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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 12, 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Re claims 1 and 12, the phrasing and context of the last 3 paragraphs is somewhat vague as currently drafted. In particular, the claim does not provide basic context for how the power conversion units operate in power reserve (PR) mode and MPPT mode, is vague regarding relation of the reference power to the PR mode, and is vague regarding the relation/meaning of the control periodicity with the target power conversion units and other power conversion units. The number of target power conversion units is also not limited in relation to N, which may potentially be confusing since there would be no other power conversion units aside from the target units if equal to N. It is recommended Applicant adjust the phrasing of the claim to at minimum address these issues and prevent unintended interpretation of the claim recitation. An example amendment to claim 1 is as follows, and other similar amendments may be appropriate and also similarly applied to claim 12.
Claim 1. (Suggested Amendment) A power conversion system comprising:
N power conversion units and
a control unit, wherein N is an integer and N≥2, a first terminal of each power conversion unit is configured to connect to a respective direct current (DC) power supply or a respective alternating current (AC) power supply, a second terminal of each power conversion unit is configured to connect to a load, an energy storage unit, or a power grid, and each power conversion unit is configured to:
perform conversion on a direct current input by the respective direct current power supply or an alternating current input by the respective alternating current power supply, and then output a respective current obtained through the conversion,
operate in an operating mode including:
a maximum power point tracking (MPPT) mode to obtain and output a respective maximum power from the respective DC power supply or respective AC power supply, and
a power reserve (PR) mode to output a respective reference power that is less than the respective maximum power; and
the control unit is configured to:
control, in a plurality of control periodsperiodically selected from the N power conversion units in each control period to be switched from the PR mode to the MPPT mode, wherein the number of one or more target power conversion units is less than N, and
update the respective maximum power of the one or more target power conversion units during the MPPT mode, update the respective reference power of the one or more target power conversion units based on the updated respective maximum power, and switch the one or more target power conversion units back to the PR mode
control the operating mode of a power conversion unit other than the one or more target power conversion units in the N power conversion units to remain unchanged during each control period.
Other similar amendments and clarifications may be appropriate. The claims will currently be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation however until further rephrasing is provided.
Re claim 3, 14, as currently drafted there appears to be insufficient context for probability of selecting a portion of the power conversion units. The claim may require the context or need to depend on claim 2 or 13, respectively, though regardless further description of what the portion of the power conversion units refers to should be made clearer even if the dependency is changed. For purposes of examination the claim is currently broadly interpreted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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) 1, 3, 6-12, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosse (US2019/0305561).
Re claim 1. Rosse teaches a power conversion system (see Figs. 1-3) comprising:
N power conversion units (inverters <OND1-N>) and
a control unit (computing device <DIS>), wherein N is an integer and N≥2 (see Rosse: [0050], Fig. 1), a first terminal of each power conversion unit is configured to connect to a direct current power supply (respective photovoltaic panels <PV1-N>) or an alternating current power supply, a second terminal of each power conversion unit is configured to connect to a load, an energy storage unit, or a power grid (see Rosse: [0054-0057], Fig. 1 regarding inverters configured to be able to provide their power to electrical distribution network/grid), and the power conversion unit is configured to:
perform conversion on a direct current input by the direct current power supply or an alternating current input by the alternating current power supply, and
then output a current obtained through the conversion (see Rosse: [0050-0056], Fig. 1 regarding inverter power conversion operation); and
the control unit is configured to:
control, in a control periodicity, operating modes of one or more target power conversion units (k inverters, see Rosse: [0060-0064], Figs. 1, 3) in the N power conversion units to be switched between a power reserve (PR) mode (operating at respective curbed power setpoint) and a maximum power point tracking (MPPT) mode (operating at respective MPP; see Rosse: [0060-0067], [0069], [0070], [0072-0074], Figs. 1, 3, regarding cyclically selecting k inverters to operate at MPP while other N-k inverters operate at power setpoints, i.e. the k inverters previously were at power setpoints), and
update a reference power (power setpoint) based on a maximum power obtained in the MPPT mode, for an operating power of the target power conversion unit obtained after switching from the MPPT mode to the PR mode to be an updated reference power, wherein the updated reference power is less than or equal to the maximum power (see Rosse: [0060-0069], [0070], [0072-0077], Figs. 1, 3 regarding the inverter previously operating at MPP recording the MPP value in memory, and then when subsequently operating at power setpoint, determining the updated power setpoint by subtracting desired reserve power value from the recorded MPP value); and
control an operating mode of a power conversion unit other than the target power conversion unit in the N power conversion units to remain unchanged (see Rosse: [0060-0069], [0070], [0072-0074], Figs. 1, 3, regarding another one of the inverters continuing to operate at power setpoint while it is not chosen as k inverter). See Rosse: [0050-0057], [0060-0069], [0070], [0072-0074], Figs. 1, 3.
