CTNF 18/369,881 CTNF 87747 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2023 and 12/11/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. Simply reciting a “power supply system” is not sufficient enough to encompass what the inventive concept is of this application/claims. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takagi [US 2024/0022103] . With respect to claim 1 , Takagi discloses a power supply system comprising: a plurality of cell units [ STR1-STRM ] each including a cell [ M1-MN ] and a converter [ PC1-PCm ], the plurality of cell units being connected in parallel to each other [ as depicted ]; and a control device that controls the converter [ see C1-Cm and/or 101 ], wherein the control device carries out voltage control to control the converter in each of the plurality of cell units with a voltage command being defined as an input parameter, the voltage command being a command value for an output voltage from the power supply system [ par. 0022-0026, 0032-0033 ] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi [US 2024/0022103] as applied above, and further in view of Kawai et al. [US 2020/0099305] . With respect to claims 2-3 , Takagi teaches voltage sensors as detail above, but fails to disclose voltage feedback only under proportional control as claimed. However, Kawai relates to power conversion control techniques and teaches wherein the voltage control carried out by the control device is feedback control only under proportional control such that the unit output voltage attains to the voltage command and wherein a gain in the proportional control is set such that variation in the unit output voltage is within a prescribed range [ Figs 1 and 7; i.e. change proportional gain of the parallel system ]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify Takagi to include the proportional control as taught by Kawai for the benefit of avoiding power concentration to a specific one of the power conversion unit as explicitly stated by Kawai . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takagi [US 2024/0022103] as applied above, and further in view of Zhao et al. [US 2021/0399326] . With respect to claim 7 , Takagi fails to disclose wherein a three-phase inverter is diverted for use as the converter, and cells different from one another are connected to arms of respective phases of the three-phase inverter. However, Zhao relates to a battery system where an inverter includes three phases, each phase including a battery cell [ Fig. 2 ]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify Takagi to include a three phase inverter connected as taught by Zhao for the benefit of a large-scale battery system (and therefore more power) as suggested by Zhao while providing a more efficient design [ par. 0025 ] . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43 Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if canceled and incorporated into independent claim including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. With respect to claim 4 , the prior art of record does not suggest or disclose the claimed combination of elements or steps as recited, most particularly the claimed, “further comprising: a voltage sensor that detects a unit output voltage which is an output voltage from each of the plurality of cell units; and an output power obtaining unit that obtains unit output power which is output power from each of the plurality of cell units, wherein the control device includes a power command calculator that calculates a unit power command which is a command value for the unit output power based on a power command which is a command value for output power from the power supply system, and a voltage command correction unit that calculates a corrected voltage command by (i) correcting the voltage command to be smaller as a difference between the unit power command and the unit output power is larger while the unit output power is larger than the unit power command and (ii) correcting the voltage command to be larger as the difference between the unit power command and the unit output power is larger while the unit output power is smaller than the unit power command, and the voltage control carried out by the control device is feedback control such that the unit output voltage attains to the corrected voltage command.” Claims 5-6 depend from claim 4 and are objected to for the same reasons. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-35 Claim 1-7 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/369,872 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are simply written in a slightly broader format by excluding the power command and moving it to claim 4. The other dependent claims correspond in a one-to-one manner . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL R PELTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm. 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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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. /NATHANIEL R PELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 Application/Control Number: 18/369,881 Page 2 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 18/369,881 Page 3 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 18/369,881 Page 4 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 18/369,881 Page 5 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 18/369,881 Page 6 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 18/369,881 Page 7 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 18/369,881 Page 8 Art Unit: 2859
Prosecution Insights