CTNF 18/893,048 CTNF 100787 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2024 and 5/14/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 06-18 AIA A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claim 16 cannot depend on itself. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-34-01 Claims 14-18 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. 112b: Claim 14 recites the limitation "to receive the direct current" in line 5. Examiner recommends applicant changes “ the ” to "to receive a direct current" to fix the antecedent basis. Claim 14 recites the limitation “output the three alternating currents” in line 7. Examiner recommends applicant changes “ the ” to "“output a three alternating currents” to fix the antecedent basis. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 depends on claim 14 thus have the same defects. 112b: Claim 16 recites the limitation "second difference between the first positive-sequence reactive current and the second positive-sequence" in lines 5-6 and 9-10. Examiner recommends applicant changes “ the ” to "second difference between a first positive-sequence reactive current and a second positive-sequence " to fix the antecedent basis. Claim 16 recites the limitation “difference between the first voltage and the preset threshold” in line 7. Examiner recommends applicant changes “ the ” to “difference between a first voltage and a preset threshold” to fix the antecedent basis. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 17-19 depends on claim 16 thus have the same defects. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 5. 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. 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-5, 8-10, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and 102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Azizi et. al. (U.S. Publication No 2024/0388195 A1) . Regarding claims 1, 8 and 11 , Azizi et. al. teaches a three-phase inverter (e.g. Fig. 19 ), configured to convert a direct current produced by a power generation device (e.g. input to switches 1901 )(Fig. 19 ) into three alternating currents, the three-phase inverter comprising: an input end (e.g. input to switches 1901 )(Fig. 19 ), configured to receive the direct current produced by the power generation device; an output end (e.g. output after 1904 )(Fig. 19 ), configured to output the three alternating currents to a power grid (Para [195], “This model can be integrated with models of other power system components (for example, transmission lines, conventional power plants, protective relays, and the like) to calculate the currents and voltages in different parts of the system during fault (i.e., LVRT) conditions. Utility engineers can use the results of these calculations to set up protective devices of the electrical grid. The software model generally receives one or more inputs described herein (e.g., LVRT voltage, pre-LVRT currents, current limitation strategy, K-factor, and the like) and outputs three-phase currents that would be generated by a code-compliant inverter”); a power conversion circuit (e.g. Fig. 19 ), configured to convert the direct current received by the input end into the three alternating currents, and output the three alternating currents through the output end; and a controller (e.g. 102 )(Fig. 6 )- configured to: when a low-voltage failure occurs (Para [0085], “At block 204 , the processing unit 102 receives an indication of an LVRT condition”) in the power grid and a voltage of at least one of the three alternating currents is greater than a preset threshold (Para [0091], “At block 205, the processing unit 102 determines whether the largest phase current magnitude exceeds a phase current limit”), control the power conversion circuit to provide a second positive-sequence reactive current for the power grid through the three alternating currents, wherein an absolute value of the second positive-sequence reactive current is less than an absolute value of a first positive-sequence reactive current (Para [0102], “At block 208, where the largest phase current magnitude I.sub.max exceeds a phase current limit, the processing unit 102 scales down the positive-sequence and negative-sequence reactive currents”), and the first positive-sequence reactive current is a reactive current provided by the three-phase inverter for the power grid when a low-voltage failure occurs in the power grid (Para [0083], “The system 100 executes a method that complies with the requirement to maximize an IBR's active current during LVRT while the requirements of applicable grid codes (for example, as outlined in the diagram of FIG. 1)”). Regarding claims 2 , 9, 12 and 15 , Azizi et. al. teaches wherein, before controlling the power conversion circuit to provide the second positive-sequence reactive current for the power grid through the three alternating currents, the controller is further configured to determine the second positive-sequence reactive current based on the first positive-sequence reactive current, the preset threshold, and a first voltage (Para [0072], “In an example, the LVRT mode can be engaged when one or more phase to phase voltages are outside of a static voltage range and/or there is a sudden change in voltage. In this example, the LVRT mode can be deactivated when all the phase to phase voltages are in the static voltage range or after five seconds if the sudden voltage change did not result in any voltage exceeding the static voltage range. The sudden voltage jump can be defined by an absolute difference between an actual value of the positive and negative sequence voltage and a 50 period average of the positive and negative sequence voltage relative to a declared voltage), greater than the preset threshold, of at least one of the three alternating currents. (Para [0004], “there is provided a method for determining active and reactive currents during asymmetrical low-voltage ride through (LVRT) conditions at an inverter, the method executable on a controller or executed as a model on a computer, the method comprising: receiving an indication of an LVRT condition; and where there is an active current such that the largest phase current magnitude does not exceed a phase current limit, determining a maximum active current for associated positive-sequence and negative-sequence reactive currents by determining a largest active current magnitude and outputting the largest active current and associated positive-sequence and negative-sequence reactive currents to the inverter, otherwise: scaling down each of the positive-sequence and negative-sequence reactive currents, or superimposed positive-sequence and negative-sequence reactive currents, to determine revised positive-sequence and negative-sequence reactive currents; where the magnitudes of all of the phase currents are below the phase current limit and a β condition for each phase after the scaling down is within a predetermined range, determining non-zero positive-sequence revised active current, the β condition based on a negative voltage angle (θ.sub.V.sub.−) and a positive voltage angle (θ.sub.V.sub.+); and outputting the revised active current and the revised positive-sequence and negative-sequence reactive currents to the inverter”). Regarding claims 3, 10, 13 and 16 , Azizi et. al. teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine a second difference between the first positive-sequence reactive current and the second positive-sequence reactive current based on a first difference between the first voltage and the preset threshold, wherein the first difference and the second difference are in a positive correlation relationship; and determine the second positive-sequence reactive current based on the first positive-sequence reactive current and the second difference. (Para [0154], “For FIG. 21, Block 2102 represents determining of the sequence reactive currents based on the sequence voltage changes. This can be performed using the K-factor diagram in FIG. 1 or any other grid code/standard for grid integration of inverter-based resources. Block 2104 represents performance of Equation (4) and Equation (5) to calculate the initial references for the sequence reactive currents. Block 2106 represents using the upper bound of the intersection of the four ranges given by Equation (10) to determine the maximum positive-sequence active current. Block 2108 represents determining of the scaling factor ρ. Equation (14) is solved for each phase; then, the largest ρ within the [0,1] range that is the solution of Equation (14) for one of the phases but also keeps the current magnitude in the other two phases below I.sub.max is the output of this block. Block 2110 represents determination of the revised references for sequence reactive currents from the right side of Equation (12). Block 2112 represents the process of finding maximum |I.sub.P.sup.+| being repeated for the revised reactive currents ”). Regarding claims 4 and 17 , Azizi et. al. teaches wherein a grid-tied environment for the three-phase inverter and the power grid is a weak power grid; or a grid-tied environment for the three-phase inverter and the power grid is a strong power grid. (Para [0003], “Regardless of the GC, an inverter's phase currents must be limited, necessitating a prioritization scheme for the different components of current. Some GCs give higher priority to the reactive component of an IBR's LVRT current over its active component. Once the reactive current requirement in FIG. 1 is satisfied, the inverter's remaining capacity must be used to maximize the positive-sequence active current, I.sub.P.sup.+. Meanwhile, depending on ΔV.sup.±, the ΔI.sub.Q.sup.± given by FIG. 1 may lead to phase currents beyond the inverter's limit. Under such conditions, ΔI.sub.Q.sup.+ and ΔI.sub.Q.sup.− are reduced uniformly to limit the phase current. Thus, this LVRT requirement can be summarized as prioritization/maximization of ΔI.sub.Q.sup.± and maximization of I.sub.P.sup.+ while the phase current limit of an inverter is met). Regarding claims 5 and 18 , Azizi et. al. teaches wherein voltages of the three alternating currents comprise at least two different voltage values. (Fig 4A and 4B ). Regarding claim 14 , Azizi et. al. teaches a system- comprising: a transformer (Para [0082], “The system 100 can interface with each IBR 150, via interfacing with an interface transformer of the inverter 150, at the POC”); and a plurality of three-phase inverters (Para [0082], “The system 100 is connectable to provide instructions to an inverter 150 (also referred to as an inverter-based resource (IBR)) associated with further electrical power circuitry, such as solar power generator circuitry. In some cases, the system 100 is connectable to one or more IBRs”), connected to a power grid through the transformer (Para [0073], “all IBRs were rated at 34.5 kV, 200 MW, and interfaced to the grid through 250-MVA, 230-kV/34.5-kV, YGd1 transformers), wherein each three-phase inverter comprises: an input end (e.g. input to switches 1901 )(Fig. 19 ), configured to receive the direct current produced by the power generation device; an output end (e.g. output after 1904 )(Fig. 19 ), configured to output the three alternating currents to a power grid (Para [195], “This model can be integrated with models of other power system components (for example, transmission lines, conventional power plants, protective relays, and the like) to calculate the currents and voltages in different parts of the system during fault (i.e., LVRT) conditions. Utility engineers can use the results of these calculations to set up protective devices of the electrical grid. The software model generally receives one or more inputs described herein (e.g., LVRT voltage, pre-LVRT currents, current limitation strategy, K-factor, and the like) and outputs three-phase currents that would be generated by a code-compliant inverter”); a power conversion circuit a power conversion circuit (e.g. Fig. 19 ), configured to convert the direct current received by the input end into the three alternating currents, and output the three alternating currents through the output end; and a controller (e.g. 102 )(Fig. 6 ), configured to: when a low-voltage failure occurs (Para [0085], “At block 204 , the processing unit 102 receives an indication of an LVRT condition”) in the power grid and a voltage of at least one of the three alternating currents is greater than a preset threshold (Para [0091], “At block 205, the processing unit 102 determines whether the largest phase current magnitude exceeds a phase current limit.”), control the power conversion circuit to provide a second positive-sequence reactive current for the power grid through the three alternating currents, wherein an absolute value of the second positive-sequence reactive current is less than an absolute value of a first positive-sequence reactive current (Para [0102], “At block 208, where the largest phase current magnitude I.sub.max exceeds a phase current limit, the processing unit 102 scales down the positive-sequence and negative-sequence reactive currents”), and the first positive-sequence reactive current is a reactive current provided by each three-phase inverter for the power grid when a low-voltage failure occurs in the power grid (Para [0083], “The system 100 executes a method that complies with the requirement to maximize an IBR's active current during LVRT while the requirements of applicable grid codes (for example, as outlined in the diagram of FIG. 1)”). Regarding claim 20 , Azizi et. al. teaches wherein, before controlling the power conversion circuit to provide the second positive-sequence reactive current for the power grid through the three alternating currents, the controller is configured to obtain, from a mapping relationship, the second positive-sequence reactive current corresponding to a voltage range to which the first voltage belongs, and the mapping relationship comprises a plurality of voltage ranges and a correspondence between each voltage range and a positive-sequence reactive current. (Para [0113], “At block 212, the processing unit 102 communicates the revised reactive currents and the revised active currents to the respective IBR 150. The IBR 150 generally has a positive-sequence control loop which receives the references for the revised positive-sequence currents and generates such references. The IBR 150 generally also has a similar loop for generating the revised negative-sequence currents. In the block diagram of FIG. 19, such control loops are part of the “Current Controller” block”)(Para [0082], “The processing unit 102 executes instructions stored on the one or more memory units 104 to perform a number of steps, as described herein. The system may include other components as applicable or suitable, such as a local bus enabling the one or more processing units 102 to communicate with one or more memory units 104”) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azizi et. al. (U.S. Publication No 2024/0388195 A1) in view of Wen et. al. (CN Patent No 113238172A). Regarding claims 6 and 19 , Azizi et. al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a difference between the absolute value of the first positive-sequence reactive current and the absolute value of the second positive-sequence reactive current is greater than 10% of a rated current of the three-phase inverter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to set the difference of the absolute of the first and second positive-sequence reactive current to be greater than 10% of the rated current of the three-phase inverter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the circuit of Azizi et. al. to include the features of having a difference between the absolute value of the first positive-sequence reactive current and the absolute value of the second positive-sequence reactive current is greater than 10% of a rated current of the three-phase inverter, because it provides an output transient control means, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 7 , Azizi et. al. discloses the limitations found in claim 1. Azizi et. al. does not teach wherein the preset threshold is greater than or equal to 1.1 times of a rated voltage of the three-phase inverter. However, Wen et. al. teaches wherein the preset threshold is greater than or equal to 1.1 times of a rated voltage (WIPO machine translation Para [n0079], “For example, when the first threshold phase voltage is selected as 0.8 times the rated phase voltage”) of the three-phase inverter. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the “Three-phase inverter” teachings of Azizi et. al. in claim 1 such that it comprises “wherein the preset threshold is greater than or equal to 1.1 times of a rated voltage of the three-phase inverter” as taught by Wen et al. The reason for doing so would have been to provide a transient control means to prevent component damages, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN W SOILEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-6650. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00 CT. 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, Hammond L Crystal can be reached at 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 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. /JONATHAN WALTER SOILEAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2838 /CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 Application/Control Number: 18/893,048 Page 2 Art Unit: 2838 Application/Control Number: 18/893,048 Page 3 Art Unit: 2838 Application/Control Number: 18/893,048 Page 4 Art Unit: 2838 Application/Control Number: 18/893,048 Page 5 Art Unit: 2838 Application/Control Number: 18/893,048 Page 6 Art Unit: 2838 Application/Control Number: 18/893,048 Page 7 Art Unit: 2838 Application/Control Number: 18/893,048 Page 8 Art Unit: 2838 Application/Control Number: 18/893,048 Page 9 Art Unit: 2838 Application/Control Number: 18/893,048 Page 10 Art Unit: 2838 Application/Control Number: 18/893,048 Page 11 Art Unit: 2838 Application/Control Number: 18/893,048 Page 12 Art Unit: 2838 Application/Control Number: 18/893,048 Page 13 Art Unit: 2838 Application/Control Number: 18/893,048 Page 14 Art Unit: 2838
Prosecution Insights