DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 16 November 2023.
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 .
Response to Arguments
The specification objections are withdrawn.
The claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicants remarks on the merits have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that, in particular the average value is not taught. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fujiwara discloses that 730 is a low passfilter, and that “In this case, filter 730 can be formed with a lowpass filter such as first-order lag filter or a filter that calculates a moving average or an integral mean value” in ¶170. Both a mean value filter and an average is explicitly declared in the text of Fujiwara. Though applicant might have meant something more specific, the courts have repeatedly told the office not to read limitations from the specifications into the claims (MPEP 2111.01, 2173.01). There also appears to be a mean value calculator taught in Figure 11 as well. Though applicant argues that it appears to be taught in a different order, the courts have made clear that rearrangement of parts is generally not enough to overcome obviousness (MPEP 2144.04 (VI) C), especially given that moving averages and integrals are linear time invariant systems. Though applicant’s invention is different, there are unfortunately too many sections of the MPEP that prevent the office from issuing an allowance at this time. As such, the remarks on the merits are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC 103 is sustained.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority based on a WIPO application filed in Japan on 10 June 2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
For method claims, note that under MPEP 2112.02, the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated. (The claims have been condensed.)
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (JP6768993) in view of Tang (US 20140003101).
Examiner Note: US 20220393616 is being used as a translation of the Japanese document.
As to claim 1, Fujiwara discloses a power conversion device connected to an AC power grid, comprising: a power conversion unit including at least one arm having a plurality of converter cells connected to each other in cascade; and a converter control unit to control the power conversion unit, each of the converter cells (See Fig. 2 showing half and full bridge cells) including a pair of input/output terminals, a plurality of switching elements, and a power storage element electrically connected to the input/output terminals through the switching elements, the converter control unit including a voltage command value computing unit (601) to compute an output voltage command value for each of the at least one arm, and a gate signal generating (503) unit to generate an on/off control signal of each of the switching elements of each of the converter cells of each the arm in accordance with the output voltage command value, wherein the voltage command value computing unit generates the output voltage command value with compensation for an AC oscillation component (¶173), extracted for each arm, of
PNG
media_image1.png
468
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Though the low pass filter (730) and circulating current control (604/605) heavily implies a predetermined frequency, this is not explicitly taught by Fujiwara.
Tang teaches a predetermined frequency of stored energy of the power storage elements of the converter cells included in the arm (Tang, claim 1 “controlling the double frequency harmonic component”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use double harmonic frequency control as disclosed in Tang to improve dynamic stability.
As to claim 5, Fujiwara in view of Tang teaches wherein the power conversion device is connected in parallel with the AC power grid (See image ablve), the power conversion unit has three phase arms in delta connection (¶205 “delta”), and connection ends of the three phase arms are respectively connected to three phases of the AC power grid through a rector component (13).
As to claim 10, Fujiwara in view of Tang teaches wherein the power conversion device is connected between DC lines on a positive electrode side and a negative electrode side and the AC power grid, and for each of three phases of the AC power grid, the power conversion unit includes the arms connected between an AC end connected to the AC power grid through a reactor component and the DC line on the positive electrode side and between the AC end and the DC line on the negative electrode side (see image above as well as ¶205).
As to claim 15, Fujiwara in view of Tang teaches wherein the predetermined frequency includes a frequency of an integer multiple of a grid frequency of the AC power grid (Tang, double frequency).
Claims 6-7, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (JP6768993) in view of Tang (US 20140003101) and Lyu (US 20170054294).
As to claim 6, Fujiwara in view of Tang teaches wherein the converter control unit further includes an output current control unit to generate a first voltage command value for each phase for controlling an output current of the power conversion device in accordance with a command value, a circulating current control unit to generate a second voltage command value for controlling circulating current that circulates in the power conversion device to pass through the arms of the three phases, such that voltages of the power storage elements of all the converter cells in the power conversion unit are balanced,
Though they teach much of the claimed invention they do not explicitly teach and a modulation index correcting unit to extract the AC oscillation component for each arm and generate a modulation index correction signal having a frequency component in accordance with the AC oscillation component, and the modulation index correction signal.
Lyu teaches a modulation index correcting unit to extract the AC oscillation component for each arm and generate a modulation index correction signal having a frequency component in accordance with the AC oscillation component, and the modulation index correction signal (abstract “The differential control loop is configured to generate a differential control signal based on a target modulation index to reduce fundamental components of voltage ripple on the capacitors, and the common mode control loop is configured to inject 2nd order harmonic current into a common mode control signal to reduce 2nd order harmonic components of the voltage ripple on the capacitors.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use modulation index as disclosed in Lyu to provide a further degree of control.
As to claim 7, Fujiwara in view of Tang and Lyu teaches wherein the AC oscillation component of stored energy of the power storage elements is extracted from temporal change for each arm in arm power estimate value in accordance with multiplication of an estimate value of arm voltage applied to the converter cells included in the arm and a command value of arm current passing through the arm (Fujiwara, ¶101).
As to claim 11, Fujiwara in view of Tang teaches wherein the converter control unit further includes an output current control unit to generate a first voltage command value for each phase for controlling an output current of the power conversion device in accordance with a command value,a circulating current control unit to generate a second voltage command value for each phase for controlling circulating current of each phase that circulates in the power conversion device to pass through the arms on the positive electrode side and the negative electrode side in each of the phases, such that voltages of the power storage elements of the converter cells in the phase are balanced in each of the phases,a voltage balance control unit to generate a third voltage command value for each phase for balancing voltages of the power storage elements between the converter cells in the arm on the positive electrode side and the converter cells in the arm on the negative electrode side in each of the phases,
Fujiwara in view of Tang does not disclose and a modulation index correcting unit to extract the AC oscillation component for each arm and generate a modulation index correction signal having a frequency component in accordance with the AC oscillation component, and the modulation index correction signal.
Lyu teaches a modulation index correcting unit to extract the AC oscillation component for each arm and generate a modulation index correction signal having a frequency component in accordance with the AC oscillation component, and the modulation index correction signal (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use modulation index as disclosed in Lyu to provide a further degree of control.
As to claim 12, Fujiwara in view of Tang and Lyu teaches wherein the AC oscillation component of stored energy of the power storage elements is extracted from temporal change for each arm in arm power estimate value in accordance with multiplication of an estimate of arm voltage applied to the converter cells included in the arm and a command value of arm current set for each phase corresponding to the arm (Fujiwara, ¶101).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 13, 14 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 8, the prior art fails to disclose: “wherein the circulating current control unit calculates a command value of the circulating current for balancing voltages of the storage elements of all the converter cells in the power conversion unit and computes the second voltage command value to control the circulating current in accordance with the command value, and the command value of the circulating current is increased in a first state in which a command value of the output current of the power conversion device is smaller than a first preset value and an imbalance amount in voltage of the power storage elements of the converter cells of all the three phases is greater than a second preset value, compared to a second state that is not the first state.” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
As to claim 13, the prior art fails to disclose " the circulating current control unit calculates a command value of the circulating current for each phase and computes the second voltage command value for each phase to control the circulating current in accordance with the command value, andthe command value of the circulating current for each phase is increased in a first state in which a command value of the output current of the power conversion device is smaller than a first preset value and an imbalance amount in voltage of the power storage elements of the converter cells in the phase is greater than a second preset value, compared to a second state that is not the first state.” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
Please note: while objected or allowed claims have been indicated, only the presented claims have been examined for compliance with form and 35 USC 112 consideration. As a reminder, claims that are dependent upon objected claims still require examination for form and 35 USC 112 issues even if they overcome 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections. Similarly, amendments incorporating allowable subject matter into independent claims requires reconsideration for dependent claim form and any possible 35 USC 112 issues that arise through amendments even if the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are overcome. As such, applicant is advised that while examiner can enter previously allowed claims or previously objected claims rewritten into independent form after final rejection, any other claims may not be entered.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular column, paragraph, and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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 PETER M NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1375. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM,Monday through Thursday, EST.
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, Sean Kayes can be reached on 571-272-8931. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER M NOVAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2839