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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 7/31/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/31/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an operator ∥⋅∥ an Euclidean norms of the vector” on page 2 line 1 should be “∥ ∥ is an operator that represents an Euclidean norms of vector in the operator”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an operator ∥⋅∥ an Euclidean norms of the vector” on lines 18-19 should be “∥ ∥ is an operator that represents an Euclidean norms of vector in the operator”. Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: establishment module in claims 5, 7-8, adjustment module in claim 5, controlling module in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20170316135 to Johnson et al. (hereinafter “Johnson”).
As per claim 1, Johnson discloses a grid-forming control method with full-state virtual oscillator for photovoltaic and energy storage system (Johnson, see [0022] and [0137] for control method of full-state virtual oscillator and its grid-forming behaviors), wherein the method comprises:
establishing a control model of the full-state virtual oscillator, wherein the control model of the full-state virtual oscillator comprises a frequency and a voltage amplitude (Johnson, see [0045]-[0052] for dynamic model that controls the full-state virtual oscillator and the dynamic model comprises frequences and voltage amplitude);
establishing a constraint control model of a current inner loop (Johnson, see [0108]-[0109] establishing a constraint control model of a current regulator of the inverter (i.e. current inner loop)); and
according to the control model of the full-state virtual oscillator and the constraint control model of the current inner loop, adjusting control parameters of the full-state virtual oscillator, wherein the control parameters are used to control stable operation of grid-forming photovoltaic and energy storage systems (Johnson, see [0051] and [0114]-[0116] for adjusting control parameters of the full-state virtual oscillator according to the dynamic model of the full-state virtual oscillator and the constraint control model).
Claim 5 is an apparatus claim corresponds to the method claim 1, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejections of claim 1.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Johnson further discloses an electronic device, comprising: a processor, wherein the processor is coupled with a memory; and wherein the processor is configured to read and execute a program or instructions stored in the memory to cause the electronic device to perform the grid-forming control method with full-state virtual oscillator (Johnson, see [0198]-[0199]).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Johnson further discloses a non-transient computer-readable storage medium, wherein a program or instructions are stored therein, and when read and executed by a computer, the program or instructions cause the computer to perform the grid-forming control method with full-state virtual oscillator (Johnson, see [0198]-[0199]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 2-4 and 6-8
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Johnson discloses virtual oscillator control systems, devices, and techniques are provided. One example device includes a processor configured to implement a virtual oscillator circuit and output an oscillating waveform based on the virtual oscillator circuit and power electronics operatively coupled to the processor and configured to convert, based on the oscillating waveform, direct current (DC) electricity to alternating current (AC) electricity. The processor may be further configured to extract, from the virtual oscillator circuit, a virtual current based on an output current of the AC electricity, and output the oscillating waveform further based on an input voltage of the DC electricity. US20220137118 discloses a system and method are provided for operating a power generating asset. Accordingly, a controller detects a fault condition impacting the power generating asset. The controller then determines whether the fault condition is occurring in the power generating asset or is occurring in the power grid. When the fault condition is occurring in the power generating asset, a first response control scheme is implemented. However, when the fault condition is occurring in the power grid, a second response control scheme is implemented. The response control schemes include a first current threshold and a second current threshold respectively, with first current threshold being less than the second current threshold. Additionally, a control action is implemented in response to an approach of a current to the respective current threshold. “Global phase and magnitude synchronization of coupled oscillators with application to the control of grid-forming power inverters” discloses a new approach to synchronization of coupled oscillators. In contrast to the Kuramoto model we do not work in polar coordinates and do not consider oscillations of fixed magnitude. Synchronizing feedback based on relative state information and local measurements that induces consensus-like dynamics.
The combination of the cited prior arts does not describe:
wherein the control model with the full-state virtual oscillator satisfies:
PNG
media_image1.png
354
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US8280533 discloses an adaptive process controller performs continuously scheduled process model parameter interpolation to determine a particular set of process model parameters which are used to develop controller tuning parameters for controller tuning. More particularly, a state-based, adaptive PID controller described herein uses a new technique to determine an appropriate process model to be used to perform adaptive tuning over the various operating regions of the plant, and in particular, uses a process model parameter determination technique that enables continuously scheduled process model parameter update over the various plant operating regions or points. The use of this continuously scheduled process model parameter update method provides for smoother transitions between tuning parameters used in the PID controller during adaptive tuning procedures which are implemented based on changes in the operating region or the operating point of the process, thereby providing for better overall control.
US5798633 discloses a method and apparatus for controlling a battery energy storage system of the type in which an inverter is coupled to convert direct current power from a DC source to a controlled frequency AC power suitable for supplementing utility power or for replacing utility power includes a control mechanism for operating the system and either a supplemental or replacement mode in parallel with a utility power system. The system favors frequency control over power control and maintains constant monitoring of frequency output with adjustment of power in response to any frequency shift of the inverter output. The system also includes apparatus for determining a power error signal based upon commanded power output in which the power error signal is applied as a phase shift control signal in the frequency control circuit for regulating the real component of power supplied by the inverter. In one form, the system is illustrated as multiple, parallel connected power control systems coupled to a common DC source for supplying a common AC output and each of the power control systems are regulated in response to the reactive component of power supplied therefrom so as to promote load sharing between the separate power control systems.
US10879785 discloses a fault inrush transient current restraining type virtual synchronous inverter and thereof is disclosed. The invention solves the problem that a virtual synchronous inverter will be burned due to inrush transient current in an extreme situation of a symmetrical fault occurring on the grid side by setting an information collection module for inverter output voltages and currents, a virtual synchronous inverting control module, a fault detection and synthesize module, a hysteresis comparison control module and a post fault clearing switch back grid-tie control module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights