DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is responsive to the communication received on 01-16-2024. The claims 1-8 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1 is/are in independent form.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 & 6- 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 2, in step 21, both formulas for ΔU1 are mere duplicate of each other between lines 8- 10 & lines 11- 13.
Claims 6- 7 are also objected to because of their dependency with claim 2.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
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- 8 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.
Regarding claim 1, in step 4, the claim recites “conducting active reduction by the photovoltaic inverters in the group through the consistency algorithm”. The claim already recites “first voltage control group and a second voltage control group” in the step 1. However, reciting of “the group” in step 4 fails to clarify whether this group corresponds to first group or second group or some other different group thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. For the examination purpose, “in the group” of step 4 is interpreted as “in the second group”.
Regarding claims 7- 8, they are also rejected because of their dependency with rejected claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3- 4, & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (DE 212018000228 U1, Publication Date: 2020-01-16) in view of Guo et al. (US 20170317498 A1), and in further view of Wang et al. (CN 115498650 A, Publication Date: 2022-12-20).
Note: The combination of Zhou, Guo, and Wang is referred as ZGW hereinafter. The cited pages of the Zhou and Wang are from the machine translated documents which are attached as FOR document along with this action.
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches a method [“step-by-step control strategy is applied from bottom to top… the problem that the supply voltage exceeds the upper limit value, reduce or even solve and ensure the economic benefit of the user” from local controller to “range controller” in coordinated manner in different groups and finally by the plant controller] for group coordinated voltage control of photovoltaic inverters in a low-voltage distribution network, comprising the following steps: (Fig. 1, page 12);
step 1: dividing [“the photovoltaic users are divided into partitions”] all photovoltaic inverters in a distribution network [“a distribution network system which applies the present invention the photovoltaic users with a similar sensitivity factor and a large difference to the sensitivity factors of other photovoltaic users forming an area of autonomous control of the voltage” as shown in fig. 1] into a first voltage control group [first “in the present area” like user area A or area B as in fig. 3] and a second voltage control group [another upstream/downstream area like user X or Y as in fig. 3 and having different “voltage sensitivity factor” than the area A and B and managed by “upstream and downstream area controllers”] (Pages 9-10, Fig. 3);
step 2: collecting voltages [the local and regional controllers reading voltage values as part of “Every user connected to the PV grid is equipped with a local control device and can receive information such as grid voltage and PV power.”] of the photovoltaic inverters [“The node is connected to the load and the DG unit, with each DG unit consisting of a PV component”] corresponding to nodes in each voltage control group respectively, calculating voltage increments of access nodes, and collecting an active output [“receive information such as grid voltage and PV power”] of the distribution network (Page 9-10, Fig. 2);
step 3: synchronously judging [“In particular, the area controller collects the node voltage information of the present area on the feed and sends it point-to-point to the substation's power plant control unit.” Hence, the power plant control unit knows the voltage raising or not raising situations in each area at the same/overlapping time] whether the voltage increment of a first access node in the first voltage control group [“in the present area”] and the voltage increment of a second access node in the second voltage control group [another area but within the same region] exceed a limit according to a set threshold range [“photovoltaic solar inverter if the supply voltage rises to a warning value” or “an upper limit value”] (Page 10 -11, Fig. 2);
1if the voltage increment of the first access node exceeds the limit [situation in step 101: “reactive supply voltage at a photovoltaic solar inverter if the supply voltage rises to a warning value”], starting the first voltage control group to use [“Controlling a local control device to locally control a reactive supply voltage at a photovoltaic solar inverter if the supply voltage rises to a warning value and does not exceed an upper limit value …First, the PV inverter is reactively controlled at the user level”] a the PV inverter is reactively controlled at the user level”, “Controlling the present local control device to request local control of the reactive supply voltage at the local control device in the same area after the reactive power capacity of the present local control device has been exhausted.”], and Yes in step S102 and transitioning into S103 or S104 after determining that “reactive power in the present area has been exhausted”] from exceeding the limit when the reactive capacity in the first voltage control group is exhausted, entering step 5 [“step S104 : Requesting a regional, coordinated control of the reactive supply voltage at an area controller in an area where the local control unit is located. After that the step S105 carried out.”]; otherwise, returning [“If the supply voltage is in the normal operating range, the local control device controls the active power of the local photovoltaic inverter to follow the maximum power point (ie the MPPT control),”] to step 2 (Figs. 4-5, page 11-12);
if the voltage increment of the second access node exceeds the limit, starting the second voltage control group to use the ; otherwise [scenario of “substation's power plant control unit” in another area not detecting “supply voltage rises to a warning value”. The claim does not require voltage increment exceeding the limit. However, even in another area, first local reactive control is performed and the active power reduction is performed at the last. The step 4’s limitation does not require explicitly avoiding sending a reactive compensation instructions to other group as compared to Step 5], returning to step 2 (Fig. 4, pages 10- 11);
step 5: sending [“step S104 : Requesting a regional, coordinated control of the reactive supply voltage at an area controller in an area where the local control
unit is located. After that the step S105 carried out.”, “step S207 : Send the remaining compensation value to the upstream and downstream range controllers.”] a reactive compensation instruction to the second voltage control group [“In particular, the area controller sends the reactive power compensation request to the upstream and downstream area controllers of adjacent areas in accordance with the extent to which the supply voltage exceeds the upper limit value”] by the first voltage control group to start the second voltage control group to participate in reactive voltage control by using the step S106 : Request regulation “ and “step S107”, wherein in S107 “Active cutting control of the photovoltaic solar inverter until the supply voltage does not exceed the upper limit value”] by the first voltage control group; conducting active reduction by the photovoltaic inverters [actively cutting PVs] in the group through the consistency algorithm; ending the control; otherwise, returning to step 2 (Pages 11-12).
Zhou teaches coordinating voltage control of pluralities of the photovoltaic inverters in a “distributed photovoltaic distribution network”. Zhou’s method performs when overvoltage situation is detected by the local controllers or other higher level controllers, performing of reactive and active voltage control using some technique/algorithm but fails to specify what type of the algorithm(s) is/are being used. Zhou fails to teach limitations shown with strikethrough emphasis. That is, Zhou fails to teach
(1) calculating a reactive capacity according to the active output;
(2) the used algorithm to perform ‘reactive voltage control’ and ‘conducting active reduction’ is via “consistency algorithm” but are cured by Guo and Wang respectively.
Guo teaches a method for group coordinated voltage control of photovoltaic inverters in a low-voltage distribution network, comprising the following steps:
if the voltage increment of the first access node exceeds the limit [“PV generation can fluctuate at a very high ramping rate, thus leading to power quality and even voltage stability issues.”], starting the first voltage control group to use a the reactive power reference of each DG is determined by its maximum reactive power capacity, as shown below”] a reactive capacity according to the active output ([006, 009, 068-070]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Guo and Zhou because they both related to coordinated voltage control in distributed power network using reactive capacity and (2) modify the system/method of Zhou calculating a reactive capacity according to the active output as in Guo. Guo teaches missing details for Zhou about how it can determine reactive capacity so that it can be sure that reactive power in the present area is exhausted after the reactive supply voltage at the photovoltaic inverter has been locally controlled (Zhou page 1).
Zhou in view of Guo still fails to teach the used algorithm to perform ‘reactive voltage control’ and ‘conducting active reduction’ by using the “consistency algorithm” as claimed and shown with strikethrough emphasis.
Wang teaches use a consistency algorithm for reactive and active voltage control when the voltage exceeds the limit in one or more nodes of a power distribution system so that communication data amount is greatly reduced between pluralities of the controllers used by the distribution system (page 6). Specifically, Wang teaches method comprising:
starting the first voltage control group to use a consistency algorithm [“through the designed consistency algorithm,”] for reactive voltage control [“and combining the received consistency parameter to calculate the active or reactive power reference output value”]; starting the second voltage control group to use the consistency algorithm for reactive voltage control; conducting active [“and combining the received consistency parameter to calculate the active or reactive power reference output value”]; reduction by the photovoltaic inverters in the group through the consistency algorithm; the second voltage control group to participate in reactive voltage control by using the consistency algorithm (page 6, page 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Wang and Zhou in view of Guo because they both related to coordinated voltage control in distributed power network having pluralities of controllers and (2) modify the method of Zhou in view of Guo to have its utilized algorithm to control active and reactive power to be “constancy algorithm” type. Doing so would allow to continue controlling the overvoltage situation with minimum communication and also improves the reliability of the whole power distribution system (Wang, page 6). Furthermore, Wang teaches what type of the algorithms can be used to perform reactive and active voltage control by the pluralities of the controllers of the distributed network. Accordingly, the combination of Zhou, Guo, and Wang teaches each elements of the claim and renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 3, ZGW teaches the method for group coordinated voltage control of photovoltaic inverters in the low-voltage distribution network according to claim 1, wherein a reactive absorption in a process of reactive voltage control is calculated; the output active power is calculated according to the active output; the reactive capacity is calculated according to the output active power; and if the reactive absorption is greater than the reactive capacity, then the reactive capacity is exhausted at this time, and the overlimit cannot be inhibited (Zhou page 11 in S102-S104, Guo [068]).
Regarding claim 4, ZGW further teaches invention of this claim (See Guo para. 068).
Regarding claim 8, ZGW teaches the method for group coordinated voltage control of photovoltaic inverters in the low-voltage distribution network according to claim 1, wherein the reactive compensation instruction is transmitted through a communication line between the first voltage control group and the second voltage control group (Zhou page 11 “In neighboring areas, the local control device communicates point-to-point with the corresponding area controllers”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 & 5- 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Specifically, claims 2 & 5 recite novel and non-obvious subject matter over prior arts of the record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Jiang (CN 115021272 A) teaches synchronously judging whether the voltage increment of a first access node in the first voltage control group and the voltage increment of a second access node in the second voltage control group exceed a limit according to a set threshold range (page 4: “judging whether the plurality of feeder lines, the plurality of table regions or any one of the plurality of grid points is over-voltage or not”)
2) Salama (US 20140148966 A1) teaches coordinating operations of the pluralities of the distributed generators (DGs) by placing and controlling Remote Terminal Unit (RTUs) (Abstract, [051]).
3) Smith et al. (US 20150263738 A1 ) Once a group of DGs 106 is associated to a particular feeder line 118, the voltage at the point of interconnect between each DG 106 and the corresponding feeder line 118 can be computed ([024]).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 MPEP 2111.04 (II) states “broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Hence, the claim requires only first group node exceeding the limit and the second group node not exceeding the limit.
Prosecution Insights