Re claim 3. Rosse teaches the power conversion system according to claim 1, wherein each probability of selecting a portion of the power conversion units as the target power conversion unit is different (see Rosse: [0067], [0072-0074], Fig. 1, 3 regarding sequentially cycling through k inverters in turn, i.e. during a particular iteration some inverters would have 100% chance of being the target k inverter and some inverters would have 0%; note also the Objection above regarding lack of context for the claim/possible incorrect claim dependency).
Re claim 6. Rosse teaches the power conversion system according to claim 1, wherein the target power conversion unit is one or more power conversion units selected from the N power conversion units in a fixed sequence (see Rosse: [0067], [0072-0074], Fig. 1, 3 regarding example of sequentially cycling through the inverters in turn).
Re claim 7. Rosse teaches the power conversion system according to claim 6, wherein the N power conversion units comprise a first unit group to an M" unit group that are disposed in sequence, any unit group comprises one or more power conversion units, and M is an integer and M≥2;a plurality of consecutive cycle periodicities comprise one or a combination of a first cycle periodicity and a second cycle periodicity; in the first cycle periodicity, one unit group sequentially selected based on a sequence from the first unit group to the M" unit group is used as the target power conversion unit; and in the second cycle periodicity, one unit group sequentially selected based on a sequence from the Mth unit group to the first unit group is used as the target power conversion unit (see Rosse: [0067], [0072-0074], Fig. 1, 3 regarding example of sequentially cycling through the inverters in turn, i.e. a first cycle periodicity sequentially from 1st k inverter groups to a 2nd k inverter group).
Re claim 8. Rosse teaches the power conversion system according to claim 7, wherein when the plurality of cycle periodicities comprises the first cycle periodicity and the second cycle periodicity, and the first cycle periodicity and the second cycle periodicity occur alternately (limitation of combination of first and second cycle periodicity recited in the alternative and thus not required; note also Rosse: [0067], [0072-0074], Fig. 1, 3 generally suggests sequences that could broadly read on the claim limitations regardless due to broad phrasing/lack of context, such as for example if N and M were equal to 2).
Re claim 9. Rosse teaches the power conversion system according to claim 1, wherein the updated reference power is equal to a target maximum power minus a reserved power and the target maximum power is a maximum power in or a maximum power average value of maximum powers of the one or more target power units (see Rosse: [0060-0069], [0070], [0072-0077], Figs. 1, 3 regarding the inverters operating at power setpoint, determining the updated power setpoint by subtracting desired reserve power value from the recorded MPP value/maximum power).
Re claim 10. Rosse teaches the power conversion system according to claim 9, wherein the reserved power is a constant value (see Rosse: [0060-0069], [0070], [0072-0077], Figs. 1, 3 regarding the desired reserve power value applied as a constant value in the cycle’s setpoint control).
Re claim 11. Rosse teaches (Currently Amended) The power conversion system according to claim 1, wherein the operating mode of the power conversion unit other than the target power conversion unit in the N power conversion units is the PR mode, and an operating power of the power conversion unit other than the target power conversion unit is updated with the updated reference power (see Rosse: [0060-0069], [0070], [0072-0074], Figs. 1, 3, regarding another one of the inverters continuing to operate at power setpoint which is updated based on its stored MPP value while it is not chosen as k inverter).
Re claim 12, the claim recites a power update control method comprising essentially the same components operated in the same manner as recited in claim 1, and therefore is rejected by the same reasoning applied to claim 1 above.
Re claim 14, the further recited limitations essentially correspond to the limitations recited in claim 3, and are therefore rejected by the same reasoning applied above.
Re claim 15-16. Rosse teaches the power conversion system according to claim 1, wherein the updated reference power is equal to a target maximum power multiplied by a reference percentage and the target maximum power is a maximum power in or a maximum power average value of maximum powers of the one or more target power units; wherein the reserved power is equal to the target maximum power multiplied by a percentage (see Rosse: [0060-0069], [0070], [0072-0077], Figs. 1, 3 regarding the inverters operating at power setpoint below the recorded MPP value/maximum power, which is thereby equal to a percentage of the MPP value; note the claim as recited only requires the mathematical relation, not a particular operation of the control unit to calculate the updated reference power).
Re claim 17. Rosse teaches the power conversion system according to claim 1, wherein the operating mode of the power conversion unit other than the target power conversion unit in the N power conversion units is the MPPT mode, and an operating power of the power conversion unit other than the target power conversion unit is the maximum power obtained in the MPPT mode (see Rosse: [0060-0069], Figs. 1, 3, regarding another one of the N-k inverters also operating at MPP while other inverters are at setpoints to produce the desired power reserve).
Re claim 18. Rosse teaches the power conversion system according to claim 1, wherein, in power conversion units other than the target power conversion unit in the N power conversion units, an operating mode of a part of the power conversion units is the PR mode, an operating power of the part of the power conversion units is an updated reserved power, an operating mode of a remaining power conversion unit is the MPPT mode, and an operating power of the remaining power conversion unit is the maximum power obtained in the MPPT mode (see Rosse: [0060-0069], Figs. 1, 3, regarding another one of the N-k inverters also operating at MPP while other N-k inverters are at setpoints, which are updated off their previous record MPP value, to produce the overall desired power reserve).
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) 2, 4, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosse in view of Shi (US2021/0098993).
Re claim 2. Rosse teaches the power conversion system according to claim 1, and generally suggests the target power conversion units in each cycle may be selected according to more advanced strategies aside from sequentially (see Rosse: [0067], Fig. 1, 3), but does not explicitly disclose use of random selection. Shi, however, teaches that it is known in the art of power conversion systems having N conversion units that selection of which units to operate at MPP may be by random selection (see Shi: [0009], Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill would appreciate that use of random selection of subset of the group to operate in MPPT mode may similarly be applied as an alternative way to select k inverters as disclosed by Rosse. 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 system of Rosse to incorporate the teachings of Shi by having the selection of target power conversion units to be by random selection as suggested by Shi for purposes of providing a known and generally equivalent method for selecting subset of converters to operate in MPPT when the system requires only some converters to be at MPPT (see Rosse: [0067], Figs. 1,3; Shi: [0009], Fig. 1).
Re claim 4. Rosse in view of Shi teaches the power conversion system according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is further configured to: obtain a selection probability of each power conversion unit; and randomly select the target power conversion unit from the N power conversion units based on the selection probability of each power conversion unit (see Shi: [0009] and discussion of claim 3 above regarding obviousness of random selection of target conversion unit, which implies generally involves obtaining respective probability for random selection, even if generally the same).
Re claim 13, the further recited limitations essentially correspond to the limitations recited in claim 2, and are therefore rejected by the same reasoning applied above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-14 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/945929 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Re claim 1, reference application claim 1 anticipates the recited limitations.
Re claims 2-3, 6, 7, 11, reference application claims 11-12, 13, 14, 10, respectively anticipate the recited limitations.
Re claims 12-14, reference application claims 1, 11-12 respectively anticipate the recited limitations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and addressing the noted Objections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 5 is allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, does not teach, suggest, or render obvious a power conversion system having features of claims 1-2, 4 (note also the Objection regarding claim 1 phrasing above), wherein the control unit is further configured to: receive a probability adjustment instruction; and adjust a selection probability of at least a part of the power conversion units based on the probability adjustment instruction. As discussed above, Rosse teaches a power conversion system where target power conversion units of N power conversion units are selected in each cycle to switch between a MPPT mode and a power reserve mode where they output power at a lower reference power updated based on updated MPPT value from MPPT mode, and Shi generally suggesting it would be obvious to select target units randomly. However, the prior art does not sufficiently teach or suggest the system further allowing the selection probability of some of the power conversion units to be changed according to an adjustment instruction. Claim 5, in light of Applicant’s Specification and Drawings and upon incorporating the intervening claims and addressing the noted Objections, would therefore overcome the cited prior art of record.
Conclusion
In summary, it is recommended that Applicant rephrase the independent claims at minimum similar to as suggested in the Objections, consider the cited prior art of record having similar MPPT and power reserve control of N conversion units and address the Double Patenting issues as appropriate. Applicant may consider the indicated allowable subject matter, or consider addition of further limiting details that may distinguish the manner of operation of the system from similar prior art of record, such as details of how each target converter operates and how every other remaining converter operates specifically in each one of the repeating cycles. Applicant is cautioned that claim language is given broadest reasonable interpretation, and therefore consider that not further limiting the value of N and not specifying the operation of every other converter aside from target converters in each cycle period may result in potentially broader interpretation than intended. Applicant may contact the examiner to discuss possible amendments or the office action as needed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A SHIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-7265. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/DAVID A SHIAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights