is less than the maximum discharging power, wherein:
the third voltage interval corresponds to a reference value of the busbar voltage on an inverter (INV) side, and
when one of the different operating states of the inverter is a state corresponding to the reference value of the busbar voltage on the INV side, the energy storage battery is in a discharging state, a discharging power of the energy storage battery reaches the maximum discharging power, a photovoltaic output power provided by the photovoltaic direct current source reaches the maximum photovoltaic power, and the load obtains a compensation power from an alternating current grid (¶[30]),
wherein the compensation power is equal to the load power minus the maximum photovoltaic power plus the maximum discharging power (see 112[b] interpretation, met as described above).
Dependent Claims 5 and 18, Liu discloses controlling the busbar voltage comprises:
controlling the busbar voltage to operate in a fourth voltage interval when the maximum photovoltaic power is less than the load power, and the maximum photovoltaic power minus the load power is greater than the maximum discharging power, wherein:
the fourth voltage interval corresponds to a reference value of the busbar voltage for discharging of the energy storage battery, and when one of the different operating states of the inverter is a state corresponding to the reference value of the busbar voltage for discharging of the energy storage battery, the energy storage battery is in a discharging state, a discharging power of the energy storage battery is greater than the maximum discharging power, and a photovoltaic output power provided by the photovoltaic direct current source reaches the maximum photovoltaic power (¶’s [27-30, esp. 27, 30]),
wherein the discharging power of the energy storage battery is equal to the maximum photovoltaic power minus the load power (see 112[b] interpretation, met as described above).
Dependent Claim 9, Liu discloses controlling the busbar voltage comprises:
controlling the busbar voltage to operate in a fifth voltage interval when the maximum photovoltaic power is less than the load power, and the maximum photovoltaic power minus the load power is greater than the maximum discharging power, or when the maximum photovoltaic power is greater than the load power, and the maximum photovoltaic power minus the load power is less than the maximum charging power, wherein
the fifth voltage interval corresponds to a reference value of the busbar voltage for charging/discharging of the energy storage battery, and when one of the different operating states of the inverter is a state corresponding to the reference value of the busbar voltage for charging/discharging of the energy storage battery, a photovoltaic output power provided by the photovoltaic direct current source reaches the maximum photovoltaic power, and the maximum photovoltaic power minus the load power is less than the maximum charging power and greater than the maximum discharging power (¶’s [27-30, esp. 27, 30], noted that the applicant has not included the other intervals in this claim, so the relationship between fifth and other intervals has no limiting impact on the prior art’s application to the claims).
Dependent Claim 13, Liu discloses the maximum charging power and the maximum discharging power are preset (¶’s [27-30] as the charge/discharge power are set by the manufacturer of a battery in e.g. a data sheet, as is known by one of ordinary skill in the art).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T TRISCHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0651. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30A-3:30P (often working later), M-F, ET, Flexible. 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 5712722312. 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.
/JOHN T TRISCHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights