DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 13 June 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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority to 13 June 2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 and 10 are objected to for the following informalities: Generally speaking, the claims should only have one period (MPEP 608.01(m) “Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations.”). While the specification makes obvious what is meant so it does not rise to the level of a 112(b), the multiple periods in the method steps are problematic with respect to proper form. Examiner suggests changing from “a.” to “a)” for each individual letter or roman numeral.
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 5, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As to claim 5, applicant claims “reference volume”. Judging by the specification, this appears to be reference voltage, but there are a number of other things volume could affect such as cooling. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed applicant meant to claim voltage rather than volume.
As to claim 10, applicant has claimed a method. By saying the method is part of step a and b, it is unclear if applicant means to put them under subsections of step A and B of claim but they appear to occur after method step J as near as can be determined from the specification. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed applicant meant to add method steps on to the end of claim 9, and shall be read as: The method of claim 9, further comprising k) once the voltage error exceeds the threshold value, checking which operation zone the smart inverter is presently operating in; l) determining whether the voltage error value is positive or negative, wherein: i) if the voltage error is positive, the additional reactive power value is positive; and ii) if the voltage error is negative, the additional reactive power value is negative.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
For method claims, note that under MPEP 2112.02, the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated. (The claims have been condensed.)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Carinal (US 20100025994).
As to claim 1, Carinal discloses A device for mitigating voltage fluctuations in a smart inverter system comprising: a reference voltage (Fig. 3, 105); a Volt-VAR control unit (Fig. 4, 290, 292); a three-phase voltage input (Fig. 3, 120); a current input (Fig. 3, 125); a converter (Fig. 2, item 60); a calculation unit (Fig. 4, 245) ; an adder (Fig. 4, 225); a Delta-Q unit (Fig. 4, 287); and an updated Delta-Q output (Fig. 4, 255, 260), wherein the updated Delta-Q output comprises an updated reference reactive power (Fig. 4, 265).
As to claim 7, Carinal teachs wherein the calculation unit comprises functionality to calculate an error between an at least two reference voltages (droop, 215).
. Claim(s) 1, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu (US 20140307494).
As to claim 1, Wu discloses A device for mitigating voltage fluctuations in a smart inverter system comprising: a reference voltage (Fig. 5, 294); a Volt-VAR control unit (Fig. 5, 225); a three-phase voltage input (Fig. 1, 152); a current input (Fig. 1, 154); a converter (Fig. 1, 144); a calculation unit (Fig. 5, 229) ; an adder (Fig. 5, 227); a Delta-Q unit (Fig. 5, 223); and an updated Delta-Q output (Fig. 5, 250), wherein the updated Delta-Q output comprises an updated reference reactive power.
As to claim 8, Wu discloses wherein the adder comprises functionality to produce the updated reference reactive power (it is in the control loop to do so).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20140307494).
As to claim 2, Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the converter comprises functionality to convert the three-phase voltage input and current input each to respective two-phase orthogonal components. However, this is obvious. Park and Clarke transformations are old and well known in the art and therefore not patentable (See MPEP 2144.03 and US 20110317460 Fig. 4, US 20110317460 Claims 2-4; US 20130128632 Fig. 8). The expected advantage of the transformation would be to simplify control algorithms.
As to claim 3, Wu does not explicitly teach wherein the converter comprises functionality to perform one or more Clarke transformations to convert the three-phase voltage input and current input each to respective two-phase orthogonal components. This is obvious for the reason explained above.
As to claim 4, Wu does not explicitly teach wherein the converter comprises functionality to convert the three-phase voltage input and current input each to respective two-phase orthogonal components, and wherein each two-phase orthogonal components comprise one or more inputs to the calculation unit. This is obvious for the reason explained above.
As to claim 5, Wu does not explicitly teach wherein calculation unit comprises the following inputs: one or more voltage inputs; one or more current inputs; the reference volume; and a reference reactive power. However those inputs are fed into the system, and the values fed to the calculation unit are derived from those values. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine design choice and is therefore not patentable(MPEP 2144.04(VI)).
As to claim 6, Wu does not explicitly teach wherein the reference voltage comprises an input to the Volt-VAR control unit, and wherein a reference reactive power comprises an output of the Volt-VAR control unit. However those inputs are fed into the system, and the values fed to the unit are derived from those values. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine design choice and therefore not patentable (MPEP 2144.04(VI)).
As to claim 7, Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the calculation unit comprises functionality to calculate an error between an at least two reference voltages. However those inputs are fed into the system, the system calculates multiple error values. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine design choice and is therefore not patentable(MPEP 2144.04(VI)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 would be allowed if rewritten to comply with formal requirements.
Claims 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 9, the prior art fails to disclose: “b. setting a value for the reference voltage; c. inputting values for the three-phase voltage input and current input into the converter; d. converting the three-phase voltage input and current input each to respective two- phase orthogonal components, comprising a voltage component and a current component ; e. inputting the reference voltage into the Volt-VAR control unit to generate a reference reactive power; f. inputting the reference reactive power, reference voltage, and two-phase orthogonal components into the calculation unit; g. comparing the value of the reference voltage to the voltage component value to determine a voltage error h. comparing the voltage error to a threshold value set by a user; i. when the voltage error exceeds the threshold value, updating a value of the reference reactive power by applying a Delta-Q mitigation process; and j. adding an additional reactive power value to the reference reactive power.;” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
Please note: while objected or allowed claims have been indicated, only the presented claims have been examined for compliance with form and 35 USC 112 consideration. As a reminder, claims that are dependent upon objected claims still require examination for form and 35 USC 112 issues even if they overcome 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections. Similarly, amendments incorporating allowable subject matter into independent claims requires reconsideration for dependent claim form and any possible 35 USC 112 issues that arise through amendments even if the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are overcome. As such, applicant is advised that while examiner can enter previously allowed claims or previously objected claims rewritten into independent form after final rejection, any other claims may not be entered.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular column, paragraph, and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1375. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM,Monday through Thursday, 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, Crystal Hammond can be reached on 571-270-1682. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER M NOVAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2839
Prosecution Insights