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 06/16/26, with respect to the Claim Objections & some 112b Rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Claim Objections & some 112b Rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant states, “With respect to the limitation ‘x and y components of at least one voltage and current’, Applicant respectfully submits that this limitation is clear and supported by the specification”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., limitation is clear and supported by the specification) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant states, “It is generally understood by those having ordinary skill in the art that the limitation "x and y components of at least one voltage and current" refers to the foundational concept used in electrical engineering to control three-phase power systems (such as wind turbines or solar inverters). More specifically, this limitation is generally referring to the Direct-Quadrature (d-q) transformation, also known as the Park' Transformation. In this patent, such coordinates are labeled x and y instead of d and q.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The specification appears to explained as described by the applicant, but the specification nor the fundamental concept cannot be imported into the claim. The claim needs to recite the missing structure, algorithm or operational steps.
Applicant states, “With respect to the Examiner alleging that it is unclear what is or are the dynamic decoupling factor(s) and what is included or not, For example, as previously described herein, FIGS. 7 and 8 illustrate control logic 600 for calculating the dynamic decoupling factors 620, 638 (e.g., K1 and K2).”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., limitation is clear and supported by the specification) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 1-20 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 (similarly in Claim 12), the applicant recites –
“using, via the controller, the angle of the PLL reference signal to transform a three-phase set of signals to a two-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system of a synchronously-rotating frame, the two-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system comprising x and y components of at least one of voltage and current”.
Is x component regarded to only voltage or to only current or both? Is y component regarded to only voltage or to only current or both? Are both x and y components only voltage or to only current or both?
Moreover, the claim does not describe what the x and y components is or are. In the art, voltage and current are not “components”. Additionally, the x and y components are recited to “a two-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system” and it is unclear how an orthogonal coordinate system comprises x and y components.
Moreover, “one or more dynamic decoupling factors” correspond to “one or more of the x and y components of voltage and current”. Are one, some or all the “factors” regarded to just voltage, just current, or both? & Are one, some or all the “factors” regarded to just component x for voltage, just component x for current, component y for voltage, just component y for current or both XY for voltage or both XY fore current? It appears to be multiple permutations of the recited limitation. Therefore, it is unclear what is or are the dynamic decoupling factor(s) and is included or not.
Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite.
Claims 2-6 & 13-17 are also unclear to what the applicant is referring to. Claim 2-6 and 13-17 depends from Claim 1 or 12. However, Claims 2-6 and 13-17 recites a different function compared to the function recited in Claim 1 and at the same time the “the x and y components of voltage” recited in claim 1 is regarded to the function “one or more dynamic decoupling factors”. Therefore, all the recited functions are all unclear.
Claims 2-11 & 13-20 are rejected based on the dependency from Claim 1 or claim 12.
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 JOSEPH ORTEGA whose telephone number is (469) 295-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, TULSIDAS C. PATEL can be reached at (571)272-2098. 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.
/JOSEPH ORTEGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights