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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the primary reference Morita does not disclose that the system auxiliary machine 11 is an AC system because the system auxiliary machine is a load. However, Examiner can find no definition in the specification nor a claim limitation in the independent claim that prohibits the claimed second AC system from reading upon a load. Moreover, Applicant’s arguments have not provided any additional requirements of “an AC system” or a rationale why a load cannot be an AC system. Examiner notes Morita calls the system auxiliary machine a system and that it is AC because of its connection to the AC bus. At least under a broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner maintains the system auxiliary machine of Morita is an AC system.
Applicant states in Morita there in no description or suggestion to compare the magnitude relationship between the capacity of the self-commutated converter and the capacity of the AC system. Examiner disagrees since Morita makes clear the self-commutated converter (Morita 16) powers the bus when the first AC system is disconnected (Morita 19 opened), so it is clear 16 is capable of powering the second AC system 11, since 16 is capable of powering the entire bus with 19 open. Therefore, the capacity of the self-commutated converter (16) is greater than the capacity of the second AC system (11). Applicant further argues that Morita does not disclose or suggest that the converter capacity is greater than the differential capacity in the AC system, which is untrue since the converter capacity is greater the load capacity of the second AC system (11) as explained above. Therefore, even if the installed capacity of the second AC system is zero, the converter capacity is greater than the differential capacity between the installed capacity and load capacity in the second AC system.
Applicant next argues the secondary reference Pabst lacks “the protection signal being transmitted from a protective relay device to protect the first AC system”. Examiner disagrees as Pabst illustrates in Figure 1 the protective relay 40 transmits the protection signal to the disconnect switch 16 to protect the first AC system 12. Examiner points out the protection signal is from 40 to 16, and the controller 50 includes a determination unit to determine whether the first AC system is disconnected, the determination based on the protection signal from the relay communicating to the controller over line 54 the change in the connection. Examiner considers the transmission from the relay to the controller that 12 is to be disconnected satisfys the claimed determination of whether the first AC system is disconnected. Examiner also notes the state of the connection or disconnection is also communicated to the other relays, which also teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to communicate whether the fist AC system is disconnected to other devices so they may take the appropriate protective and control actions. Applicant argues the relay 44 detects that the switch 16 is opened by communication with relay 40, so it is the relays 40 and 42, not the supervisory controller 50, that determine whether the AC system is disconnected from the bus. Examiner respectfully disagrees that the relays detecting the disconnection undermines the teaching and believes that the teaching that the other relays determine the first AC system is disconnected provides additional teaching that it would have been obvious for additional devices to determine the disconnection in order to provide the proper response, control and protection. While the disclosure of the secondary reference focuses on the relays responding to the disconnection, Examiner believes the supervisory controller is informed of the disconnection, monitors the state of the connection and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a controller determine whether the first AC system is disconnected. The rejections have been maintained below.
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) 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (JP 2010-93878) in view of Pabst (US 2019/0237283).
With respect to claim 1, Morita discloses a power conversion device that performs power conversion between an AC circuit and a DC circuit, the power conversion device (Fig. 1 16) comprising: a self-commutated converter (“IGBT in the inverter 16”) connected to a busbar (Fig. 1 8; “output bus bar 8”) of the AC circuit; and a controller (Fig. 1 controller of 16 not shown) to control an operation of the self-commutated converter, wherein the AC circuit includes the busbar, and a first AC system (Fig. 1 10) and a second AC system (Fig. 1 11) connected to the busbar, a converter capacity of the self-commutated converter is greater than a differential capacity between an installed capacity and a load capacity in the second AC system (Fig. 1 16 powers 11 when 19 disconnects 10), a protective relay device (Fig. 1 19) to protect the first AC system (Fig. 1 10), and an AC control unit to generate an AC voltage command value for the self-commutated converter in accordance with any one of an AC current control scheme (“current control”) and an AC voltage control scheme (“voltage control”), and when the first AC system is disconnected (Fig. 1 19 opened) from the busbar, the AC control unit switches a control scheme of the self-commutated converter from the AC current control scheme to the AC voltage control scheme and generates the AC voltage command value in accordance with the AC voltage control scheme (“switched from current control to voltage control”). Morita does not disclose a protection signal being transmitted from the protective relay device to the controller.
Pabst discloses the controller (Fig. 1 50) includes a determination unit to determine, based on a protection signal (Fig. 1 54) for disconnecting (Fig. 1 16) the first AC system (Fig. 1 12) from the busbar (Fig. 1 20), whether the first AC system is disconnected (paragraph 22, “the relay 40 will send a signal to the supervisory controller 50 indicating that it will be opening the switch 16. In response to this signal, the supervisory controller 50 commands the relay 42 to change from the grid-connected settings group to the islanded settings group prior to the switch 16 being opened.”) from the busbar, the protection signal being transmitted from a protective relay device (Fig. 1 40) to protect the first AC system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement wherein the controller includes a determination unit to determine, based on a protection signal for disconnecting the first AC system from the busbar, whether the first AC system is disconnected from the busbar, the protection signal being transmitted from a protective relay device to protect the first AC system, in order to provide sufficient advance notice to the controller that the connection to the first AC system will be changed, so that the controller can have sufficient time to change the configuration for the new mode of operation.
With respect to claim 11, Morita in view of Pabst make obvious a power conversion system as set forth above. See claim 1 for additional details.
Claim(s) 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (JP 2010-93878) in view of Pabst (US 2019/0237283) and further in view of Colby (US 2005/0135031).
With respect to claim 3, Morita in view of Pabst make obvious the power conversion device according to claim 1 as set forth above, and Morita remains silent as to the details of the controller.
Colby discloses a controller (Fig. 1A 14) wherein the AC control unit includes an AC current control unit (Fig. 2A 30,42,44,48) to generate a first AC voltage command value (Fig. 2A VREF (GRID MODE)) for causing an output current (Fig. 2A IOUT) of the self-commutated converter to follow an AC current command value (Fig. 2A IREF), an AC voltage control unit (Fig. 8 18) to generate a second AC voltage command value (Fig. 8 VREF (SYNC AND STAND ALONE MODES) such that an AC voltage (Fig. 1A VOUT) of the busbar (Fig. 1A 28) is equal to a target voltage (Fig. 2A ), and a command value generation unit (Fig. 2A 51) to generate the AC voltage command value (Fig. 2A 51 output to 50) for the self-commutated converter based on a determination result (Fig. 2A CNTL) of the determination unit, the first AC voltage command value (Fig. 2A VREF (GRID MODE)), and the second AC voltage command value (Fig. 2A VREF (SYNC AND STAND ALONE MODES)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement wherein the AC control unit includes an AC current control unit to generate a first AC voltage command value for causing an output current of the self-commutated converter to follow an AC current command value, an AC voltage control unit to generate a second AC voltage command value such that an AC voltage of the busbar is equal to a target voltage, and a command value generation unit to generate the AC voltage command value for the self-commutated converter based on a determination result of the determination unit, the first AC voltage command value, and the second AC voltage command value, in order to generate the needed voltage control and current control commands and to switch between the two control modes.
With respect to claim 4, Morita in view of Pabst and Colby make obvious the power conversion device according to claim 3, wherein the command value generation unit generates the first AC voltage command value as the AC voltage command value when the first AC system is not disconnected from the busbar (in combination, when Morita Fig. 1 19 is closed and operates in current control), and generates the second AC voltage command value as the AC voltage command value when the first AC system is disconnected from the busbar (in combination, when Morita Fig. 1 19 is opened and operates in voltage control).
With respect to claim 5, Morita in view of Pabst and Colby make obvious the power conversion device according to claim 3, wherein the command value generation unit generates the first AC voltage command value as the AC voltage command value when the first AC system is not disconnected from the busbar (in combination, when Morita Fig. 1 19 is closed and operates in current control), and changes (in combination, Colby Fig. 2A 51 changes VREF from GRID MODE to STAND ALONE MODE) the AC voltage command value from the first AC voltage command value to the second AC voltage command value when the first AC system is disconnected from the busbar (in combination, when Morita Fig. 1 19 is opened and operates in voltage control).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (JP 2010-93878) in view of Pabst (US 2019/0237283) and further in view of Takahashi (US 2020/0177097).
With respect to claim 10, Morita in view of Pabst make obvious the power conversion device according to a claim 1 as set forth above, and Morita does not disclose using an MMC converter. The use of MMC converters were well known at the time of filing of the invention.
Takahashi discloses use of a self-commutated converter of a modular-multilevel-conversion power converter (Fig. 1 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement wherein the self-commutated converter is a modular-multilevel-conversion power converter, in order to provide high power conversion with internal redundancy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6-9 and 12-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. See the action dated 1/16/2026 for the reasons for indicating allowable subject matter.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of the respective claims are believed to render the aforementioned indicated claim and any dependent claims thereof patentable over the art of record.
Conclusion
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 HARRY RAYMOND BEHM whose telephone number is (571)272-8929. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 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 at 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 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.
/HARRY R BEHM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights