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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on or before 2026-04-13 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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2026-06-16 has been entered. Claim(s) 14-28 remain pending in this application. Claim(s) 14-16, 19-20, and 22-28 have been amended.
The amendments to the specification are acceptable and the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2026-06-16, with respect to the 35 USC 112 rejections made in the office action dated 2026-03-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112 rejection of claims 14-28 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, with respect to claims 14-21 and 22-28, that the method recited in the claims are performed by a tangible component of an apparatus and therefore the claimed method is not an abstract idea and cannot be characterized as a mental process.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, The claim, as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea, the idea being “calculating… the insulation impedance…”. The structural components recited in the claim, such as the ”voltage sampling circuit” and “processor” are all recited at a high level of generality and therefore do not add significantly more to the claimed judicial exception. “Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008).” --MPEP 2106.05(b) I. The calculating, as recited in the claim, could be performed in the mind or with pen and paper when provided with the pre-solution activity/ data gathering steps recited in the claim.
The 35 USC 101 rejections have been reconsidered in light of the amendments provided and has been withdrawn in part refer to the 35 USC 101 rejection below.
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 § 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, and 19-28 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 and 19-28:
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. The abstract idea grouping further includes mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations and mathematical calculations. “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation.” – MPEP2106.04(a)(2) C. The independent claims recite concepts relating to “calculate/ing, (by the processor), the insulation impedance of the direct current side of the photovoltaic inverter based on the first voltage difference, the second voltage difference, a resistance of an equivalent resistor between each terminal of the photovoltaic inverter and the signal ground, and resistances of equivalent resistors between the positive terminal and the negative terminal of the direct current bus and the protective earthing” and therefore fall within this category.
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 the following additional elements:
“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 is connected to at least one string of photovoltaic panels” in lines 3-6. 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)).
“sampling, by the voltage sampling circuit, voltages of the protective earthing and voltages of the positive terminal of the direct current bus, respectively, at different moments” in lines 8-10. This limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional element adds insignificant pre-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
“obtaining, by the processor, a first voltage difference between the voltages of the protective earthing at two different moments and a second voltage difference between the voltages of the positive terminal of the direct current bus at the two different moments” in lines 11-13. This limitation fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional element adds insignificant pre-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
Claim 19 recites the additional elements of “determining, based on a voltage change rate…” in lines 4-7 and “calculating the insulation impedance…” in lines 8-9. 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 circuit, configured to sample voltages of the protective earthing and voltages of the positive terminal of the direct current bus at different moments” in lines 7-9 and “a processor, configured to: obtain a first voltage difference between the voltages of the protective earthing at two different moments and a second voltage difference between the voltages of the positive terminal of the direct current bus at the two different moments” in lines 10-14. 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 calculated…” in lines 2-4. 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 26 recites the additional elements “the processor is configured to: obtain voltage change rates of the voltage of the protective earthing in different time periods, determine whether the voltage of the protective earthing enters a steady state” in lines 4-9. 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 processor is configured to: determine 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 3-6. 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 28 recites the additional elements “a control circuit, configured to: when the calculated insulation impedance of the direct current side of the photovoltaic inverter is less than a preset impedance value, prohibit the photovoltaic inverter from starting, and the voltage sampling circuit and the processor continues the detection of the insulation impedance of the direct current side of the photovoltaic inverter, and when the insulation impedance is greater than the preset impedance value, allow 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 et al. US-20220029582-A1 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 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.
Regarding Claim 15, the inclusion of the limitations “establishing an equivalent circuit of insulation impedance with the equivalent resistor between each terminal of the photovoltaic inverter and the signal ground and an equivalent resistor between each terminal of the photovoltaic inverter and the protective earthing based on an actual circuit of the photovoltaic inverter, wherein the equivalent circuit of insulation impedance comprises a first equivalent resistor between the protective earthing and the signal ground, one terminal of the first equivalent resistor is connected to a first branch that comprises equivalent resistors between the positive terminal and the negative terminal of the direct current bus and the protective earthing, and the other terminal of the first equivalent resistor is connected to a second branch that comprises a equivalent resistor between each terminal of the photovoltaic inverter and the signal ground” in lines 3-12, is recognized as significantly more than the judicial exception indicated in the 35 USC 101 rejection above as it relates to the specific structure of apparatus. This specific structure as claimed is not found in the prior art of record and therefore is not well understood and therefore adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Regarding Claims 16-18, these claims depend from claim 15 and therefore contain the same limitations that would be allowable if rewritten in independent form as indicated in claim 15.
The closest prior art is Wang et al. US-20220029582-A1. Wang teaches detecting insulation impedance of a photovoltaic inverter but does not teach the structure as claimed above.
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 JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, F 10:30-17:00 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
Prosecution Insights