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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election in the reply filed on 09/15/2025 is acknowledged. After further review, the examiner deems the restriction to be in error, and the restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/08/2025 was filed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 14. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 (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 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) 10-11, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ito (US 2025/0300464 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Ito teaches a method comprising: receiving a plurality of signals (see Ito fig 2 element 120 and para 41 and 45 “The sensor 120 may measure a current value, a voltage value, a power value, and the like as the electrical characteristic value”), each signal representing a sensed parameter of a DC source of a plurality of DC sources (see Ito Fig 7 element S201 and para 41, 47 and 60-61 “The sensor 120 may measure a current value, a voltage value, a power value, and the like as the electrical characteristic value”, “the other power converters 12, 13, 14, and 15 may have the same configuration as the power converter 11”),
wherein each DC source is associated with at least one DC-DC converter of a plurality of DC-DC converters (see Ito fig 2 element 120 and para 45-47);
determining a target DC bus voltage based on the sensed parameters of the plurality of DC sources (see Ito para 61); and sending a target converter voltage to each DC-DC converter of the plurality of DC-DC converters (see Ito para 61-62), wherein the target converter voltage represents a portion of the target DC bus voltage (see Ito para 29).
Regarding Claim 11, Ito teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the sensed parameter comprises a power output associated with the DC source, and wherein determining a target DC bus voltage is based on a total power output of the plurality of DC sources (see Ito para 45, 50).
Regarding Claim 13, Ito teaches the method of claim 10, comprising: receiving, by a local controller at a particular DC-DC converter of the plurality of DC-DC converters, the target converter voltage (see Ito para 43-45); sending, by the local controller, a plurality of gating signals to one or more switches within the DC-DC converter to cause the DC-DC converter to produce a converter voltage based on the target converter voltage (see Ito para 43-45).
Regarding Claim 20, Ito teaches the method of claim 10, wherein each DC source of the plurality of DC sources is at least one of a battery, solar panel, photovoltaic cell, capacitor, or DC generator (see Ito fig 1 elements 21-23 and para 29-31).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (US 2019/0148947 A1), in view of Johnson (US Patent 9,897,642 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mao teaches a system comprising: two or more DC sources (see Mao fig 4A element 110 and para 35), each DC source having a positive terminal and a negative terminal (see Mao fig 5a element 103), a LC filter (see Mao fig 6C elements 480-N and 490-N, and para 38); and two or more DC-DC converters (see Mao fig 5a element 150 and para 36), each DC-DC converter connected to at least one DC source (see Mao fig 5a and para 35-36), and configured to convert a DC voltage across the positive terminal and negative terminal to a predetermined output voltage (see Mao para 37-38), wherein outputs of the two or more DC-DC converter are connected in series to form a DC bus (see Mao fig 5a and para 12, 36, 38).
But Mao is silent on teaching each DC source comprises a LC branch extending from the positive terminal to a positive terminal of the adjacent DC source.
However, Johnson teaches a photovoltaic power converter system with an arc fault detector with filters extending to the positive connectors of the photovoltaic modules (see Johnson fig 2A elements 260, 360, and col 7 line 61 to col 8 line 19).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Mao to include the teaching of Johnson to create an arc fault detection module with LC filters connected to each of the positive connectors of the photovoltaic strings. Arc fault detection could protect the components, property or personnel from arcing.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Mao and Johnson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each DC source is at least one of a battery, a solar panel, a photovoltaic cell, a capacitor, and a DC generator (see Mao fig 4a and para 10).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mao and Johnson teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each LC branch comprises an inductor and a capacitor connected in series (see Mao fig 6C elements 480-N and 490-N and para 38 as the inductor and capacitor are connected to each other in series).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Mao and Johnson teaches the system of claim 1, comprising an inverter connected to the DC bus (see Mao fig 5a element 160, abstract, and para 36), the inverter configured to convert AC power from the DC bus (see Mao fig 5a element 160, abstract, and para 34, 43).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (US 2019/0148947 A1) and Johnson (US Patent 9,897,642 B1), and further in view of Liu (US 2021/0384820 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Mao and Johnson teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent on teaching each DC-DC converter is a multi-stage resonant switched capacitor converter (MSR-SCC).
However, Liu teaches the use of a two stage resonant switched-capacitor DC-DC converter (see Liu abstract, para 36).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Mao and Johnson to include the MSR-SCC from Liu to create a converter system with lower conduction losses and higher switching frequencies.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Mao, Johnson and Mousavi teaches the system of claim 4, but Mao and Johnson is silent on teaching each DC-DC converter comprises at least four switches, four diodes, four capacitors, and an inductor.
However, Mousavi teaches a DC-DC converter with each DC-DC converter comprising at least four switches, four diodes, four capacitors, and an inductor (see Mousavi fig 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Mao and Johnson to include the teachings from Mousavi to show the electrical components in a multi stage resonant switched capacitor converter.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Mao, Johnson and Liu teaches the system of claim 4, wherein each DC-DC converter comprises a local control device, the local control device configured to adjust an output voltage of the DC-DC converter to achieve a target output voltage, wherein the target output voltage is a portion of the predetermined output voltage (see Mao para 34).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (US 2019/0148947 A1), Johnson (US Patent 9,897,642 B1) , and further in view of Eizips (US 2016/0344192 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mao and Johnson teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent on teaching the predetermined output voltage is determined by a master control device, and wherein the master control device determines the predetermined output voltage based on a total power output of the two or more DC sources.
However, Eizips teaches a solar power system with a control device that determines a DC voltage based on the status of the solar modules (see Eizips para 32).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Mao and Johnson to include the teaching of Eizips to create a power conversion apparatus that can adjust the output voltage based on the output of the DC sources, thus maximizing the power output efficiency.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (US 2019/0148947 A1) and Johnson (US Patent 9,897,642 B1), and further in view of Ito (US 2025/0300464 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Mao and Johnson teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent on teaching an energy storage system connected to the DC bus.
However, Ito teaches a power conversion system with an energy storage device connected to a DC bus (see Ito fig 1 elements 21, 30 and para 27-29).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Mao and Johnson to include the energy storage device from Ito to provide back up or energy storage for a solar power generation system to provide power when the demand exceeds the supply of power from the solar panels.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2025/0300464 A1), and further in view of Ledenev (US 2009/0218887 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Ito teaches the method of claim 11, but is silent on teaching the target converter voltage for each DC-DC converter is proportional to the power output of each DC-DC converter’s associated DC source.
However, Ledenev teaches a solar power conversion device which the output voltage of each PV string is proportional to the total output power (see Ledenev para 47-48).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method from Ito with the teachings of Ledenev to teach that each of the outputs of the converters would output a portion of the voltage of the total output voltage.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2025/0300464 A1), and further in view of Liu (US 2021/0384820 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Ito teaches the method of claim 13, but is silent on teaching a zero voltage switching condition.
However, Liu teaches a power converter which can send gating signals at a timing that results in zero voltage switching conditions (see Liu para 59-60, 70-71).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method from Ito to include the ZVS teachings from Liu to create a power conversion method which can result in reduced switching losses and improve efficiency.
Regarding Claim 15, Ito teaches the method of claim 13, but is silent on teaching a zero voltage switching condition.
However, Liu teaches a power converter which can send gating signals at a timing that results in zero voltage switching conditions (see Liu para 59-60, 70-71).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method from Ito to include the ZVS teachings from Liu to create a power conversion method which can result in reduced switching losses and improve efficiency.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2025/0300464 A1), and further in view of Fromme (US 2022/0123669 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Ito teaches the method of claim 13, but is silent on teaching the gating signals are at a frequency of 300-500Khz.
However, Fromme teaches a power converter with a switching frequency of 100kHz-500kHz (see Fromme para 43 and 63).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Ito to include the teachings of Fromme to create a power converter which can use GaN switches that can operate at higher frequencies and handle higher power and reduced voltage ripples.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2025/0300464 A1), and further in view of Liu (US 2021/0384820 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Ito teaches the method of claim 10, but is silent on teaching each DC-DC converter is a multi-stage resonant switched capacitor converter (MSR-SCC).
However, Liu teaches the use of a two stage resonant switched-capacitor DC-DC converter (see Liu abstract, para 36).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito to include the MSR-SCC from Liu to create a converter system with lower conduction losses and higher switching frequencies.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2025/0300464 A1), in view of Mao (US 2019/0148947 A1) and further in view of Johnson (US Patent 9,897,642 B1).
Regarding Claim 18, Ito teaches the method of claim 10, but is silent on teaching the outputs of the plurality of DC-DC converters are connected in series, and wherein each DC-DC converter is connected to each adjacent DC-DC converter by an LC branch comprising an inductor and a capacitor.
However, Mao teaches a plurality of DC-DC converters connected in series (see Mao fig 5a and para 36).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ito to include the series connected DC-DC converters from Mao to create a method of controlling a series connected DC-DC converter system.
The combination of Ito and Mao are silent on teaching each DC-DC converter is connected to each adjacent DC-DC converter by an LC branch comprising an inductor and a capacitor.
However, Johnson teaches a photovoltaic power converter system with an arc fault detector with filters extending to the positive connectors of the photovoltaic modules (see Johnson fig 2A elements 260, 360, and col 7 line 61 to col 8 line 19).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ito and Mao to include the teaching of Johnson to create an arc fault detection module with LC filters connected to each of the positive connectors of the photovoltaic strings. Arc fault detection could protect the components, property or personnel from arcing.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Ito, Mao and Johnson teaches the method of claim 18, but Ito and Mao are silent on teaching each LC branch is connected between the positive input terminals of each DC-DC converter.
However, Johnson teaches a LC filter connected to each of the positive terminals of the DC-DC converters (see Johnson fig 2A and col 7 line 61 to col 8 line 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Ito and Mao to include the teachings of Johnson to teach where the LC filter is connected to, allowing the sensor to detect the current flow in the positive input terminal of the DC-DC converter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA J SWEET whose telephone number is (571)272-6776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 4:30.
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.
/JOSHUA JAMES SWEET/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836