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 .
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) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker et al. (US 2023/0082909) in view of Stephens (US 2015/0035286)
Re Claim 1 and 10; Barker discloses A computer-implemented method of controlling a bipole power transmission network, (see the power transmission network in Fig. 1 comprising the controllers 46, 56, and 58; also, see parr 0052).
the bipole power transmission network comprising a first power conversion means (power converters 30 and 48) comprising first and second power converters having respective first and second alternating current ‘AC’ sides and respective first and second direct current ‘DC’ sides, (see the power converters 30 and 48 having corresponding DC and AC sides)
a second power conversion means comprising third and fourth power converters having respective third and fourth AC sides and third and fourth DC sides (See the converters 60 and 62 in figure 1),
a first power transmission means electrically connected between the first and third DC sides and defining a first electrical pole, (See item 18, Fig. 1) a second power transmission means electrically connected between the second and fourth DC sides and defining a second electrical pole, (See item 20 Fig. 1) and a neutral arrangement electrically connected between the first, second, third and fourth DC sides (See item 22, Fig. 1),
wherein the first and second AC sides of the first and second power converters are electrically connected to respective AC networks via respective first and second AC buses, (the buses respectively connected to the points 36 and 54) the method comprising:
synchronizing a first AC bus voltage of the first AC bus with a second AC bus voltage of the second AC bus by (See par 0084):
synchronizing a first voltage-controlled oscillator ‘VCO’ of the first power converter and a second VCO of the second power converter, with a third reference VCO (designed level), such that the first VCO and second VCO are synchronized with each other. (Par 0078, 84 and 94, 101 the reference phase angle, which is generated by the controller 58 and therefore be regarded as a virtual VCO, as also covered by the present application in claim 8) and
Barker does not disclose wherein the first AC bus is electrically isolated from the second AC bus.
However, Stephens discloses wherein the first AC bus (the left side of bus ) is electrically isolated from the second AC bus (the right side of bus is electrically isolated from the left side by the switches labelled 6 Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective file of the invention to have electrically isolate the buses in order to protect the bus against fault. Isolating the first AC bus from the second ensures that a severe electrical fault, short circuit, or heavy load spike on one bus does not compromise the other. This split-bus architecture provides two primary benefits: Fault Protection & Reliability: If one bus experiences a failure or short, the other remains fully functional, preventing a complete system blackout. maintenance Safety: It allows technicians to safely perform maintenance, inspections, or repairs on one bus while the other continues to supply power to critical systems.
Re Claim 2; Barker discloses wherein the synchronizing the first VCO and the second VCO with the third reference VCO comprises: synchronizing the first and second VCOs to a reference signal output by the third reference VCO. (Par 0078, 84 and 94, 101)
Re Claim 3; Barker discloses wherein the synchronizing the first VCO and the second VCO with the third reference VCO comprises: synchronizing respective phase angles of the first and second VCOs with a phase angle of the third reference VCO. (See the phase angle adjustment in Par 84)
Re Claim 4; Barker discloses wherein the synchronizing the first VCO and the second VCO with the third reference VCO is performed a plurality of times. (Par 0097-100 and also see Fig. 4, the close loop indicates that the process would be performed plurality of times)
Re Claim 5; Barker discloses wherein the synchronizing the first and VCO and the second VCO with the third reference VCO is performed periodically or substantially continuously. (Par 0101).
Re Claim 6; Barker disclosure has been discussed above.
Barker does not disclose further comprising: monitoring the synchronization of the first and second VCOs with the third reference VCO; determining, based on the monitoring, whether the first and second VCOs are unsynchronized with the third reference VCO; and resynchronizing, based on the determining, the first and second VCOs with the third reference VCO.
However, the steps do not introduce a new concept for maintaining synchronization. They merely apply the well-known monitor-detect-correct principle to a particular configuration of oscillators.
For any system where multiple components must remain synchronized, it is a routine engineering task to implement a mechanism to detect when that synchronization fails and to re-establish it.
There is no inventive step in deciding that if synchronization is lost, it should be re-established. The problem of maintaining synchronization in a multi-oscillator system is a well-known problem, and the solution of monitoring and correcting is an obvious application of basic control theory.
Re Claim 7; Barker discloses wherein the first and second power converters operate in an AC voltage and frequency control mode defining a reference voltage and frequency of the respective AC networks connected thereto. (Par 0070)
Re Claim 8; Barker discloses wherein the third reference VCO is a virtual VCO. (Par 0078, 84 and 94, 101 the reference phase angel, which is generated by the central controller 58 can therefore be regarded as a virtual VCO)
Re Claim 9; Barker discloses A controller for controlling a bipole power transmission network, the controller comprising: a memory; and at least one processor; wherein the memory comprises computer-readable instructions which when executed by the at least one processor cause the controller to perform the method of claim 1. (Par 0096 shows that the converters are programmed which indicates that it would have a processor and memory.)
Re Claims11; Barker discloses wherein: the bipole power transmission network is a high voltage direct current ‘HVDC’ power transmission network; and/or the AC networks are wind power generation networks. (Fig. 1)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed 03/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Stephens.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst.
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 KESSIE/
05/27/2026
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights