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 Amendment
The amendment filed January 2nd, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The 112(b) rejections of Claims 1-12 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections based over Hadar et al. are maintained.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-6, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadar et al. (US 2011/0025130 A1) in view of Makhota et al. (US 2011/0245989 A1).
In view of Claim 1, as best understood by the Examiner, Hadar et al. teaches a system (Fig. 3) comprising:
a plurality of photovoltaic modules (Fig. 3, #301);
a device configured to receive an electrical power input and provide an electrical power output (Fig. 3, power grid, battery, etc. or in the alternative LMU 102(n));
a DC power line (Fig. 3, String Bus);
a first communication line, wherein the first communication line is separate from the DC power line (See Annotated Hadar et al. Fig. 3, below);
a second communication line, wherein the second communication line is separate from the DC power line and separate from the first communication line (See Annotated Hadar et al. Fig. 3, below);
a plurality of local management units (Fig. 3, LMU);
a controller configured to generate a signal to be transmitted to a local management unit connected to at least one of the plurality of photovoltaic modules (Fig. 3, LMU 102(n) may comprise a controller and may communicate with any of the other plurality of local management units that are connected to their respective PV modules – Paragraph 0045-0046);
a first local management unit of the plurality of local management units configured to receive a communication signal from the controller (Fig. 3, LMU 302(3)), via the first communication line (See Annotated Hadar et al. Fig. 3, below & Paragraph 0045 – LMU’s can communicate with each other via wired connection); wherein the first local management unit is configured to output a first message to at least one other local management unit of the plurality of local management units (Paragraph 0045);
a second of the plurality of local management units configured to receive the communication signal from the first of the plurality of local management units (Fig. 3, LMU 302(2) – Paragraph 0045 – LMU’s can communicate with each other via wired connection), wherein the communication signal is received from the first of the plurality of local management units via the second communication line (See Annotated Hadar et al. Fig. 3, below), wherein the second local management unit of the plurality of local management units is configured to output a second message to a next local management unit (Fig. 3, LMU 302(1)), wherein the second message is output via a third communication line separate from the first communication line and separate from the second communication line (See Annotated Hadar et al. Fig. 3, below);
In regards to the limitation, “wherein when the second of the plurality of local management units is in a same string as the first of the plurality of local management units, the second message is the same as the first message”, Hadar et al. discloses that the controller (Fig. 3, LMU 102(n)) may communicate with each other via wired connection (Paragraph 0045), thus LMU(n) mapped to “a controller” can communicate a message via wired connection to LMU 302(3) mapped to “a first local management unit” which can then communicate a message via wired connection to LMU 302(2), mapped to “a second local management unit” wherein these communications may involve “comparing voltages to voltage thresholds” or even “monitor voltages”, thus the transmittal of data from LMU 102(n) (“a controller”) to LMU 302(3) (“a first local management unit”) constitutes a “first message”, wherein if the data continues via wired connection than the subsequent LMU is essentially “passing” on the first message, thus the first and second messages can be the same. Any comparison of voltages or sharing of the same monitored voltages between multiple LMU’s would result in “the second message is the same as the first message” as long as message is relayed via wired connection.
Annotated Hadar et al. Fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
437
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hadar et al. does not disclose that the controller is configured to identify a location of the first local management unit and the other connected local management units.
Makhota et al. teaches a controller can be configured to identify a location of all the local management units in a solar photovoltaic power generation system (Paragraph 0021 & 0054). Makhota et al. teaches that this configuration can enhanced the performance of a photovoltaic system (Paragraph 0004). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the controller of Hadar et al. configured to identify a location of the first local management unit and other connected local management units for the advantage of enhancing the performance of the photovoltaic system.
In view of Claim 2, Hadar et al. and Makhota et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hadar et al. teaches that the second local management unit (Fig. 3, LMU 302(2)) is configured to output a third message to the first local management unit (Fig. 3, LMU 302(3)) via the second communication line (See Annotated Hadar et al. Fig. 3 above - Paragraph 0045 – LMU’s can communicate with each other via wired connection).
In view of Claim 3, as best understood by the Examiner, Hadar et al. and Makhota et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hadar et al. teaches that the communication between the first local management unit and the other local management units can be made via wired, thus being node to node (See Annotated Hadar et al. Fig. 3 above - Paragraph 0045 – LMU’s can communicate with each other via wired connection).
In view of Claim 4, Hadar et al. and Makhota et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hadar et al. teaches that the controller is part a local management unit (See Annotated Hadar et al. Figure 3, above).
In view of Claim 5, Hadar et al. and Makhota et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hadar et al. teaches one or more of the first local management unit or the other local management units are configured to wirelessly communicate with the controller (Paragraph 0046 – they can communicate via wirelessly in addition to wired).
In view of Claim 6, Hadar et al. and Makhota et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Makhota et al. teaches that a first signal strength of a first local management unit and a second signal strength of a second local management unit can be used to determine the location of the respective local management unit (Paragraph 0058).
In view of Claim 9, Hadar et al. and Makhota et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hadar et al. teaches that the controller can be part of the device (Fig. 3, LMU 102(n) may comprise a controller – Paragraph 0045-0046).
In view of Claim 10, Hadar et al. and Makhota et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hadar et al. teaches that communications between components may be wireless, thus the device must comprise a transmitter in the sense that communication must be transmitted (Paragraph 0049).
In view of Claim 11, Hadar et al. and Makhota et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hadar et al. teaches that a disturbance unit configured to generate an electrical disturbance on the DC power line (Paragraph 0051-0052).
In view of Claim 12, Hadar et al. and Makhota et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Makhota et al.t eaches the location of the first local management unit or the second local management unit is can be at least partially determined using the electrical disturbance on the DC power line (Paragraph 0066-0067).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadar et al. (US 2011/0025130 A1) in view of Makhota et al. (US 2011/0245989 A1) in view of Garg “Ordered Lists in HTML: Syntax, Structure, Types, & More”.
In view of Claim 7, Hadar et al. and Makhota et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Makhota et al. teaches that the controller is configured to order the first signal strength and the second signal strength from highest signal strength to lowest signal strength to generate an ordered signal strength list (Paragraph 0075 – lists created & Paragraph 0076 – LMUs may be selected base on having particularly high or low power production). In further regards to the list being ordered from highest signal strength to lowest signal strength, Garg discloses that an ordered list allows for us to organize information into an orderly list, beginning from one item and increasing with each successive one, wherein ordered lists have many uses when it comes to organizing information with a particular focus or hierarchy in mind (Page 1, What is an Ordered List in HTML?). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the list of Makhota et al. be “ordered” from highest signal strength to lowest signal strength as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that its advantageous to organize information into an orderly fashion.
In view of Claim 8, Hadar et al., Makhota et al., and Garg are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 7. Makhota et al. discloses that the controller is configured to store the list in memory (Paragraph 0075) and the signal strength lists represents a relative location of the first local management unit and the second local management unit (Paragraph 0058 & 0076). Garg was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious for the list to be ordered by signal strength.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Hadar does not disclose the second of the plurality of local management units is in a same string as the first of the plurality of local management units and the second message is the same as the first message. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that Hadar et al. discloses that the controller (Fig. 3, LMU 102(n)) may communicate with each other via wired connection (Paragraph 0045), thus LMU(n) mapped to “a controller” can communicate a message via wired connection to LMU 302(3) mapped to “a first local management unit” which can then communicate a message via wired connection to LMU 302(2), mapped to “a second local management unit” wherein these communications may involve “comparing voltages to voltage thresholds” or even “monitor voltages”, thus the transmittal of data from LMU 102(n) (“a controller”) to LMU 302(3) (“a first local management unit”) constitutes a “first message”, wherein if the data continues via wired connection than the subsequent LMU is essentially “passing” on the first message, thus the first and second messages can be the same. Any comparison of voltages or sharing of the same monitored voltages between multiple LMU’s would result in “the second message is the same as the first message” as long as message is relayed via wired connection. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726