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 .
Response to Amendment
The previous made 105 request for information is withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims removing the undisclosed structure (emphasis added) previously present in claims 25 and 36 coupled with Figures amounting to no more than mere block diagrams with assigned functional attributes. Although functional language can be used to describe specific and known components in the art, Applicant is reminded that an apparatus as a whole must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function noting that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, see MPEP 2114(II) “ MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART”, noting:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
The previous made 112 rejections and objections to the Specification and Figures are withdrawn in with of the amendments to claims 25 and 36.
The 112(b) rejection of claim 38 is maintained. It is noted that since Applicant failed to provide any arguments regard said 112(b) rejection, the rejection of claim 38 is maintained as complete and proper.
The known function of a converter in the art is converting power. The function of a converter “deactivated when the energy storage system is fully charged” attempts to improperly define the invention narratively by the overall operation of the device. Such “deactivation” would require additional circuitry not claimed, such as circuitry to determine the state of the energy store and circuitry to perform the converter “deactivation”. Furthermore it is unclear what constitutes the function of “deactivation” nor what circuitry is associated with converter “deactivation” since the claim fails to recite the structure intended to be added by said apparatus claim. An apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function noting that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, see MPEP 2114(II) “ MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART”, noting:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding the 103 rejections:
First, Applicant appears to be arguing limitations not present in the claim including Manto teaching a “passive DC bus topology. However, Manto actually depicts a controller-centric micro-grid…”
Next, Applicant argues that Manto “FIG. 1 is not a wiring diagram” (Remarks, page 10). It is noted that the claim does not require a “DC bus” per se, as the claim recites a “bus system” which is broader than a bus per se. Applicant refers to the claim limitation the “DC bus system” when the claim itself does not recite “DC bus system” but instead is simply claimed as “a bus system”. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would indeed recognize FIGURE 1 for what it is and what it depicts as such a Figure is the norm in the art, such as use of simple block diagrams to depict a wiring diagram to support depiction of a DC bus and the like. Figure 1 of Manto clearly shows both electrical and data/communication connections of both block diagrams and electrical components. The DC sources are clearly depicted as commonly connected along a DC bus with bold point connection points known in the art.
Applicant goes on to argue “First, the ‘bus’ is downstream of control, not a common node.” (Remarks, Page 10). Applicant argues limitations not present in the claim, notably said “common node”. Applicant is further reminded that claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation so even if the “common node” was used in the claim, it would not preclude any specific downstream/upstream functional control since “common node” would be a physical component irrespective of the functional control occurring upstream/downstream.
Applicant’s arguments regarding “the storage of Manto does not supply DC power to a bus but operates as a sink” (Remarks, Page 11) are not persuasive since the claimed storage was taught by the combination of Smith and not that of Manto. Therefore, in response to applicant's arguments against Manto individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Third, Applicant argues “Manto’s power routing is control-mediated, not topology-drive” (Remarks, Page 11). Regardless of the truth of the statement, said method of control is not present in the apparatus claim. The claims are examined on the structure presented. Furthermore the argument fails to set forth what structure is tied to said “topology-driven” limitation not present in the claim nor what structure is therefore missing in the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 38 is 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.
Regarding claim 38
The claim limitation is improperly narrative attempting to define the apparatus by the narrative description and operation rather than structure of the apparatus. Particularly, the following claim language is improperly narrative and fails to set furth any identifiable structure to be added to the apparatus claim:
“wherein the converter is configured to be deactivated when the energy storage system is fully charged.”
Because of the great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim(s) 38, it is not proper to reject the present claim(s) on the basis of prior art. (See MPEP 2173.06 and In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
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) 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Manto US 2014/0337002.
Manto teaches:
Claim 32. A direct current power system, comprising:
A solar power system (PV Array, FIG1) configured to supply a first direct current power;
A converter (read on by PV charge controller) comprising:
An input electrically couplable to the solar system (See acutally coupled to said solar system,, FIG1); and
An output electrically couplable to a bus system (bus system of common bus system, actually coupled, FIGURE1), wherein the converter is configured to condition the first direct current power generated by the solar power system into the second direct current power to the bus system; and
A wind power system (WT) electrically couplable to the bus system, wherein the wind power system is configured to supply a third direct current power (ie via WT charge controller).
33. The direct current power system of Claim 32, wherein the solar power system comprises a solar panel (see solar panel PV array of FIG1).
34. The direct current power system of Claim 33, wherein the converter is configured to attenuate a voltage generated by the solar panel (see Manto charge controller FIG1, Noting that is the function of a PV charge controller).
35. The direct current power system of Claim 34, wherein attenuating the voltage alters an amount of current provided to the energy storage system (Noting that is the function of a PV charge controller).
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.
Claim(s) 21-24, 30, 31, 37 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manto US 2014/0337002 in view of Smith et al. US 2013/0187464.
Manto teaches:
21/37/39. A direct current power system, comprising:
a solar power system configured to supply a first direct current power (PV array, FIG1) via a charge controller (see “PV Charge controller” located between the PV array and DC bus, FIGURE 1);
and
a wind power system ([0032] see wind WT connected to WT controller) electrically couplable to a bus system (read on by DC bus connected to the outputs of the charge controllers, FIG1), wherein the wind power system is configured to supply a third direct current power (see FIG1).
Manto teaches a battery system (Primary battery storage) however fails to teach:
an energy storage system comprising: an input electrically couplable to the solar power system; and an output electrically couplable to a bus system, wherein the energy storage system is configured to supply a second direct current power to the bus system.
Smith teaches an energy storage system (battery bank 25, FIG2) comprising: an input electrically couplable to a solar power system (PV cell arrays, FIG2); and an output electrically couplable to a bus system (output of the bank to said inverter), wherein the energy storage system is configured to supply a second direct current power to the bus system (output voltage of the battery bank, FIG2).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the above energy storage system taught by Smith into the system of Manto at the output of the PV system of Manto to further include said energy storage system comprising said charge controller and additional battery bank (Smith, FIG2) into the system of Manto with the added benefit of increased power storage and desirable reliability.
Manto further teaches:
22. The direct current power system of Claim 21/32, wherein the solar power system comprises a solar panel (see solar panel PV array of FIG1).
Manto in view of Smith further teaches:
23. The direct current power system [of Claim 22], wherein the charge controller/converter is configured to attenuate a voltage generated by the solar panel (see Manto charge controller FIG1 and/or Smith charge controller FIG2 noting the addition of said charge controller not needed by Smith since it is already present and taught by Manto).
24. The direct current power system of Claim 23, wherein attenuating the voltage alters an amount of current provided to the energy storage system (Noting that is the function of a PV charge controller).
30. The direct current power system of Claim 21, further comprising an inverter electrically couplable to the bus system (see inverter, FIG1).
31. The direct current power system of Claim 30, wherein the inverter is configured to convert direct current power from the bus system into alternating current power (see inverter DC/AC converter, FIG1).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manto US 2014/0337002 in view of Smith et al. US 2013/0187464 and Wright et al. US 2011/0193518.
Manto in view of Smith fails to explicitly teach (A noted inherent function of a PF charge controller, further AAPA, 3/26/2026 Remarks “A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that charge controllers commonly include current-limiting functionality”. However to advance prosecution a reference has been applied to help advance prosecution):
25/36. The direct current power system of Claim 24/35, wherein the charge controller is configured to ( limit the current output from the charge controller, thereby) prevent delivery of the amount of current from the solar power system to the energy storage system.
Wright teaches a charge controller comprising an internal control configured to limit the current output from the charge controller, thereby providing the functional limitation of preventing delivery of the amount of current from the solar system to the energy storage system (See Spec @ [0027]).
It would have been obvious to include said current limiting circuitry taught by Wright into the system of Manto/Smith with the motivation of providing desirable current control to provide control such as overcharging and/or fault control.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manto US 2014/0337002 in view of Wright et al. US 2011/0193518.
Manto fails to explicitly teach (A noted inherent function of a PF charge controller, further AAPA, 3/26/2026 Remarks “A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that charge controllers commonly include current-limiting functionality”. However to advance prosecution a reference has been applied to help advance prosecution):
36. The direct current power system of Claim 35, wherein the charge controller is configured to ( limit the current output from the charge controller, thereby) prevent delivery of the amount of current from the solar power system to the energy storage system.
Wright teaches a charge controller comprising an internal control configured to limit the current output from the charge controller, thereby providing the functional limitation of preventing delivery of the amount of current from the solar system to the energy storage system (See Spec @ [0027]).
It would have been obvious to include said current limiting circuitry taught by Wright into the system of Manto with the motivation of providing desirable current control to provide control such as overcharging and/or fault control.
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 DANIEL CAVALLARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8541. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-18:30.
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.
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights