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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on or before 2024-05-21 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The term “signal ground” found in at least claim 14 lines 3-4 (as well as several dependent claims) has no antecedent basis in the descriptive part of the specification. “Signal ground” is only found in the claims and in the abstract. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the “signal ground” in the claims to be the “signal protective earthing” mentioned in the descriptive portion of the specification.
Examiners Note
The phrases “equivalent circuit”, and “equivalent resistor” are found throughout the claims and specification. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner will interpret these phrases to mean a set of components that form a circuit where the circuit is a hypothetical circuit that would meet the requirement of the claim. Therefore, the phrases “equivalent circuit” and “equivalent” resistor” themselves do not provide structure on their own and will be examined as though they are models of circuits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15 and 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 15, the term “practical circuit” in line 6 is not disclosed in the specification as to what this circuit is or the manner in which it operates and the word practical is not defined in the specification. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore not recognize that applicant had possession of the claimed feature before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 22, no description is given in the specification for “processing unit, comprising a calculating unit” as mentioned in line 5. The specification does show the processing unit as containing a calculating unit and a determining unit but there is no mention on what is required to make such a processing unit and how it would connect in the circuit. The specification does mention that the processing unit is a part of a larger apparatus (100) but is silent on how it would be incorporated into such an apparatus. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine that applicant had possession of the claimed feature before the effective filing date.
Regarding Claims 23-28, These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 15-28 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.
Regarding Claim 15, the term “practical circuit” in line 6 is not defined within the claim. It is unclear when and if a circuit would be considered to read on a practical circuit. There is insufficient detail in the specification and claim to determine the metes and bounds of what defines said circuit. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this phrase such that any inverter circuit will read on the claim.
Additionally, regarding Claim 15, the term “a equivalent resistor between each terminal of the photovoltaic inverter and the signal ground” in lines 11-12 is indefinite as it is unclear if this is the same resistor as established in claim 14, or if this is a newly established resistor. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this limitation to read -- the equivalent resistor between each terminal of the photovoltaic inverter and the signal ground. –
Additionally, regarding Claim 15, this claim recites “establishing an equivalent circuit of insulation impedance…” in line 3. This renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how a circuit is to be established in claim 15, but parameters of the circuit are obtained/read in the method steps of claim 14. It is unclear if this is an entirely new circuit, independent of what is being measured in claim 14, or if this is still part of the same circuit. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this to read – wherein the photovoltaic inverter further comprises an equivalent circuit of insulation impedance… --.
Regarding Claim 17, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first branch” in line 3 AND “the second branch” in line 9. The first and second branch were established in claim 15, however, claim 17 does not depend from claim 15. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret these phrases to be – a first branch – and – a second branch – respectively.
Regarding Claim 18, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first branch” in line 4 AND “the second branch” in line 10. The first and second branch were established in claim 15, however, claim 18 does not depend from claim 15. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret these phrases to be – a first branch – and – a second branch – respectively.
Regarding Claim 22, the term “voltage sampling unit” in line 3 is not defined in the claim. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear as it cannot be determined what would constitute a voltage sampling unit as there is not sufficient structure recited in the claim or specification to perform the operation in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any prior art that has any device that can read a voltage will be sufficient to read on this phrase.
Additionally, Regarding Claim 22, the term “processing unit” and “calculating unit” in line 5 is not defined in the claim. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear as it cannot be determined what would constitute a processing unit or calculating unit as there is not sufficient structure recited in the claim or specification with which to perform the operations recited in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any prior art that has any device that has processing capability will be sufficient to read on this phrase.
Regarding Claim 23, this claim depends from claim 21, however, claim 21 is a method claim and claim 23 is a claim to an apparatus. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of this claim are, whether it should be a method claim or an apparatus claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this claim as though it were dependent on claim 22.
Regarding Claim 26, this claim depends from claim 21, however, claim 21 is a method claim and claim 26 is a claim to an apparatus. It is unclear what the metes and bounds of this claim are, whether it should be a method claim or an apparatus claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this claim as though it were dependent on claim 22.
Additionally, regarding Claim 26, the term “processing unit” and “determining unit” in lines 2-3 is not defined in the claim. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear as it cannot be determined what would constitute a processing unit or determining unit as there is not sufficient structure recited in the claim or specification with which to perform the operations recited in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any prior art that has any device that has processing capability will be sufficient to read on this phrase.
Regarding Claim 27, There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the steady state” in lines 3-4. “A steady state” was introduced in claim 26, however, claim 27 does not depend from claim 26. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this phrase to read – a steady state --.
Additionally, regarding Claim 27, the term “determining unit” in line 3 is not defined in the claim. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear as it cannot be determined what would constitute a determining unit as there is not sufficient structure recited in the claim or specification with which to perform the operations recited in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any prior art that has any device that has the capability to differentiate between two or more states/ signal will be sufficient to read on this phrase.
Regarding Claim 28, the term “processing unit” in line 4 is not defined in the claim. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear as it cannot be determined what would constitute a processing unit as there is not sufficient structure recited in the claim or specification with which to perform the operations recited in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any prior art that has any device that has processing capability will be sufficient to read on this phrase.
Regarding Claims 23-28, These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as set forth below (see Figures 1 & 2 for flow chart).
Regarding Claims 14-28:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 14-21 are directed to a process; claims 22-28 are directed to a machine,
Step 2A:
Prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes, claims 14-21 and 22-28 recite an abstract idea
Analyzing …, confirming …, determining …, calculating …, are abstract ideas within the category of “mental processes” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The “mental processes” abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions. These claim limitations are considered mental processes because they correspond to observations, evaluations, and judgements and under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitations cover performance of the limitation in the mind and/or with pen and paper. Thus, these limitations fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract idea.
PNG
media_image1.png
944
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
944
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figures 1 & 2: From MPEP 2106 section III and 2106.04 section IIA respectively
Prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 14 recites “photovoltaic inverter comprises a direct current input terminal, a positive terminal of a direct current bus, a negative terminal of the direct current bus, a signal ground, and a protective earthing, and the direct current input terminal of the photovoltaic inverter is used to connect at least one string of photovoltaic panels” in lines 2-5. This limitation fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the structure claimed is well known in the art and recited at a high level of generality (Refer to Weng et al. US-20170302082-A1 – from applicant IDS --, which recites a photovoltaic inverter (Fig 1: 20)). Claim 14 additionally recites “sampling a voltage of the protective earthing and a voltage of the positive terminal of the direct current bus, respectively” in lines 7-8. This limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality. Claim 14 also recites “obtaining a first voltage difference between voltages of the protective earthing at different moments and a second voltage difference between voltages of the positive terminal of the direct current bus at different moments” in lines 9-11. This limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 15 recites the additional elements of an “establishing an equivalent circuit of insulation impedance…” in lines 3-12. This element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the examiner is interpreting this to mean a hypothetical or model of a circuit (refer to examiner’s note above in this office action). This is therefore recited at a high level of generality. Claim 15 additionally recites “obtaining a current balance equation…” in lines 13-14 , “obtaining a relational equation…” in lines 15-17, and “performing subtraction on…” in lines 18-20. These elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity and are recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 16 defines the insulation impedance in terms of a math formula and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 17 recites the additional elements of a “first branch comprises a second equivalent resistor… a third equivalent resistor… insulation impedance…” in lines 3-8 and a “second branch comprises a fourth equivalent resistor… a fifth equivalent resistor… and a sixth equivalent resistor…” in lines 9-13. These elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the examiner is interpreting this to mean a hypothetical or model of a circuit (refer to examiner’s note above in this office action). This is therefore recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 17 further recites the additional element of “coefficients K1 and K2 are respectively…” in lines 14-15. This is defined in terms of a math formula and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 18 recites the additional elements of a “first branch comprises a second equivalent resistor… a third equivalent resistor… insulation impedance…” in lines 4-9 and a “second branch comprises a fourth equivalent resistor… a fifth equivalent resistor… a sixth equivalent resistor… and a seventh equivalent resistor…” in lines 10-15. These elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the examiner is interpreting this to mean a hypothetical or model of a circuit (refer to examiner’s note above in this office action). This is therefore recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 18 further recites the additional element of “coefficients K1 and K2 are respectively…” in lines 16-17. This is defined in terms of a math formula and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 18 further recites “wherein the positive terminal of the direct current bus of and the negative terminal of the direct current bus of the photovoltaic inverter are connected to an energy storage unit” in lines 2-4. This limitation fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the structure claimed is well known in the art and recited at a high level of generality (Refer to Wang et al. US-20220029582-A1, which recites a in Para [0081] that the DCDC converter (Fig 5: 500a) is connected to an energy storage device which Fig 5 then shows the DCDC converter connected to the positive and negative terminals of the inverter).
Claim 19 recites the additional elements of “determining, based on a voltage change rate…” in lines 3-5 and “calculating the insulation impedance…” in lines 7-8. These limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity and are recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 20 recites the additional elements of “wherein a step of determining, based on a voltage change rate of the voltage of the protective earthing, whether the voltage of the protective earthing of the photovoltaic inverter enters a steady state comprises: sampling the voltages of the protective earthing at different moments, and calculating voltage change rates of the voltage of the protective earthing in different time periods; and determining the voltage of the protective earthing enters the steady state when an absolute value of a difference between voltage change rates in any two time periods is less than a preset threshold…” in lines 2-9. This limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 21 recites the additional elements of “wherein the preset threshold is less than or equal to 0.5.” This limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 22 recites the additional elements of “a voltage sampling unit configured to sample a voltage of a protective earthing and a voltage of a positive terminal of a direct current bus of the photovoltaic inverter” in lines 2-3 and “a processing unit, comprising a calculating unit for calculating a first voltage difference between voltages of the protective earthing at different moments and a second voltage difference between voltages of the positive terminal of the direct current bus at different moments” in lines 4-6. These limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity and are recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 23 recites the additional elements “wherein the insulation impedance of the direct current side of the photovoltaic inverter is…” in lines 2-3. This limitation defines the insulation impedance in terms of a math formula and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 24 defines the coefficients K1 and K2 in terms of a math formula and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 25 defines the coefficients K1 and K2 in terms of a math formula and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 22 recites the additional elements “wherein the processing unit further comprises a determining unit, the determining unit obtains voltage change rates of the voltage of the protective earthing in different time periods and determines whether the voltage of the protective earthing enters a steady state, and the calculating unit calculates the insulation impedance of the direct current side of the photovoltaic inverter when the voltage of the protective earthing enters the steady state” in lines 2-7. These limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity and are recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 27 recites the additional elements “the determining unit determines the voltage of the protective earthing enters the steady state when an absolute value of a difference between voltage change rates in any two time periods is less than a preset threshold, wherein duration of the any two time periods is the same.” In lines 3-5. These limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional elements add insignificant extra-solution activity and are recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 28 recites the additional elements “a control unit, wherein when the insulation impedance of the direct current side of the photovoltaic inverter calculated by the processing unit is less than a preset impedance value, the control unit prohibits the photovoltaic inverter from starting, and the detection of the insulation impedance of the direct current side of the photovoltaic inverter continues, and when the insulation impedance is greater than the preset impedance value, the control unit allows the photovoltaic inverter to start.” This limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because controllers are well known to control circuits and disconnect circuits when given a signal to do so (Refer to Wang Para [0050]). This limitation therefore adds insignificant extra-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the additional elements recited above are not sufficient to amount to more than the judicial exception. These additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activities, as evidence by references cited in the specific limitations as necessary above, and are recited at a high level of generality.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 22 recites, the following limitations
“a voltage sampling unit configured to sample a voltage…” in line 3.
“a processing unit, comprising a calculating unit…” in line 5.
“a calculating unit…” in line 5.
Claims 26 and 28, also recite the processing unit and will be interpreted under 112(f) as well.
Claim 26 recites “a determining unit…” in line 3.
Claim 27 also recites “the determining unit” and will be interpreted under 112(f) as well.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
However, the voltage sampling unit, the processing unit, the calculating unit and the determining unit recited in the claims are not given sufficient structure in the claim or in the specification, refer to 35 USC 112(b) rejections above.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:30-17:30 ET.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858