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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 (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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2019/0334349 A1) in view of Ruiz (US 2011/0204720 A1) and in further view of Stoettrup (US 2014/0142779 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu teaches a direct-current coupling system, comprising: at least one inverter (see Liu fig 1 element 40 and para 24); at least one photovoltaic array (see Liu fig 1 element 21 and para 24-25); and at least one energy storage system (see Liu fig 1 element 30 and para 24), wherein an alternating-current side of the at least one inverter is configured to connect a power grid (see Liu para 24), and a direct-current side of the at least one inverter is connected to the at least one photovoltaic array and the at least one energy storage system through a corresponding direct-current bus (see Liu fig 1 element 50 and para 24-25); the at least one energy storage system comprises a battery system and a direct-current/direct-current (DC/DC) converter (see Liu fig 1 elements 31-32 and para 25), and the battery system is connected to a direct-current bus through the DC/DC converter (see Liu fig 1 elements 31-32 and 50 and para 25);
But Liu is silent on teaching the DC/DC converter is configured to acquire energy from the power grid through the inverter connected to the DC/DC converter during charging the battery system, wherein the energy acquired from the power grid meets a power regulation demand at the alternating-current side, and the power grid is prioritized over the at least one photovoltaic array when charging the battery system.
However, Ruiz teaches an energy peak shaving system that upon a signal from an electricity provider that represents a low power grid demand of energy, the system will cause energy from the grid to charge the batteries (see Ruiz 76-78).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Liu to include the peak shaving system from Ruiz to charge the batteries when there is an excess of energy on the grid to use later at a time when there is less supply in energy. This can result in using more electricity when it is cheaper and less electricity when it costs more.
But, Liu and Ruiz are silent on teaching the power grid is prioritized over the at least one photovoltaic array when charging the battery system.
However, Stoettrup teaches a method of controlling a power network wherein during times of negative energy costs, storage batteries are charged from excess energy on a grid and solar power is curtailed (see Stoettrup para 0021 and 0032-0033).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu and Ruiz to include the teachings of Stoettrup to allow the system to react to negative energy costs by reducing power generation and increase power consumption. This can also improve power grid stability by responding quickly to fluctuating energy demands on the grid.
Claim(s) 2-5, 8, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2019/0334349 A1) in view of Ruiz (US 2011/0204720 A1) and Stoettrup (US 2014/0142779 A1), and further in view of Chen (US 2024/0097616 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Liu and Ruiz teaches the direct-current coupling system according to claim 1, but is silent on teaching a predetermined bus voltage value of the inverter is greater than a predetermined bus voltage value of the DC/DC converter.
However, Chen teaches a photovoltaic energy storage system with a control component that sets the reference value of the bus voltage of the inverter to be greater than the reference value of the bus voltage of the direct-current converter of the battery system (see Chen para 30 and claim 1 and 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings from Liu and Ruiz to include the teachings from Chen to create a battery system that will “charge the energy storage battery and supplementally using the power grid to charge the energy storage battery is used, to more properly utilize energy and improve energy utilization efficiency.”
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Liu, Ruiz and Chen teaches the direct-current coupling system according to claim 2, wherein a voltage of the corresponding direct-current bus is controlled by the predetermined bus voltage value of the DC/DC converter, in a case that the battery system completely absorbs energy of the inverter connected to the battery system (see Liu fig 1 and 3 and para 29-31, in Liu the batteries and inverter are the only devices that can absorb power and the DC/DC converters 32 are controlled by the DC bus voltage); but Liu and Ruiz are silent on teaching a voltage of the corresponding direct-current bus is controlled by the predetermined bus voltage value of the inverter, in a case that the battery system fails to completely absorb energy of the inverter connected to the battery system.
However, Chen teaches a photovoltaic energy storage system in which the amount of energy exceeds the maximum charging power of the energy storage battery (see Chen para 127-129), thus causing the DC bus voltage to cause the inverter to return the excess power back to the grid or to force the photovoltaics to reduce power generation by adjusting the voltage of the photovoltaics above the maximum power point tracking voltage.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Liu and Ruiz to include the teachings of Chen to allow the system to respond when the batteries are fully charged or faulty.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Liu, Ruiz and Chen teaches the direct-current coupling system according to claim 3, wherein the voltage of the corresponding direct-current bus is decreased as an available charging power of the DC/DC converter is increased (see Liu para 30 and 34); and the voltage of the corresponding direct-current bus is automatically increased as an available charging power of the DC/DC converter is decreased (see Liu para 30 and 34).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Liu, Ruiz and Chen teaches the direct-current coupling system according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined bus voltage value of the inverter is positively correlated with an output power of the photovoltaic array connected to the inverter (see Liu fig 4 and para 32, “As the voltage increases, so does the output power, as the system 10 maintains output power in the MPPT region”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Liu, Ruiz and Chen teaches the direct-current coupling system according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined bus voltage value of the DC/DC converter is a system balance voltage, and the system balance voltage is a maximum power point tracking voltage of the photovoltaic array connected to the DC/DC converter (see Liu para 26-30, the DC bus voltage of the DC/DC converter is to be within the MPPT region).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Liu and Ruiz teaches a charging control method for a direct-current coupling system, applied to the direct-current coupling system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one photovoltaic array in the direct-current coupling system is connected to the at least one inverter during charging the battery system (see Liu fig 1 DC Bus “1”, and para 26), but is silent on teaching during charging the battery system, the charging control method comprises: determining, by the at least one inverter, a second voltage for a charging balance of the battery system and a first voltage in a real time manner, and sending, by the at least one inverter, the second voltage to respective DC/DC converter connected to the at least one inverter, wherein the first voltage is greater than the second voltage; controlling the at least one inverter to operate on condition that the first voltage serves as a predetermined bus voltage value of the inverter; and controlling the DC/DC converter to operate on condition that the second voltage serves as a predetermined bus voltage value of the DC/DC converter.
However, Chen teaches a photovoltaic energy storage system with a control component that sets the reference value of the bus voltage of the inverter to be greater than the reference value of the bus voltage of the direct-current converter of the battery system (see Chen para 30 and claim 1 and 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings from Liu and Ruiz to include the teachings from Chen to create a battery system that will “charge the energy storage battery and supplementally using the power grid to charge the energy storage battery is used, to more properly utilize energy and improve energy utilization efficiency.”
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Liu, Ruiz and Chen teaches the charging control method according to claim 14, wherein the determining a second voltage for a charging balance of the battery system in a real time manner comprises: detecting a maximum power point tracking voltage of the photovoltaic array connected to the DC/DC converter in a real time manner based on a maximum power point tracking strategy, and determining the detected maximum power point tracking voltage as the second voltage (see Liu para 25-30, the DC bus voltage of the DC/DC converter is calculated using a MPPT process “The single input port inverter 40 is thus able to maintain power output of the solar power plant 20 and the DC storage plant 30 in the MPPT region.”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2019/0334349 A1) in view of Ruiz (US 2011/0204720 A1) and Chen (US 2024/0097616 A1), and further in view of Gu (US 2022/0206522 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Liu, Ruiz and Chen teaches the direct-current coupling system according to claim 5, wherein the predetermined bus voltage value of the inverter is a maximum system voltage, wherein an output power of the photovoltaic array connected to the inverter is within a preset fluctuation range comprising zero (see Liu para 29, “The power droop algorithm employed by the bi-directional DC/DC converters 32 and inverter 40 maintains the output at a relatively constant power.”), but is silent on teaching the maximum system voltage is an open circuit voltage of the photovoltaic array connected to the inverter.
However, Gu teaches a power converter system with a maximum output voltage is based on an open circuit voltage of the photovoltaic modules (see Gu para 11-13).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Liu, Ruiz and Chen to include the teachings of Gu to create a photovoltaic system that can operate with the PV panels at the maximum voltage of the photovoltaic panels.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2019/0334349 A1) in view of Ruiz (US 2011/0204720 A1), and Chen (US 2024/0097616 A1)., and further in view of Kokkonen (US 2018/0358813 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Liu, Ruiz and Chen teaches the direct-current coupling system according to claim 2, but is silent on teaching the predetermined bus voltage value of the inverter is within a preset range, wherein an upper limit of the preset range is a high voltage derating lower threshold of the inverter; and a lower limit of the preset range is an over-adjustment threshold of the inverter.
However, Kokkonen teaches a method for operating an inverter in which the maximum voltage is set at a power derating factor (see Kokkonen fig 3 “Pinv_derate” and para 22), and the minimum voltage is set at a minimum operating voltage of the inverter (see Kokkonen para 19, “For example, such a predetermined voltage threshold value may correspond to a rectified AC voltage of the AC output of the inverter 10 or generally to a minimum allowable DC input voltage of the inverter 10 possibly with a suitable margin added thereto.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Liu and Ruiz to include the teachings of Kokkonen to set a voltage range for the inverters to reduce the possibility of damage to the components of the inverter.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Liu, Ruiz and Chen teaches the charging control method according to claim 14, wherein the determining a first voltage in a real time manner comprises: determining a maximum system voltage as the first voltage.
However, Kokkonen teaches a power inverter controller which starts out with the photovoltaics with an open circuit voltage which is the maximum system voltage (see Kokkonen para 20-21). The voltage is lowered to find the maximum power point of the system.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Liu and Ruiz to include the teachings of Kokkonen to create a solar system that can adjust the DC voltage of the photovoltaic modules to find the maximum power point using the open circuit voltage.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2019/0334349 A1) in view of Ruiz (US 2011/0204720 A1), and Chen (US 2024/0097616 A1), and further in view of Sabripour (US 2015/0130281 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Liu, Ruiz and Chen teaches the direct-current coupling system according to claim 2, but is silent on teaching the DC/DC converter is configured to acquire remaining energy required by the battery system from the photovoltaic array during charging the battery system, if the energy acquired from the power grid is not sufficient for energy required by the battery system.
However, Sabripour teaches a photovoltaic energy system that will switch from grid power to solar power when an outage or power fault is detected (see Sabripour para 29, “integrated energy modules may include a power controller configured to communicate with a master switch to selectively disconnect the circuit panel from the power grid in response to a power outage and to enable delivery of AC power to the household from the stored battery charges”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Liu and Ruiz to include the teachings of Sabripour to disconnect the power from the grid during a power fault and charge the battery from the photovoltaic panels.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2019/0334349 A1) in view of Ruiz (US 2011/0204720 A1), and further in view of Mao (US 2015/0008737 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Liu and Ruiz teaches the direct-current coupling system according to claim 1, but is silent on teaching a direct-current switch arranged between the at least one photovoltaic array and the direct-current bus connected to the at least one photovoltaic array, wherein the direct-current switch is off during charging the battery system.
However, Mao teaches a photovoltaic system which can charge the batteries from grid power while the solar panels are not turned on (see Mao fig 9 and para 31, “When the output voltage of the solar panel fails to meet the requirements of charging, storing, generating and outputting, which means the solar electrical power is not enough, under the control of the logical control unit, the electrical input orientation driver is disconnected from the solar panel and connected to a discharge terminal of the storage battery matrix”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Liu and Ruiz to include the teachings of Mao to charge the batteries from the grid when there is not enough energy coming from the photovoltaic panels.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Liu, Ruiz and Mao direct-current coupling system according to claim 10, but Liu and Ruiz are silent in teaching before the direct-current switch is turned off, the inverter connected to the direct-current switch operates at zero power, and the DC/DC converter connected to the direct-current switch is on standby.
However, Mao teaches a photovoltaic system in which the system can switch between using solar power to using battery power (see fig. 8-9 switches 212-a and 212-b, and para 72, “when the output voltage of the solar panel 1 doesn't meet the requirements of charging, storing, generating and outputting, which means the solar electrical power is not enough or at night, under control of the logical control unit 21, the solar panel electrical output orientation driver 211-a is disconnected from the solar panel 1, and the output terminal of the storage battery matrix 5 is connected to the input terminal of the inverter 3 by switching on the storage battery matrix electrical output orientation driver 211-b”, This means the solar has failed to deliver enough power to the inverter which could mean zero power is delivered, the system will switch from the solar to battery power.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Liu and Ruiz to include the teachings of Mao to create a photovoltaic energy system that can supply power even when the panels are in shade or get covered by switching to battery power.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2019/0334349 A1) in view of Ruiz (US 2011/0204720 A1) and Mao (US 2015/0008737 A1), and further in view of Chen (US 2024/0097616 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Liu, Ruiz and Mao teaches the direct-current coupling system according to claim 10, wherein a bus voltage of the inverter is controlled in a constant voltage technology mode during charging the battery system.
However, Chen teaches a photovoltaic system which the inverter performs constant voltage control to control a bus voltage (see Chen para 77).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu, Ruiz and Sabripour to include the constant voltage control to ensure stable power supply to the components of the system.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2019/0334349 A1) in view of Ruiz (US 2011/0204720 A1), and further in view of Sabripour (US 2015/0130281 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Liu and Ruiz teaches the direct-current coupling system according to claim 1, but is silent on teaching the DC/DC converter is turned off if the battery system is fully charged.
However, Sabripour teaches a photovoltaic power system when the integrated battery module is fully charged, a power management system may direct the power to the power grid by controlling a switch and removing power from reaching the battery system (see Sabripour para 59)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Liu and Ruiz to include the teachings of Sabripour to create a power management system that will stop the battery from being over charged, thus prevent damage to the battery system.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2019/0334349 A1) in view of Ruiz (US 2011/0204720 A1), and further in view of Wu (US 2024/0055998 A1) and Chen (US 2024/0097616 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Liu and Ruiz teaches a charging control method for a direct-current coupling system, applied to the direct-current coupling system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one photovoltaic array in the direct-current coupling system is connected to the direct-current bus through a direct-current switch, wherein during charging the battery system, the charging control method comprises: and controlling by the at least one inverter, a bus voltage of the inverter (see Liu para 31), but is silent on teaching the charging control method that turns off the direct-current switch by the at least one inverter in the direct-current coupling system and a bus voltage of the inverter is in a constant voltage technology mode.
However, Wu teaches a photovoltaic inverter which controls a direct current switch 14 that disconnects power from a photovoltaic panel (see Wu fig 10 and para 24).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Liu and Ruiz to include the direct current switch from Wu to create an inverter that can select the source of the input with its control circuitry to reduce the need for an external control circuit thus reducing complexity and cost.
The combination of Liu, Ruiz and Wu are silent on teaching the bus voltage of the inverter is in a constant voltage technology mode.
However, Chen teaches a photovoltaic energy storage system which the inverter performs constant voltage control to control a bus voltage (see Chen para 77).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Liu, Ruiz and Wu to include the constant voltage control from Chen to ensure a stable and steady DC supply for the inverter which can produce a more stable AC output and reduced total harmonic distortion.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Liu, Ruiz, Wu and Chen teaches the charging control method according to claim 19, wherein before the turning off the direct-current switch by the at least one inverter, the charging control method further comprises: controlling by the at least one inverter, a power of the inverter to be zero on receipt of a zero-power instruction; controlling respective DC/DC converter connected to the at least one inverter to enter a standby state on receipt of a standby instruction (see Liu para 9, 25-26 and 32 as the inverter can detect the frequency of the grid and adjust the DC bus voltage that could turn off the dc/dc converter connected to the batteries upon a condition in which power curtailment command arrives at the solar power plant), and wherein after the turning off the direct-current switch by the at least one inverter, the charging control method further comprises: switching a state of the DC/DC converter from the standby state to an operating state on receipt of an operating instruction (see Liu para 9, 25-26 and 32 as the inverter can detect the frequency of the grid and adjust the DC bus voltage that would turn the dc/dc converters and increase power output).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 17 teaches a charging control method that comprises determining different v
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSHUA J SWEET whose telephone number is (571)272-6776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 4:30.
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.
/JOSHUA JAMES SWEET/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
