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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2021/0376790.
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches a current-voltage (IV) curve scanning method for a multi-input converter, comprising: for each of input converters in the multi-input converter (see figures 1-2 and [0006] which disclose a scanning method for the PV array 300 for each input converter 100):
determining a starting scanning voltage, a starting scanning moment and scanning voltages at respective target scanning points based on a preset starting voltage, a minimum voltage and a preset number of the target scanning points, wherein at each of the target scanning points, the scanning voltage for at least one of the input converters is greater than a target voltage (see [0052] and figure 3, which teaches scanning voltage segments and discrete target points during a full measurement range based on a preset starting voltage); and
performing the IV curve scanning based on the starting scanning voltage, the starting scanning moment and the scanning voltages at the respective target scanning points (the IV scanning curve is based on the aforementioned factors: the starting scanning voltage, the starting scanning moment and the scanning voltages at target scanning points).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the starting scanning voltage, the starting scanning moment and the scanning voltages at the respective target scanning points based on the preset starting voltage, the minimum voltage and the preset number of the target scanning points comprises:
determining a voltage interval based on the preset starting voltage, the minimum voltage, and the preset number of the target scanning points (see figure 3, in which the preset starting voltage, the minimum voltage, and the preset number of the target scanning points are featured on the graph and broadly determine a voltage interval); and
determining the starting scanning voltage, the starting scanning moment and the scanning voltages at the respective target scanning points based on a preset time interval and the voltage interval (see figure 3, in which the preset starting voltage, the minimum voltage, and the preset number of the target scanning points are featured on the graph and broadly determine a voltage interval).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the determining the voltage interval based on the preset starting voltage, the minimum voltage, and the preset number of the target scanning points comprises: calculating a difference between the preset starting voltage and the minimum voltage (see [0012], [0060], and figures 3-4); and calculating the voltage interval based on the preset number of the target scanning points and the difference (see [0012], [0060], and figures 3-4; note that the language “based on” broadens the limitation to an extent that the preset number of the target scanning points and the difference is broadly a factor in calculating the voltage interval, thus meeting the limitation).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the determining the starting scanning voltage, the starting scanning moment and the scanning voltages at the respective target scanning points based on the preset time interval and the voltage interval comprises: determining the starting scanning voltage and the starting scanning moment based on the preset time interval (see figures 3-4 showing that, broadly, the preset time interval, referred to as a segment in the reference, is a factor in determining the starting scanning voltage and the starting scanning moment); and determining the scanning voltages at the respective target scanning points based on the voltage interval (see [0012], [0060], and figures 3-4; note that the language “based on” broadens the limitation to an extent that the voltage interval is broadly a factor in determining the scanning voltages at the respective target scanning points, thus meeting the limitation).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the preset time interval is less than a duration of the IV curve scanning for each of input converters (see figure 3 in which this holds true for ranges of the graph).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the preset time interval is not less than a duration of the IV curve scanning for each of input converters (see figure 3 in which this holds true for ranges of the graph).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: acquiring data comprising voltages and currents at the respective target scanning points and drawing an IV curve based on the acquired data after the performing the IV curve scanning (see figures 1-3 and [0047] in which voltage, current and other parameters are collected to determine the IV curve based on acquired data).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2021/0376790 over Ikawa et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2013/0054037.
Regarding Claim 9, Chen teaches an IV curve scanning device, comprising: a multi-input converter; an auxiliary power supply; and a controller; the auxiliary power supply is connected to the controller; and the controller is configured to perform the method according to claim 1 (see figure 1, which illustrates an auxiliary power source 30, controller 20, and a multi-input converter 10). However, Chen is silent in explicitly teaching wherein the multi-input converter comprises M input converters and is connected to the auxiliary power supply, wherein M is greater than or equal to 2 (see Ikawa figure 1, in which the auxiliary power supplies 8N are input into the power conversion unit at each independent power conversion apparatus 2N1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Chen with those of Ikawa because such a design allows for dedicated curve tracing of each independent unit within the system because “evaluation based on comparison with outputs from the photovoltaic power generation systems under the same power generating conditions is difficult” (as discussed in Ikawa [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RE Claim 7, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “determining the target scanning points, wherein voltage intervals for all the input converters in the multi-input converter are equal; dividing all the input converters in the multi-input converter into at least one first input converter and at least one second input converter; for each of the at least one first input converter, determining the scanning voltages at the target scanning points from the preset starting voltage to the minimum voltage at the voltage intervals; and for each of the at least one second input converter, determining the scanning voltages at the target scanning points from the minimum voltage to the preset starting voltage at the voltage intervals,” in combination with the other claim limitations.
RE Claim 10, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest “wherein for each of the M input converters, a positive input of the input converter is connected to a positive terminal of the auxiliary power supply via a diode, wherein the positive input terminal of the input converter is arranged at a photovoltaic (PV) side; and a negative terminal of the input converter is connected to a negative terminal of the auxiliary power supply,” in combination with the other claim limitations. Claims 11-12 depend from base Claim 10, and therefore these claims are also allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 102, Applicant Argues:
“Chen does not teach or suggest the detailed solution of determining the voltage interval based on the preset starting voltage, the minimum voltage and the preset number of the target scanning points, and determining the starting scanning voltage, the starting scanning moment and the scanning voltages at the respective target scanning points based on the preset time interval and the voltage interval. Therefore, Chen fails to teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1.” (see entire argument on p.7-8 of Remarks)
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the claim limitations are broader than what is described by Applicant in the Remarks. Firstly, the limitations use the phrase “based on”, which widens the scope of how the claim is being interpreted to include factors that are related to, but not explicitly stated in the claim language. Chen teaches IV curve scanning based, at least loosely, on the starting scanning voltage, the starting scanning moment and the scanning voltages at the respective target scanning points (see Chen figures 3-4 and 9, as well as [0058]-[0062], which teach that IV curve scanning would have been based on the claimed factors even if not varied directly by them). Secondly, Examiner is considering the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language and not the motivations of what is being claimed, or auxiliary meaning of what is claimed, based on reading in the specification’s meaning to the claims. In this regard, respectfully, Applicant is arguing that Chen does not teach the detailed solution of determining the voltage interval based claimed factors even though this language is not exactly present in claim 1. Thus, the claim language is believed to be broader than the applicant’s interpretation. For these reasons, Claims 1-6 and 8-9 remain rejected.
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/MICHAEL A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights