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 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 1-20 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In detail claims 1, 12 and 20 recite a ripple cost function value and a voltage phase shift perturbation value. In each case the specification does not allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what exact parameters are used to determined said vales, also are the vales determined in real time, offline bases.
Further regrind the a voltage phase shift perturbation value it is not clear to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine if the vale is as voltage phase between current and voltage or between switching noes and is the vale derived from a model, sensed directly or inferred ?
Further these values are used by the controllers use these values to control the switching frequencies. Yet it is not clear how the controller translates the ripple cost function value and the voltage phase shift perturbation value into a control action. The relationship and use of these two vales and how the switching frequency is adjusted (PWM, phase shift modulation etc.).
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. In detail claims 1, 12 and 20 recite a ripple cost function value and a voltage phase shift perturbation value.
Regarding the ripple cost function value the claims fail to recite how the function is defined, inputs or what form does the output take.
With respect to the voltage phase shift perturbation value the claims lack clarity regarding the nature of the perturbation. Whether it is and input (i.e. measured or detected value) or an output or a perturbation applied to a controller. Further the examiner would like to note that perturbation implies an intentional variation, but the recitation contradicts the idea that it is an observed or computed value.
Further applicant recites a converter yet no sources of conversion is defined a DC source an AC source a PV system etc.
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, 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 1, 9, 10, 12, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta (A Novel Decentralized PWM Interleaving Technique for Ripple Minimization in Series-stacked DC-DC Converters)
PNG
media_image1.png
465
1032
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1a; Dutta
Regarding claim 1, Dutta teaches a power converting system (see Fig. 4) comprising:
a plurality of power converting devices electrically connected to each other (see DC/DC Fig. 4), each of the plurality of power converting devices including at least one switching node (see Fig. 4); and
a plurality of controllers each connected to the plurality of power converting devices (see decentralized controller; Fig. 4), each of the plurality of controllers configured to,
sample a current associated with the plurality of power converting devices electrically connected to each other over a desired time period (see communication-free control scheme where each converter uses its locally sensed current to achieve the desired minimum THD state or symmetric interleaved state, Introduction),
obtain a ripple cost function value of the current associated with the plurality of power converting devices electrically connected to each other based on the samples of the current (see II. Fourier Analysis Of Bus Current and Fig. 2 and 7a),
obtain a voltage phase shift perturbation value associated with the at least one switching node of the connected power converting device (see II. Fourier Analysis Of Bus Current, This net current is passed through a sensor and low-pass filter which naturally imparts attenuation and phase shift of the current harmonics and Fig. 3), and
control a switching frequency of the connected power converting device based on the ripple cost function value and the voltage phase shift perturbation value (see PWM1 PWMK and PWMN Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Dutta teaches wherein the plurality of power converting devices are at least one of: voltage source inverters, current source inverters, AC-DC converters, DC-DC converters, DC-AC converters, AC-AC converters, or any combinations thereof (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Dutta teaches wherein the plurality of power converting devices are connected in series (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Dutta teaches a method of operating a power converting system comprising: sampling a current associated with a plurality of power converting devices over a desired time period, the plurality of power converting devices electrically connected to each other, each of the plurality of power converting devices including at least one switching node; obtaining a ripple cost function value of the current associated with the plurality of power converting devices electrically connected to each other based on the samples of the current; obtaining voltage phase shift perturbation values associated with each of the at least one switching nodes of the plurality of power converting devices; and controlling a switching frequency of each power converting device of the plurality of power converting devices based on the ripple cost function value and the voltage phase shift perturbation value associated with the power converting device (Please see the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, Dutta teaches a photovoltaic (PV) power converting system, the system comprising: a plurality of power converting devices connected to a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) modules, the plurality of power converting devices electrically connected to each other, each of the plurality of power converting devices including at least one switching node; and a plurality of controllers each connected to the plurality of power converting devices, each of the plurality of controllers configured to, sample a current associated with the plurality of power converting devices electrically connected to each other over a desired time period, obtain a ripple cost function value of the current associated with the plurality of power converting devices electrically connected to each other based on the samples of the current, obtain a voltage phase shift perturbation value associated with the at least one switching node of the connected power converting device, and control a switching frequency of the connected power converting device based on the ripple cost function value and the voltage phase shift perturbation value (Please see the rejection of claim 1).
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, 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta in view of Schuck (Ripple Minimization Through Harmonic Elimination in Asymmetric Interleaved Multiphase DC–DC Converters).
Regarding claim 11, Dutta teaches the system of claim 1.
Yet does not disclose a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) modules connected to a corresponding power converting device of the plurality of power converting devices, each of the PV modules configured to, harvest solar energy, and output the harvested solar energy as direct current (DC) power to the corresponding power converting device, wherein the corresponding power converting device is further configured to convert the DC power to the current associated with the plurality of power converting devices electrically connected to each other.
However, Schuck teaches a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) modules connected to a corresponding power converting device of the plurality of power converting devices, each of the PV modules configured to, harvest solar energy, and output the harvested solar energy as direct current (DC) power to the corresponding power converting device, wherein the corresponding power converting device is further configured to convert the DC power to the current associated with the plurality of power converting devices electrically connected to each other (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dutta with the teachings of Schuck by having a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) modules connected to a corresponding power converting device of the plurality of power converting devices, each of the PV modules configured to, harvest solar energy, and output the harvested solar energy as direct current (DC) power to the corresponding power converting device, wherein the corresponding power converting device is further configured to convert the DC power to the current associated with the plurality of power converting devices electrically connected to each other in order to enhances flexibility, simplifies maintenance, and improves resilience against shading or module failure. Additionally, it allows for easier scalability and potentially lower initial costs.
Regarding claim 19, Dutta teaches wherein the plurality of power converting devices are at least one of, voltage source inverters, current source inverters, AC-DC converters, DC-DC converters, DC-AC converters, AC-AC converters, or any combinations thereof; the plurality of power converting devices are connected in series; (see Fig. 4).
However, Dutta does not disclose the plurality of power converting devices are connected to a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) modules; and the method further comprises, receiving solar energy harvested by the plurality of PV modules; and converting the solar energy to the current associated with the plurality of power converting devices electrically connected to each other using each of the plurality of power converting devices.
However, Schuck teaches the plurality of power converting devices are connected to a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) modules; and the method further comprises, receiving solar energy harvested by the plurality of PV modules; and converting the solar energy to the current associated with the plurality of power converting devices electrically connected to each other using each of the plurality of power converting devices (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dutta with the teachings of Schuck by having the plurality of power converting devices are connected to a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) modules; and the method further comprises, receiving solar energy harvested by the plurality of PV modules; and converting the solar energy to the current associated with the plurality of power converting devices electrically connected to each other using each of the plurality of power converting devices other in order to enhances flexibility, simplifies maintenance, and improves resilience against shading or module failure. Additionally, it allows for easier scalability and potentially lower initial costs
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 13 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.
In addition Claims 1, 12 and 20 need to be rewritten or amended 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.
The Examiner suggest that applicant recite functional language into structural language by clearly articulating what the ripple cost function value is by including mathematical equations for example how the current samples are processed to derive said function into the claims.
Further when clarify the term voltage phase shift perturbation value by defining if it is for example a measured value, modeled or applied and describe within the claim how is it obtained and used in the controller logic.
Applicant can also include structural language or algorithmic steps (e.g. control loop feedback look) within the claims.
Also The examiner would suggest including the sources of energy such as the PV system recited in claim 11. These structural details would add clarity to one of ordinary skill in the field and add context to the claimed system. These amendments should be incorporated into all independent claims 1, 12 and 20 to overcome the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 112.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 0801/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants remarks page 9-13 (Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112). As stated above the terms ripple cost function value and voltage phase shift perturbation value are not defined in the claims nor in the specification in such a manner that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to understand what these values are and how are they calculated. Applicant further has not indicated any sensor or device that would detect or measure this value (i.e. Amp meter, oscilloscope, A to D device, etc.)
Consequently, any use of these values would also be rendered indefinite. In the case of ripple cost function value the art is clear as to what ripple is but not ripple cost function value, in this recitation it is assumed that it is a function and a specific value associated as solution to the function.
The same reasoning would apply to the term phase shift perturbation value, in this case the value is not defined, not any equipment of calculation done to arrive at this value. Further it appear in applicants remarks that the value is in fact just a phase shift or displacement of the signal. Yet the specification does not indicate that the phase shift perturbation value cited by applicant is just a phase shift.
Further, the Examiner fully agrees with applicant with the ability of being his/her own lexicographer, however a record of the particular definition used mut be part of the record. The Examiner suggest that applicant point to a particular equation or function where the ripple cost function is expressed or shown and a detention of the variables and a clear articulation of the phase shift perturbation value is or how it is measured or calculated.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with the claims and because the terms are not clear (i.e. ripple cost function value and voltage phase shift perturbation) and seem to be crucial elements to the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 applicant alleges that Dutta fails to disclose or suggest that a voltage phase shift perturbation value is obtained, and further fails to disclose or suggest that the voltage phase shift perturbation value is used to control a switching frequency of a connected power converting device the Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant.
As well known to one of ordinary skill in the filed φk is the phase shift of the kth converter PWM carrier with respect to a frame synchronously rotating at angular velocity ωsw, nom and m is the harmonic index.
Therefore inherently, in the system described by the prior art the phase shift is considered and used. Further as seen in the highlighted portions of the prior art above the ripple value is also. Used to minimize ripple effects and values.
In order to expedite the prosecution of this application, the Examiner recommends amendment to the claims by including structural components that are different from the prior art applied in order to distinguish the claim invention from the prior art of record.
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 ELIM ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7114. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:30pm.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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.
/ELIM ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836