DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 16 October 2024.
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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority to 16 October 2024.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 6 are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
For method claims, note that under MPEP 2112.02, the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated. (The claims have been condensed.)
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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollila (US 7773396) in view of Choi et als “Review of Methods for Reducing Circulating Currents in Parallel Connected Modular Inverters” (JEET NPL),
As to claim 1, Ollila discloses a system comprising: an adjustable speed drive (ASD) (Col. 1, lines 5-7 “Frequency converters”) )module comprising an input (input to REC), an output (output of INV), and a plurality of ASDs in parallel, each ASD comprising: a rectifier electrically (REC 10/11) connected to the input of the ASD module; an inverter (INV 11/12) electrically connected to the output of the ASD module, the inverter comprising a plurality of controllable switches (Fig. 2, unlabelled IGBTs) configured to switch at a switching frequency; and a direct current (DC) link electrically connected to the rectifier and the inverter (CDC1/ CDC2); and a control system coupled to the ASD module (item generating gate signals).
Ollia does not explicitly teach the control system configured to compensate for a plurality of circulating currents.
Choi teaches (Fig. 2) module comprising an input (DC input to inverters), an output (output to L1/L2), and a plurality of inverters in parallel, each comprising:; an inverter (Va1, Vb1, Vc1 and Va2, Vb2, Vc2) electrically connected to the output of the ASD module, the inverter comprising a plurality of controllable switches (Fig. 1, IGBTs) configured to switch at a switching frequency; and a direct current (DC) link electrically connected to the inverter (DC input); and a control system coupled to the ASD module (item generating gate signals), the control system configured to compensate for a plurality of circulating currents (Fig. 4, Control)..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use circulating current reduction as disclosed in Choi to increase the power rating of the inverter.
As to claim 2, Ollia in view of Choi teaches wherein the plurality of circulating currents comprise a circulating current associated with the switching frequency (Choi, equations 15/16) and a circulating current associated with an operating speed (Choi, utility frequency) of a load electrically connected to the ASD module.
As to claim 3, Ollia in view of Choi teaches wherein, to compensate for the circulating current associated with the switching frequency, the control system is configured to minimize a difference in an electrical quantity output by the inverter of each of the plurality of ASDs (Choi, Fig. 11/12 charrier synchronization).
As to claim 5, Ollia in view of Choi teaches wherein, to compensate for the circulating current associated with the switching frequency, the control system is configured to adjust a phase of a carrier frequency of at least one of the inverters ( Choi, Fig. 11/12).
As to claim 6, Ollia in view of Choi teaches wherein, to compensate for the circulating current associated with the operating speed of the load, the control system is configured to minimize a difference in an observed o-axis current (Choi, Fig. 17).
As to claim 7, Ollia in view of Choi teaches a cross-circulating current compensation module configured to: access a measured value of an electrical quantity at each of a plurality of inverters, wherein each of the plurality of inverters is electrically connected to an independent DC link; determine a difference between the accessed measured values; determine a compensation based on the determined difference; and adjust a carrier wave of one or more of the plurality of inverters based on the determined compensation (this is similar to claim 1 and 5 above and is obvious for similar reasons).
As to claim 9, Olia in view of Choi teaches wherein the compensation comprises a phase shift, and to adjust the carrier wave of one or more of the plurality of inverters, the cross-circulating current compensation module is configured to delay or advance the carrier wave of one or more of the plurality of inverters by the phase shift (Choi, Fig. 11/12).
As to claim 10, Ollia in view of Choi teaches comprising an operating frequency circulating current compensation module configured to reduce an amount of circulating current at an operating frequency of a load electrically connected to the plurality of inverters (Choi, equations 15/16).
As to claim 11, Ollia in view of Choi teaches wherein the cross-circulating current compensation module is further configured to minimize the difference between the accessed measured values and to determine the compensation based on the minimized difference (Choi, Fig. 11/12).
As to claim 12, this is a method claim similar to apparatus cliam 1 above, and is obvious per MPEP 2112.02.
As to claim 13, Ollia in view of Choi teaches wherein the electrical quantity comprises a three-phase current at an output of each of the plurality of inverters (Ollia and Choi both show polypahse inverters), and, after providing the adjusted control signal to the one or more of the plurality of inverters, any one phase of the three-phase output current at a first one of the plurality of inverters is substantially the same in amplitude and phase as that same one phase at any other of the plurality of inverters (Fig. 11/12 of Choi show phase synchronization).
Claims 4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ollila (US 7773396) in view of Choi (JEET NPL) and Basic (US 20160248315).
As to claim 4, Ollia in view of Choi does not explicitly teach wherein the electrical quantity comprises a β-axis output current. Though strongly implied by the orthogonal transformation, and error value to the Beta axis is not explicitly taught.
Basic teaches wherein the electrical quantity comprises a β-axis output current (Fig. 4, error comparing beta reference and measured current).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use Beta current comparison as disclosed in Basic to have a control reference frame that operates at the load frequency.
As to claim 8, Ollia in view of Choi does not explicitly teach wherein, to determine a difference between the measured values, the cross-circulating current compensation module is configured to determine a difference between a β-axis component of an output current of each of the plurality of inverters.
Basic teaches wherein, to determine a difference between the measured values, the cross-circulating current compensation module is configured to determine a difference between a β-axis component of an output current of each of the plurality of inverters (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use Beta current comparison as disclosed in Basic to have a control reference frame that operates at the load frequency.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular column, paragraph, and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1375. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM,Monday through Thursday, EST.
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/PETER M NOVAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2839
Prosecution Insights