DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 05/02/2024.
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 .
Drawings
Figures 1a-b, 3-5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 last line has two(2) end periods. Claim 8 line 3 “prescribed current signal” should be change to “AC current signal”. Appropriate correction 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 1-13 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.
Claims 1 and 7 recite “an output port thereof to an input port” and “an output port thereof to an AC Electrical power system at an input port thereof”. It is not clear to which element is the applicant referring to when using the word “thereof”, is the applicant referring to the controller, the MMC or the power system. For purposes of examination the limitations are going to be interpreted as any of the above. Same issue occurs with the word therewith.
Claims 2 and 4 recites “thereto” it is not clear to what elements is the applicant referring to when mentioning “thereto”. For purposes of examination the limitations are going to be interpreted as any of the elements of the claims.
Claim 5 recites a second sentence apart from the claim language of claim 5. It is not clear if this statement should be taken is part of the claim language or not. For purposes of examination the limitations will not be considered.
Claims 3, 6 and 8-13 are also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent on a rejected claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Slepchenkov US 20230396186.
Regarding Claim 1, Slepchenkov teaches (Figures 1 and 3-5) a method for controlling a modular multilevel voltage sourced converter (Fig. 1a) to form an outputted alternating current (AC) current signal of prescribed form (AC output), wherein the MMC is electrically connected at an output port thereof to an input port of an AC electrical power system (at 106, par. 10) to facilitate exchange between the MMC and the AC electrical power system of electrical power derived from the outputted AC current signal, the method comprising: providing a reference current signal (iref) to which the outputted AC current signal is to conform (sent to 102, par. 72); forming, at the output port of the MMC, based on the reference current signal, a voltage signal configured to form the outputted AC current signal (output voltage sent to the load); measuring the outputted AC current signal at sampling instances separated by uniform time intervals (with CT each switching cycle); at each one of the sampling instances, comparing a value of the outputted AC current signal to a prescribed range whose upper and lower limits straddle a value of the reference current signal (See Fig. 4b, Iref and Iref with its boundaries); for each one of the sampling instances for which it is found that the value of the outputted current signal lies within the prescribed range, maintaining the voltage signal from a respectively preceding one of the time intervals (See Table 3 when the system stays in one of the boundaries); for each one of the sampling instances for which it is found that the outputted AC current signal is below the lower limit of the prescribed range (See point A), increasing a current/time slope of the reference current signal and modifying the voltage signal in accordance therewith (see figures 4a-b after point A and figure 4C after point A); for each one of the sampling instances for which it is found that the outputted AC current signal exceeds the upper limit of the prescribed range (see point E), decreasing the current/time slope of the reference current signal and modifying the voltage signal in accordance therewith (See Figures 4a-b at point E and Figure 4c). (For Example: Par. 71-81)
Regarding Claim 2, Slepchenkov teaches (Figures 1 and 3-5) wherein said increasing and said decreasing of the current/time slope of the reference current signal (Iref and Ireal, as shown in Figures 4a-b) respectively comprise addition and subtraction of a constant slope deviation value (with ΔI and table 308, par. 72) thereto. (For Example: Par. 71-81)
Regarding Claim 3, Slepchenkov teaches (Figures 1 and 3-5) wherein the constant slope deviation value (par. 72) is a positive non-zero (ΔI in the positive side) value not exceeding twice ( ΔI is half the full boundary) a threshold value (full boundary) of the prescribed range divided by the time interval (1),( which as shown in Figure 4b is smaller than twice the reference value in a switching period, par. 72 and 76). (For Example: Par. 71-81)
Regarding Claim 4, Slepchenkov teaches (Figures 1 and 3-5) wherein said increasing and said decreasing of the current/time slope of the reference current signal respectively comprise addition and subtraction of a variable slope deviation value (multiple of ΔI) (When moving from ΔI positive to ΔI negative, see points D to E and points E to F moving only one space) thereto. (For Example: Par. 71-81)
Regarding Claim 5, Slepchenkov teaches (Figures 1 and 3-5) wherein the variable slope deviation value (multiple of ΔI) is proportional to a magnitude of an error between the outputted AC current signal and the reference current signal at the sampling instance (fig. 3, at 301). (For Example: Par. 71-81)
Regarding Claim 7, Slepchenkov teaches (Figures 1 and 3-5) a hysteresis current controller (101) for a modular multilevel voltage sourced converter (see fig. 1a) that is electrically connected at an output port thereof to an AC electrical power system (106, par. 10) at an input port thereof to facilitate exchange between the MMC and the AC electrical power system of power derived from an outputted AC current signal (Output current sent to load), said hysteresis current controller being configured to: measure the outputted AC current signal at sampling instances separated by uniform time intervals (using Ct at each switching cycle); at each one of the sampling instances, compare a value of the outputted AC current signal against a prescribed range whose upper and lower limits straddle a reference current signal to which the outputted AC current signal is to be conformed (See fig. 4b, with Ireal and Iref+boundaries); and for each of said sampling instances for which it is found that the value of the outputted AC current signal is outside the prescribed range (See fig. 4b, e.g. point E), either increase or decrease a current/time slope of the reference current signal (see behavior of current signal at 4a and 4b) according to whether the value of the outputted AC current signal falls below or above the prescribed range (the system can increase or decrease the slope value of the current signal above or below at point E, see fig. 4a-b), respectively. (For Example: Par. 71-81)
Regarding Claim 8, Slepchenkov teaches (Figures 1 and 3-5) wherein the controller (101) is configured to: for said each of said sampling instances for which it is found that the value of the prescribed current signal is outside the prescribed range (Ireal outside of the boundary), add or subtract a slope deviation value ( ΔI) to or from the reference current signal according to whether the value of the outputted AC current signal falls below or above the prescribed range (with 308 operation, see fig. 3 and 4a), respectively, thereby deriving a modified reference current (new Iref with the new boundary); using said modified reference current, calculate a modified reference voltage (See Fig. 4c the output voltage changes) to be imparted at the output port of the MMC to control the outputted AC current signal. (For Example: Par. 71-81)
Regarding Claim 9, Slepchenkov teaches (Figures 1 and 3-5)wherein said slope deviation value (ΔI) is a constant slope deviation value (par. 72, a preset value) applied uniformly among different sampling instances regardless of a magnitude of error between the outputted AC current signal and the reference current signal (Error at 301) at said different sampling instances (Examiner’s Note: The amount of ΔI is not change the multiple of ΔI is what changes and is applied to the current signal). (For Example: Par. 71-81)
Regarding Claim 10, Slepchenkov teaches (Figures 1 and 3-5) wherein the constant slope deviation value ( ΔI) is a positive non-zero value (positive ΔI) not exceeding ( ΔI is half the boundary) twice a threshold value (complete boundary) of the prescribed range divided by the time interval (1, see fig. 4a-b). (For Example: Par. 71-81)
Regarding Claim 11, Slepchenkov teaches (Figures 1 and 3-5) wherein the slope deviation value ( ΔI) is a variable slope deviation value (multiple of ΔI) uniquely calculated for each of said sampling instances (different point of operation in Fig. 4) for which it is found that the value of the outputted AC current signal is outside the prescribed range (e.g. point E which would be LB5, see fig. 4a). (For Example: Par. 71-81)
Regarding Claim 12, Slepchenkov teaches (Figures 1 and 3-5)wherein the variable slope deviation value (multiples of ΔI) is proportional to a magnitude of an error between the outputted AC current signal and the reference current signal at the sampling instance (with 301, see fig. 3). (For Example: Par. 71-81)
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) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slepchenkov in view of Rong CN 105356778.
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, Slepchenkov teaches (Figures 1 and 3-5) the method.
Slepchenkov does not teach wherein the slope deviation value is equal to a difference calculated by subtracting a threshold value of the prescribed range from an absolute value of said error, a result of which is then divided by the time interval.
Rong teaches (Figures 1-2) wherein the slope deviation value (right side of equation of Upref) is equal to a difference calculated by subtracting a threshold value of the prescribed range from an absolute value of said error (Ipref-IP), a result of which is then divided by the time interval (Ipref-Ip/T). (See fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the circuit of Slepchenkov to include wherein the slope deviation value is equal to a difference calculated by subtracting a threshold value of the prescribed range from an absolute value of said error, a result of which is then divided by the time interval, as taught by Rong to reduce the operation complexity and accelerates response speed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUSTAVO A ROSARIO-BENITEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7888. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
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, MONICA LEWIS can be reached at 5712721838. 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.
/GUSTAVO A ROSARIO-BENITEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838