DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 12 March 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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to for the following informalities:
The PCT/WIPO application appears to have the oldest date on record, so a statement in the background section stating the WIPO application’s filing date and publication date (if available) should be included in the background. While only the oldest filing date is required, it is also ordinary and customary to include all related patent applications filing date and publication dates (if available).
The title is not descriptive. Examiner suggests Method for Precharging of a Modular Multilevel Converter.
The 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority based on a PCT application filed in the European Union on 13 Sept 2021.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
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 to claim 1, applicant claims a large amount of physical structure before the preamble ends, “the method including”. Typically, terms in the preamble are not given patentable weight but applicant has described physical structure and process steps. However, the application appears to deal with precharging and is referenced extensively in the claims. The preamble describes steady state operation, which one of ordinary skill would consider odd because there is no need to pre-charge during normal operation. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claimed “normal operation phase” occurs after the precharging claimed. Applicant is cordially reminded that method claims are typically claimed in sequence. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that method claim 1 correlates to apparatus claim
Claims 2-7 depend directly or indirectly from a rejected claim and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) , or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph for the reasons set above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Turner (EP 2988404) in view of Song (US 20150333654).
As to claim 8, Turner discloses A modular multilevel converter, MMC, arrangement, including: an MMC having at least one converter valve including a plurality of converter cells connected in series (Fig. 7), each converter cell including a capacitor (¶2, half/full bridge cell with capacitor) and switching means (¶2 “power semiconductor switches’) for at least either bypassing or inserting said capacitor into a current path through the converter valve, and a valve control unit (¶2 “An MMC controller with a processor and corresponding software, or an FPGA, is responsible for controlling the converter cells and operating the power semiconductor switches by means of a pulse width modulation scheme.”) configured to at least, during a normal operation phase when the MMC is connected to an electric grid via a normal, first current flow path (Fig. 7, utility mains through switch, through transformer, to MMC cells to DC load) , modulate the plurality of converter cells (see ¶2 above) by controlling the switching means to synthesize a voltage waveform
Though he teaches much of the claimed invention, Roberts does not explicitly teach to synthesize a voltage waveform at least approximating a voltage reference or set the voltage reference to a finite voltage lower than a peak voltage magnitude of the power source. However, this is obvious. The reference voltage can only be higher than, smaller than, or equal to the peak magnitude. Higher levels would account for internal parasitics, but lower levels would have smaller transients. The advantages of each are known and is therefore obvious to try. it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Though feedback and closed loop control is heavily implied in the steady state, it is not explicitly mentioned.
Song teaches synthesize a voltage waveform at least approximating a voltage reference (claim 4).
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 feedback as disclosed in Song to increase steady-state stability.
As to claim 9, Turner in view of Song makes obvious wherein the magnitude of the finite voltage of the voltage reference is approximately 80% of the peak voltage magnitude of the power source or less. Though they do teach sinewaves since they are powering a motor, they do not explicitly teach the value of the sine wave. However, it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 10, Turner in view of Song makes obvious wherein the voltage reference is a sine wave, and wherein the finite voltage is a peak voltage magnitude of said sine wave (this is similar to claim 9 above).
As to claim 11, Turner in view of Song teaches wherein the power source is the electric grid and/or an auxiliary power generator (they show a 3-phase grid).
As to claim 12, Turner in view of Song teaches wherein the second current flow path includes a current limiting resistor (Fig. 1 shows a resistor in parallel with the DC switch).
As to claim 13, Turner in view of Song teaches wherein the second current flow path includes a disconnector, switch or breaker (they show disconnect switches).
As to claim 14, Turner in view of Song teaches wherein the control means are further configured to block the converter valve before the boosting of the capacitors (¶13 “According to the invention, pre-charging of a Modular Multilevel power Converter (MMC) includes a first stage of passive pre-charging through a charging unit”).
As to claim 15, Turner in view of Song teaches A converter station, including at least one modular multilevel converter, MMC, arrangement according to claim 8.
As to claims 1-7, these are method claims that appear to correspond to appoaratus claims 8-15 and are obvious per MPEP 2112.02.
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.
Please note: if 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.
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, Thienvu Tran can be reached on 571-270-1276. 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
Prosecution Insights