DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 6/10/2024.
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 .
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 10-16 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 10, it’s not clear as to which steps the limitation “iteratively performing steps (a) through (e)” is in reference to because (a) through (e) is not defined as “steps” in claim 10. It appears that (a) through (e) are mere actions within the method of claim 10. Furthermore, it’s not clear as to if the actions of (a) through (e) are iteratively performed as a group or iteratively performed individually. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the actions of (a) through (e) being iteratively performed individually. Dependent claims 11-16 inherit the deficiencies of independent claim 10 and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b). Further regarding claim 15, it’s not clear as to how the output current is generated using the updated modulation index because claim 10 states that updating the modulation index is based on the output current ((d) determining a real power and a reactive power using the nominal output voltage and the output current; and (e) determining an updated modulation index using the real power and the reactive power).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (US Patent 10374455) in view of Colby et al. (US Patent 7015597), Liu et al. (US Patent 9621073), and Boiko et al. (US 2023/0344366). Regarding claim 1, Nguyen et al. discloses (see fig. 1 and 3) a method for controlling a power inverter (see inverter in fig. 1), the method comprising: selecting a modulation index (initial modulation index before adjustments); measuring an input voltage to the power inverter (feedforward operation of 302); estimating an output voltage of the power inverter based on the input voltage and the modulation index (operation of 308 based on 302 and 306). Nguyen et al. does not disclose measuring an output current of the power inverter; determining a real power and a reactive power using the output voltage and the output current; determining an updated modulation index using the real power and the reactive power; generating pulse width modulation signals using the updated modulation index; and controlling the power inverter using the pulse width modulation signals. Colby et al. discloses (see fig. 1 and 2a) measuring an output current of a power inverter (see Iout connection to 30); determining a real power and a reactive power using an output voltage and the output current (operation of 30 based on output current and output voltage of the inverter). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Nguyen et al. to include the features of Colby et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Liu et al. discloses (see fig. 11) determining an updated modulation index using a real power and a reactive power (see column 6 lines 41-49). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Nguyen et al. to include the features of Liu et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Boiko et al. discloses (see fig. 2) generating pulse width modulation signals using an updated modulation index (incremented or decremented modulation index from 211); and controlling a power inverter using the pulse width modulation signals (see output from 208 which is based on updated output from 211). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Nguyen et al. to include the features of Boiko et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 4, Nguyen et al. does not disclose generating updated pulse width modulation signals using the updated modulation index, the updated pulse width modulation signals causing the power inverter to produce an updated output current. Boiko et al. discloses (see fig. 2) generating updated pulse width modulation signals using an updated modulation index (incremented or decremented modulation index from 211 used in producing a new output from 208); the updated pulse width modulation signals causing the power inverter to produce an updated output current (output from 208 being used to control inverter to produce output current). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Nguyen et al. to include the features of Boiko et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 5, Nguyen et al. discloses the claim invention expect for iteratively performing at a predefined rate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to iteratively perform at a predefined rate, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Nguyen et al. to include the features of iteratively performing at a predefined rate because it provides for a reduction in operating variances, which can increase operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 7, Nguyen et al. discloses the claim invention expect for the predefined rate being about 19.2kHz. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the predefined rate be about 19 kHz, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Nguyen et al. to include the features of having the predefined rate be about 19 kHz, because it provides for a reduction in operating variances, which can increase operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 9, Nguyen et al. does not disclose controlling the power inverter comprises using the pulse width modulation signals to control switching elements of the power inverter to produce an output current from the power inverter. Boiko et al. discloses (see fig. 2) controlling the power inverter comprises using the pulse width modulation signals to control switching elements of the power inverter to produce an output current from the power inverter (output from 208 being used to control switches in the inverter to produce an output current). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Nguyen et al. to include the features of Boiko et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (US Patent 10374455) in view of Colby et al. (US Patent 7015597), and Liu et al. (US Patent 9621073). Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Nguyen et al. discloses (see fig. 1 and 3) a method for controlling a power inverter (see inverter in fig. 1), the method comprising: (a) measuring an input voltage to the power inverter (feedforward operation of 302); iteratively performing (a)(feedforward operation of 302 is not a one-time operation), (b) computing a nominal output voltage based on a modulation index (operation of 308 based on 302 and 306); iteratively performing (b)(operation of 308 is not a one-time operation). Nguyen et al. does not disclose; (c) measuring an output current of the power inverter; (d) determining a real power and a reactive power using the nominal output voltage and the output current; and(e) determining an updated modulation index using the real power and the reactive power. Colby et al. discloses (see fig. 1 and 2a) (c) measuring an output current of a power inverter (see Iout connection to 30); iteratively performing (c)(Iout sensing connection to 30 is not a one-time connection); (d) determining a real power and a reactive power using an output voltage and the output current (operation of 30 based on output current and output voltage of the inverter); iteratively performing (d) (operation of 30 is not a one-time operation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Nguyen et al. to include the features of Colby et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Liu et al. discloses (see fig. 11) (e) determining an updated modulation index using a real power and a reactive power (see column 6 lines 41-49); iteratively performing (e)(updated the modulation index is not a one-time operation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Nguyen et al. to include the features of Liu et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Nguyen et al. discloses the claim invention expect for iteratively performing at a predefined rate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to iteratively perform at a predefined rate, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Nguyen et al. to include the features of iteratively performing at a predefined rate because it provides for a reduction in operating variances, which can increase operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (US Patent 10374455) in view of Colby et al. (US Patent 7015597), Liu et al. (US Patent 9621073) and Chisenga et al. (US Patent 10193467). Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Nguyen et al. does not disclose measuring a load voltage at a load electrically connected to the power inverter. Chisenga et al. discloses (see fig. 10) measuring a load voltage (1022c) at a load (1020) electrically connected to a power inverter (1020 connection to 1018). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Nguyen et al. to include the features of Chisenga et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jalla (US Patent 9991767) in view of Pande et al. (US Patent 7368890). Regarding claim 17, Jalla et al. discloses (see fig. 2 a power inverter system, comprising: a line interface filter (44/46) comprising filter components having predetermined component values (inductor and capacitor voltage/current values); and a generator controller bus regulator (34/36) electrically connected to the line interface filter (connection to 44/46) and configured to receive DC power (output from 24) and generate AC power (output from 34/36). Jalla et al. does not disclose that generator controller bus regulator generates AC power, by iteratively updating a modulation index (operation of 156), wherein the modulation index is characterized by the predetermined component values (operation of 156 is based on capacitor voltage from 78). Pande et al. discloses (see fig. 1-3) that generator controller bus regulator (50/8/10) generates AC power (output from 10) by iteratively updating a modulation index (operation of 156), wherein the modulation index is characterized by predetermined component values (operation of 156 is based on capacitor voltage from 78). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Jalla et al. to include the features of Pande et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 19, Jalla et al. discloses (see fig. 2) an isolation transformer (42) electrically connected to the line interface filter (connection to 44/46). Regarding claim 20, Jalla et al. discloses (see fig. 2) the isolation transformer is characterized by a turns ratio and a winding number (turns ratio and winding number of transformer 42), and wherein the line interface filter (44/46) and the isolation transformer (42) are configured to receive AC power generated by the generator controller bus regulator (output from 34/36) and transmit a corresponding AC output to a load connected to the isolation transformer (connection of load 48 to the output from transformer 42).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 6, 8, and 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.
Claims 11-12 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Abdur-Rahim et al. (US Patent 8933572) discloses an adaptive superconductive magnetic energy storage system. Abuelnaga et al. (US Patent 11342878) discloses a regenerative medium voltage drive.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A GBLENDE whose telephone number is (571)270-5472. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-272-1838. 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.
/JEFFREY A GBLENDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights