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 with traverse of group I, claims 1-7 drawn to a photovoltaic power generation system, in the reply filed on 7/10/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all the pending claims are directed to direct-current to alternating-current (DC to AC) conversion. This is not found persuasive because the claimed inventions are not directed to direct-current to alternating-current conversion (see the pre-ample of claims 1 and 8). None of the claimed inventions is directed to direct-current to alternating-current as argued by Applicant. A photovoltaic power conversion system is a circuit that is an entirely different structure with different function from a direct-current to alternating-current conversion; even the conversion circuit of the photovoltaic power conversion is for adjusting a voltage to earth, not for direct-current to alternating-current conversion as argued by Applicant. A conversion circuit claimed in claim 8 is not for direct-current to alternating-current conversion as argued by Applicant, but the conversion circuit is a separate and different from a direct-current to alternating current conversion, and for different for earth/ground fault detection (see Applicant’s own disclosure, claim 1, or more specifically [0068-0071]).
A photovoltaic power generation is entirely different from a conversion circuit. Therefore, the inventions are classified in different classes and/or subclasses (as set forth in the 2nd paragraph of the Restriction Requirement) establishes that a serious burden exists on the examiner if restriction is not required. The inventions are distinct from each other as explained in 3rd paragraph of the Restriction Requirement.
Furthermore, the examiner is burdened to search both relevant patent and patent applications as well as non-patent literature in the examination of the claims. Burden consists not only of specific searching of classes and subclasses, but also of searching multiple databases for foreign references and literature searches. Burden also resides in the examination of independent claim sets for clarity, enablement and double patenting issues. Searching the instant a photovoltaic power generation system and a conversion circuit that are patentably distinct inventions would, in fact, impose a serious burden on the examiner. If Applicant admits on the record that Groups I and II, or any circuits that including a direct-current to alternating-current electrical component regardless how the electrical components are connected to each other to form a circuit, are obvious over one another; the Groups will be rejoined, since a single search for a direct-current to alternating-current would suffice for all Groups.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, a conversion circuit, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/10/2025.
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first photovoltaic arrays" (emphasis added) in lines 9-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second photovoltaic arrays" (emphasis added) in lines 11-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “a first group of photovoltaic arrays in the photovoltaic power generation system comprises at least one first photovoltaic array, a second group of photovoltaic arrays in the photovoltaic power generation system comprises at least one second photovoltaic array, positive terminals of the first photovoltaic arrays are mutually coupled to the first node, negative terminals of the first photovoltaic arrays are mutually coupled to the intermediate node, positive terminals of the second photovoltaic arrays are mutually coupled to the intermediate node, and negative terminals of the second photovoltaic arrays are mutually coupled to the second node” (emphasis added) in lines 7-12. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitations “at least one first photovoltaic array” and “at least one second photovoltaic array”, and the claim also recites “the first photovoltaic arrays” (or more than one first photovoltaic array) and “the second photovoltaic arrays” (or more than one second photovoltaic array), respectively, which are the narrower statement of the ranges/limitations. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For the purpose of this office action, the limitations are construed as “at least one first photovoltaic array” with “at least a positive terminal” and “at least a negative terminal” and as “at least one second photovoltaic array” with “at least a positive terminal” and “at least a negative terminal”
Claim 1 recites “a first preset value” (emphasis added) in line 15 and also recites “a first preset range” in line 16. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a first preset range” in line 16, and the claim also recites “a first preset value” in line 15, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-7 are rejected on the same ground as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Falk (US 2011/0031813) as evidenced by Guyonneau et al. (US Patent 5,684,385) and Yoshidomi et al. (US 2014/0225444, Cite No. 1 of US Patent Application Publication in IDS 1/29/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Falk discloses a photovoltaic power generation system (see figs. 1-2, also see figs. 3-4), comprising:
a conversion circuit (see the circuit between the photovoltaic substrings 3-4 and the inverter 21 in figs. 2 or 3-4) and an inverter (21, figs. 2 or 3-4), wherein the conversion circuit comprises:
a first node (see any node/point on the connection line of first electric pole – e.g. connected to the end with triangular shape on the solar modules 2 - such as power bus bar 34, or see annotated fig. 2 for an example below) coupled to a first electric pole (e.g. connected to the triangle shape) input terminal of the inverter (21, see figs. 2-4 or annotated fig. 2 below),
a second node (see any node/point on the connection line of second electric pole – e.g. connected to the end without triangular shape - such as power bus bar 35, or see annotated fig. 2 for an example below) coupled to a second input terminal of the inverter (21, see figs. 2-4 or annotated fig. 2 below), and
an intermediate node (see any node/point on a serial connection line between the substrings 3 and 4, or see annotated fig. 2 for an example below);
a first group of photovoltaic arrays (see substring 3, figs. 1-4) comprising a at least one first photovoltaic array (see a line/column of solar modules 2 in substring 3, fig. 1, also see figs. 2-4) having at least a first electric pole terminal (or the end with triangular shape) coupled to the first node (or the node on connection line of first electrical pole, see annotated fig. 2 below) and at least a second electric pole terminal (or the end without the triangular shape) coupled to the intermediate node (or the node/point on a serial connection line between two substrings 3-4, see figs. 2-4, or annotated fig. 2 below);
a second group of photovoltaic arrays (see substring 4) comprising at least one second photovoltaic array (see a line/column of solar modules 2 in substring 4, fig. 1, also see figs. 2-4) having a first electrical pole terminal (or the end with triangular shape) mutually coupled to the intermediate node and a second electric pole terminal (or the end without the triangular shape) mutually coupled to the second node (see figs. 2-4 or annotated fig. 2 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
833
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Falk draws the inverter (21) is a conversion circuit for converting direct-current (=) to alternating-current (~) in figs. 2-4; and describing the inverter (21) connects the photovoltaic system (1), which has direct current (DC) output, to the AC grid (22, [0026]). Therefore, the inverter (21) of Falk must be a direct-current to alternating-current (DC/AC) conversion circuit. In other words, the inverter of Falk is a DC/AC conversion circuit which is configured to convert the output voltage of the first and second groups of photovoltaic arrays to obtain an alternating-current voltage, and output the alternating-current voltage to a load (AC grid 22) connected to the photovoltaic power generation system. Also see col. 1, line 45 of evidentiary reference to Guyonneau et al. (US Patent 5,684,385) which describes inverter is a DC/AC conversion circuit.
Falk draws and notates the first electrical pole to have the triangular shape (see figs. 1-4) and the second electrical pole with no triangular shape. A triangular shape is known to be designated for the positive and the other electrical pole without the triangular to be designated for the negative (see figs. 1-2, 9-10, 13-14, 18-21, 24-25 of evidentiary reference to Yoshidomi et al., US 2014/0225444, Cite No. 1 of US Patent Application Publication in IDS 1/29/2025). As such, the first electrical pole terminal of Falk corresponds to the claimed positive terminal, the second electrical pole terminal of Falk corresponds to the claimed negative terminal, the input terminal associated with the positive is the positive input terminal, and the input terminal associated with the negative is the negative input terminal.
Falk describes the conversion circuit of Falk is for detecting earth (ground) fault while the system is operating and prevent the resulting voltage to ground condition of more than half the output voltage of the string (see summary of Falk), wherein the conversion circuit of Falk including a circuit (or soft grounding device 27 or breaker 33) connecting the intermediate node to the ground (see figs. 2-4) and disconnect the defected array (or substring) when earth (ground) fault is detected (see summary of Falk) – or detecting earth (ground) fault and adjusting the output voltage of the photovoltaic arrays by way of connecting the intermediate node to earth/ground. As such, the conversion circuit (or the circuit between the photovoltaic substrings (3/4) and the inverter (21) of Falk having the configuration as claimed, or being configured to adjust a voltage to earth at the intermediate node to a first preset value (e.g. the voltage to ground less than half the output voltage of the string) when determining that the voltage to earth at the intermediate node is not within a first preset range (or the voltage to ground being more than half the output voltage of the string), so that an absolute value of a voltage to earth of the first group of photovoltaic arrays is less than a first threshold (e.g. half the output voltage of the string), and an absolute value of a voltage to earth of the second group of photovoltaic arrays is less than the first threshold (e.g. half the output voltage of the string); and transfer output voltages of the first group of photovoltaic arrays and the second group of photovoltaic arrays to the DC/AC conversion circuit (21, see figs. 2-4) – or configured to detect earth (ground) fault and adjust the output voltage of the photovoltaic arrays by way of connecting the intermediate node to earth/ground.
Accordingly, Falk discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed photovoltaic power generation system; the reference is deemed to be anticipatory.
Alternatively, Falk teaches the conversion circuit is for detecting earth/ground fault and adjusting the output voltage of the photovoltaic arrays by way of connecting the intermediate node to earth/ground (see summary of Falk). The reference does not explicitly use the exact same word-by-word to describe the function/configuration of the conversion circuit for detecting earth/ground fault and adjusting the output voltage of photovoltaic arrays by way of connecting the intermediate node to earth/ground, e.g. being “configured to adjust a voltage to earth at the intermediate node to a first preset value when determining that the voltage to earth at the intermediate node is not within a first preset range, so that an absolute value of a voltage to earth of the first group of photovoltaic arrays is less than a first threshold, and an absolute value of a voltage to earth of the second group of photovoltaic arrays is less than the first threshold; and transfer output voltages of the first group of photovoltaic arrays and the second group of photovoltaic arrays to the DC/AC conversion circuit” as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized the conversion circuit of Falk having the same configuration as claimed, because both the claimed conversion circuit and the conversion circuit of Falk are directed to detecting earth/ground fault and adjusting the output voltage of the photovoltaic arrays by way of connecting the intermediate node to earth/ground, and the conversion circuit of Falk is between the photovoltaic strings (1 including substrings 3-4) and the inverter (or DC/AC conversion circuit) – or the output of voltages of the photovoltaic arrays must be transferred to the DC/AC conversion circuit through the conversion circuit.
Regarding claim 2, Falk discloses a photovoltaic power generation system as in claim 1 above, and teaches the conversion circuit (or the circuit between photovoltaic strings 1 or substrings 3-4 and the inverter 21) further comprises an adjustable power supply (see soft grounding device 27 with voltage measurement 30 and controller 31, and actuator 12 to activate the switches 6-9 to adjust the power supply to the inverter 21 in figs. 1-4, [0005-0019]), a first terminal of the adjustable power supply is connected to the intermediate node (see figs. 2-4 and more specifically annotated fig. 2 above), and a second terminal is connected to a ground wire (or circuit ground 23); and the adjustable power supply is configured to adjust the voltage to earth at the intermediate node (e.g. via the switch) to the first preset value (e.g. half of the output voltage of the strings) when determining that the voltage to earth at the intermediate node is not within the first preset range (e.g. greater than half of the output voltage of the strings), so that the absolute value of the voltage to earth of the first group of photovoltaic arrays is less than the first threshold (or less than half of the output voltage of the strings), and the absolute value of the voltage to earth of the second group of photovoltaic arrays is less than the first threshold (or less than half of the output voltage of the strings).
Regarding claim 5, Falk discloses a photovoltaic power generation system as in claim 2 above, and teaches the conversion circuit further comprises a potential induced degradation (PID) switch (see switch 6/7 in fig. 1), a first terminal of the PID switch (or terminal of switch 6) is connected to the negative terminal (or the end without the triangular shape) of each first photovoltaic array (3, see fig. 1, and also see figs. 2-4), and a second terminal is connected to the intermediate node (center point 18) and the positive terminal (or the end with the triangular shape) of each second photovoltaic array (4) by way of the switch 7); and the adjustable power supply is further configured to in a preset time period, control the PID switch to be turned off, and adjust a voltage to earth of the positive terminal of each second photovoltaic array to a second preset value, wherein the preset time period is a time period in which the first group of photovoltaic arrays and the second group of photovoltaic arrays do not work (see figs. 1-4, [0025-0029] and also see [0005-0019]).
Regarding claim 6, Falk discloses a photovoltaic power generation system as in claim 2 above, and teaches the adjustable power supply (soft grounding device 27 with voltage measurement 30 and controller 31, and actuator 12 to activate the switches 6-9 to adjust the power supply to the inverter 21) is further configured to receive a control instruction, and adjust the voltage to earth at the intermediate node to the first preset value in response to the control instruction (see figs. 2-4, [0025-0029], also see [0005-0019]).
Regarding claim 7, Falk discloses a photovoltaic power generation system as in claim 1 above, teaches the first preset value must be within the first preset range (or no greater than half of the output voltage of the strings, see summary of Falk and more specifically [0006]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk (US 2011/0031813) or modified Falk as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Howell (US 2016/0043555).
Regarding claim 3, Falk discloses a photovoltaic power generation system having the adjust power supply circuit for adjusting the voltage to earth at the intermediate node as in claim 2 above. Falk teaches the conversion circuit further comprises a circuit (36/37) comprising a first switching circuit (36, fig. 3, [0027]) and being coupled to the first node (on the power line 34) and the second node (on the power line 35, see fig. 3), and the conversion circuit is configured to adjust the voltage to earth (or ground) at the intermediate node to a preset value by using switching system when determining the (output) current of the photovoltaic arrays is not within the a preset value (see summary of Falk).
Falk does not explicitly disclose the switching circuit to be a first residual current detection (RCD) circuit configured to detect a first residual current of the conversion circuit such that the adjustable power supply is further configured to adjust the voltage to earth at the intermediate node to the first preset value when determining that the first residual current is not within a second preset range.
Howell discloses using residual current device (RCD) as a physical switch (see [0085] and [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic power generation system of Falk by using residual current devices (RCD) as the switches (36 of Falk) as taught by Howell, because such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use as switches in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material for switches, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07). In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have configured the first RCD circuit (or devices) of modified Falk to detect a first residual current of the conversion circuit such that the adjustable power supply is further configured to adjust the voltage to earth at the intermediate node to the first preset value when determining that the first residual current is not within a second preset range, because Falk teaches using the switches to detect the earth/ground fault such that the adjustable power supply (or the circuit in addition to the nodes of the conversion circuit) adjusts the voltage to earth (ground) at the intermediate node to the first preset value (or not greater than half of the output voltage of the strings) when determining that the first residual current is not within a second present range (or earth/ground fault is detected).
Regarding claim 4, Falk discloses a photovoltaic power generation system having the adjust power supply circuit for adjusting the voltage to earth at the intermediate node as in claim 2 above. Falk teaches the conversion circuit further comprises a second switching circuit (6 and 8, figs. 1-4) coupled to the first node (or a node on power line/bus 34, see switch 8) and the negative terminal (or the end with no triangular shape) of each first photovoltaic array (or column of solar modules 2 in the substring 3, see switch 6), and a third switching circuit (see switches 7 and 9, figs. 1-4) coupled to the positive terminal (or the end with triangular shape) of each second photovoltaic array (or column of solar modules 2 of substring 4, see switch 7) and the second node (or a node on the power line/bus 35, see switch 9, figs. 1-4).
Falk discloses the conversion circuit using switches to detect current of the first group of photovoltaic arrays (or substring 3) and the second group of photovoltaic arrays (or substring 4) so that the voltage to earth/ground is adjusted when the earth/ground fault is detected (see summary of Falk).
Falk does not explicitly disclose the second switching circuit and the third switching circuit to be a second residual current detection (RCD) circuit and a third residual current detection (RCD) circuit being configured to detect a second residual current of the first group of photovoltaic arrays and a third residual current of the second group of photovoltaic arrays, respectively, such that the adjustable power supply is further configured to adjust the voltage to earth at the intermediate node to the first preset value when determining that the second residual current or the third residual current is not within a third preset range.
Howell discloses using residual current device (RCD) as a physical switch (see [0085] and [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photovoltaic power generation system of Falk by using residual current devices (RCD) for the second switching circuit (8 and 6 of Falk) and the third switching circuit (7 and 9 of Falk) as taught by Howell, because such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use as switches in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material for switches, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07). In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have configured the second RCD circuit (or devices) of modified Falk to detect a second residual current of the first group of photovoltaic array (or substring 3), and the third RCD circuit (or devices) to detect a third residual current of the second group of photovoltaic array (or substring 4), such that the adjustable power supply is further configured to adjust the voltage to earth at the intermediate node to the first preset value when determining that the first residual current is not within a third preset range, because Falk teaches using the switches to measure/detect the (residual) current from each group of photovoltaic arrays (or substring) to determine the earth/ground fault such that the adjustable power supply (or the circuit in addition to the nodes of the conversion circuit) adjusts the voltage to earth (ground) at the intermediate node to the first preset value (or not greater than half of the output voltage of the strings) when determining that each residual current is not within a third present range (or earth/ground fault is detected).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
