DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The Notice of Allowance has been withdrawn, prosecution is reopened and a new non-final rejection is submitted rejecting all claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
35 USC 101 rejection
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Step 1: is the claim directed to a statutory class? Yes: 1-3 apparatus, 4-5
methods.
Step 2A, Prong 1: is the claim directed to non-statutory subject matter? Yes,
calculating an output frequency is math and/or this is a mental step that can
be done with the aid of pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: does the claim include limitations that are a practical
application? No, the power conversion unit is merely a field of use limitation
for the abstract math.
Step 2B: are there any limitations that are significantly more than the
abstract math/mental steps? No, the power conversion unit and the
determining units are routine and conventional. See applied prior art.
Claim 2 and 5 provides additional math/mental steps
Claim 3 is not a practical application because measuring a dc instantaneous
voltage is routine data gather.
Claim 6 is not directed to ineligible because computer programs are per se
not eligible. The BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation) of a program on a
recording medium is a program carried on a carrier wave, where signals are
per se not eligible. See mpep 2106.03
• Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information
(often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often
referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any
structural recitations; in
a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete
structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a
machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a
manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the
real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of
matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. Nuijten, 500
F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. As such, a transitory,
propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. Mentor
Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120,
1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-
03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC 112
Potential 35 USC 112
Claims 1-3 should have been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) for the following
reasons
Claim 1
Claim language at issue: "...a frequency control unit for calculating a
frequency..."
Reasoning: The examiner should argue that the term "unit" is a nonce term
or generic placeholder that simply describes the function of "calculating a
frequency".
Prima facie rejection: The examiner should make a prima facie case that
"frequency control unit" is a means-plus-function limitation because it
consists of a generic placeholder ("unit") and is coupled with functional
language ("for calculating a frequency"). If the specification does not
disclose a specific corresponding structure or algorithm that performs the
claimed function, the claim should be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
For software-implemented functions, disclosing a specific algorithm is
almost always required to provide sufficient structure.
There is a three step process for determining if a limitation invokes means
plus function. The last step is: and not modified by structure to perform
the function.
Claim 2
Claim language at issue: "...the frequency control unit includes: a steadystate
frequency determination unit for calculating a steady-state
frequency determination value; a dynamic-state frequency determination
unit for calculating a dynamic-state frequency determination value; and a
grid-forming frequency control unit for calculating an output frequency..."
Reasoning: This dependent claim, which elaborates on the "frequency
control unit" from Claim 1, contains additional limitations that are also
subject to the same § 112(f) analysis.
Prima facie rejection: The examiner should argue that the terms "steadystate
frequency determination unit," "dynamic-state frequency
determination unit," and "grid-forming frequency control unit" are generic
placeholders coupled with functional language. Since "unit" and
"determination unit" are unlikely to be understood by a person of ordinary
skill in the art as denoting a specific, commonly understood structure, the
limitations should trigger § 112(f). The claim should be found indefinite
under § 112(b) if the specification does not disclose a specific algorithm
for how these functions are performed.
Claim 3
No algorithm or structure to generate a corresponding frequency.
Art Rejection I
The allowance of claims 1 and 4 appears to be improper and should have
rejected under 35 USC 102(a1) over Kouno et al. (US 2021/0288592).
Regarding claim 1, Kouno teaches in (see fig. 1), a grid-forming
power conversion control device comprising: a power conversion unit for
converting power supplied from a new and renewable energy generator
into a voltage suitable for supplying to a grid power source (see inverter, 6
para 0024 and source, 7, para 0023); and a frequency control unit (see 23
of control unit, 3) for calculating a frequency output from the power
conversion unit (see para 0033).
Regarding claim 4, Kuono teaches in (see fig. 1) a grid-forming
power conversion control method executed in a grid-forming power
conversion control device, the method comprising the steps of: converting
power (see 6 of fig. 1, para 0024) supplied from a new and renewable
energy generator (see 7 of fig. 1, para 0023) into a voltage suitable for
supplying to a grid power source; and calculating an output frequency (see
element 23 of fig. 1 part of control unit “3”, para. 0033).
Art Rejection II
The allowance of claims 1 and 4 appears to be improper and should have
rejected under 35 USC 102(a1) over Pahlevaninezhad et al. (US
2016/0372926 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pahlevaninezhad et al. in (see fig. 8) teaches a
grid-forming power conversion control device comprising: a power
conversion unit for converting power (3 phase inverter, DC/AC inverter)
supplied from a new and renewable energy generator (see para 0054) into
a voltage suitable for supplying to a grid power source; and a frequency
control unit (500 including 530 “frequency calculator”, see para 0069) for
calculating a frequency output from the power conversion unit.
Regarding Claim 4, Pahlevaninezhad et al. in (see fig. 8) teaches a
grid-forming power conversion control method executed in a grid-forming
power conversion control device, the method in (see fig. 8) comprising the
steps of: converting power supplied from a new and renewable energy
generator into a voltage suitable for supplying to a grid power source
performed by (3 phase inverter, DC/AC inverter); and calculating an output
frequency, performed by a frequency calculator (500 including 530, see
para 0069).
Art Rejection III
The allowance of claims 1 and 4 appears to be improper and should have
rejected under 35 USC 102(a1) over Park et al. (EP 3 654 483 A1).
Regarding claim 1, EP’ 483 A1 “Park et al.” teaches a power
converting apparatus in (see fig. 5) comprising power conversion control
device comprising: a power conversion unit (530, 540) for converting
power supplied from a new and renewable energy generator into a voltage
suitable for supplying to a grid power source; and a frequency control unit
(550) with first frequency calculator, details shown in fig. 6, (552, see para
0114, para 0188-0189, 0192) for calculating a frequency output from the
power conversion unit (inverter).
Regarding claim 4, Park et al. EP’ 483 A1 “Park et al.” teaches a
power converting apparatus in (see fig. 5) comprising power conversion
control device comprising: a power conversion unit (530, 540) for
converting power supplied from a new and renewable energy generator
into a voltage suitable for supplying to a grid power source; and a
frequency control unit (550), details shown in fig. 6, with first frequency
calculator (552, see para 0114, para 0188-0189, 0192) for calculating a
frequency output from the power conversion unit (inverter)
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)(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) 1,2,4,5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by PARK et al. EP 3654483A1.
CLAIM 1
PARK et al. discloses a grid-forming power conversion control device comprising:
a power conversion unit for converting power supplied from a new and renewable energy generator into a voltage suitable for supplying to a grid power source; and
a frequency control unit for calculating a frequency output from the power conversion unit.
FIG. 5 AND FIG. 6, FIRST CALCULATOR, SECOND CACULATOR
CLAIM 2
PARK et al. discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the frequency control unit includes:
a steady-state frequency determination unit for calculating a steady-state frequency determination value;
a dynamic-state frequency determination unit for calculating a dynamic-state frequency determination value; and
a grid-forming frequency control unit for calculating an output frequency by adding a frequency determination value of a steady state and a frequency determination value of a dynamic state.
PARK et al. teaches as an output from an inverter has to match a grid voltage, a frequency of the output voltage from the inverter which matches a frequency of the grid voltage is detected using the PLL. Based on information regarding the frequency, DC power received from a Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) device is generated into DC power having an amplitude and a phase matching with the frequency of the grid voltage and the AC power is output, but, in the present invention, a deviation of the information regarding the frequency is used to determine islanding operation.
The first calculator 552 can calculate a first frequency variation Err, which corresponds to a difference between a frequency of a current output voltage and a frequency of a previous output voltage, based on a frequency calculated by the PLL. The frequency of the previous output voltage can be a value stored in the memory 554.
The reactive power injector 553 can output a control signal Sip so as to inject reactive power based on the first frequency variation corresponding to the difference between the frequency of the current output voltage and the frequency of the previous output voltage.
In particular, the reactive power injector 553 can randomly inject reactive power based on the first frequency variation corresponding to the difference between the frequency of the current output voltage and the frequency of the previous output voltage.
For example, the reactive power injector 553 can perform control such that magnitude of reactive power to be injected increases or a period of injecting reactive power increases as the first frequency variation increases.
Meanwhile, the reactive power injector 553 can inject reactive power only when the first frequency variation corresponding to the difference between the frequency of the current output voltage and the frequency of the previous output voltage exceeds a reference value.
That is, when the first frequency variation corresponding to the difference between the frequency of the current output voltage and the frequency of the previous output voltage is less than or equal to the reference value, the reactive power injector 553 need not inject reactive power.
The memory 554 can store the frequency of the previous output voltage. In addition, the memory 554 can store a frequency of a grid voltage before injection of reactive power.
After injection of reactive power, the second calculator 556 can calculate a second frequency variation corresponding to difference between a frequency of a grid voltage after the injection of reactive power and a frequency of a grid voltage before the injection of reactive power.
Here, the frequency of the grid voltage before the injection of reactive power can be a value stored in the memory 554.
Meanwhile, when the second frequency variation calculated by the second calculator 556 is greater than or equal to a preset value, the operation stopping unit 557 can output an operation stop signal Sst to turn off the inverter 540. Accordingly, the inverter 540 is turned off, stopping operation.
CLAIM 4
PARK et al. discloses a grid-forming power conversion control method executed in a grid- forming power conversion control device, the method comprising the steps of: converting power supplied from a new and renewable energy generator into a voltage suitable for supplying to a grid power source; and calculating an output frequency (FIGS. 5,6).
CLAIM 5
PARK ET AL. discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the step of calculating an output frequency includes the steps of: calculating a steady-state frequency determination value; calculating a dynamic-state frequency determination value; and calculating an output frequency by adding a frequency determination value of a steady state and a frequency determination value of a dynamic state (REFER TO CLAIM 2 REJECTION ABOVE)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT L DEBERADINIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2049. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am to 6 pm.
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, Barnie Rexford can be reached at 571 272 2391. 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.
November 18, 2025
/ROBERT L DEBERADINIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836