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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) were submitted on 01/12/2025, 04/21/2025 and 04/21/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Plurality of interfaces of claim 1,
Plurality of photovoltaic modules connected in series of claim 1,
Direct current bus of claim 1,
First current sensor of claim 6,
Second current sensor of claim 6,
First voltage sensor of claim 7,
Direct current switch of claim 7, 11,
Third current sensor of claim 9,
Fourth current sensor of claim 9,
Fifth current sensor of claim 11,
Second voltage sensor of claim 11,
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 5, “the interfaces” should be –the plurality of interfaces--. Multiple instances in multiple claims need appropriate corrections.
Claim 1 line 6, “the protection switches” should be –the plurality of protection switches--. Multiple instances in multiple claims need appropriate corrections.
Claim 3 line 3, “and the opposite output ends” should be -- and opposite output ends--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of photovoltaic modules connected in series”. Neither the specification describes, nor the drawings show a series connection of photovoltaic modules, e.g. 101a1, 101a2 of figs 7-21. Protection switches are described to be in series. Based on figures and description, the above limitation is interpreted as --a plurality of photovoltaic modules connected in parallel--.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 1.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the DC-DC circuits are connected to an input of the DC-AC converter in parallel”. Neither the specification mentions this parallel connection, nor the drawings show it. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as --wherein the DC-DC circuits are connected to an input of the DC-AC converter--.
Claim 20 recites “wherein positive ports of output ends of the DC-DC converters are connected in parallel to a positive input port of the DC-AC converter; wherein negative ports of the output ends of the DC-DC converters are connected in parallel to a negative input port of the DC-AC converter”. Neither the specification mentions this parallel connection, nor the drawings show it. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as --wherein the DC-DC converters are connected to the DC-AC converter; --.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Falk (US 20120126626 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Falk teaches a photovoltaic inverter (abstract, a device for supplying electrical energy from a plurality of strings of photovoltaic modules), comprising:
a plurality of interfaces (e.g. connection terminal 7, fig.1) configured to respectively be connected to a plurality of photovoltaic units (e.g. photovoltaic modules 3, multiple substrings 5), each photovoltaic unit comprising a plurality of photovoltaic modules connected in parallel ([0030], comparably large number of strings 2 are parallel connected);
a plurality of protection switches (e.g. power switch 9, fig.1) connected to the interfaces ([0030], A power switch 9 that can be opened and closed via a motor 10 is provided in each connection terminal 7);
a direct current bus (e.g. bus cable 8, fig.1) connected to the interfaces via the protection switches (e.g. 8 is connected to 7 via 9, fig.1);
a power circuit comprising a direct current-direct current (DC-DC) conversion circuit or a direct current-alternating current (DC-AC) conversion circuit (e.g. central inverter 17, fig.1), wherein the power circuit is connected to the direct current bus (e.g. 17 is connected to 8, fig.1) ([0016], This inverter may be combined with step-up converters, step-down converters (DC/DC and/or AC/AC converters)); and
a controller (i.e. controller 11-13, fig.1);
wherein the plurality of photovoltaic units are coupled to the direct current bus via the interfaces and the protection switches to form a plurality of branches (e.g. string 2, fig.1); and
wherein the controller is configured to:
detect, based on a parameter detection value of the branches or of the direct current bus, that the photovoltaic inverter is faulty ([0030], If this sensor registers a reversed current to the relevant string 2); and
based on having detected that the photovoltaic inverter is faulty, control the plurality of protection switches to disconnect at least some of the branches from the direct current bus, to disconnect photovoltaic units connected in parallel from each other, and to disconnect a branch in which a fault is located from the direct current bus ([0030], control unit opens the power switch 9); and
wherein some of the interfaces are respectively connected to at least two photovoltaic units (e.g. each of 7 is connected to multiple 3, fig.1) and are connected in parallel ([0030], comparably large number of strings 2 are parallel connected).
Regarding claim 2, Falk teaches the photovoltaic inverter according to claim 1, wherein the parameter detection value is a reverse current value of at least one branch ([0030], If this sensor registers a reversed current to the relevant string 2); and wherein detecting that the photovoltaic inverter is faulty is based on the reverse current value being greater than a first current value ([0030], If this sensor registers a reversed current to the relevant string 2) (it is necessarily true that reverse current is registered based on a reference).
Regarding claim 4, Falk teaches the photovoltaic inverter according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of photovoltaic units are connected to multiple protection switches in series ([0030], a serial connection of photovoltaic modules 3, but also multiple substrings 5 that are combined on site (the individual substrings 5 are protected by fuses)), wherein two or more protection switches are respectively connected to positive output ends or negative output ends of at least three photovoltaic units in one branch in series ([0030], a serial connection of photovoltaic modules 3, but also multiple substrings 5 that are combined on site (the individual substrings 5 are protected by fuses)) (with the multiple 3 in series, the switches 9 and fuses are connected to one or the other end of at least three of 3), and wherein opposite ends of the at least three photovoltaic units in one branch are connected together to another single protection switch ([0030], a serial connection of photovoltaic modules 3, but also multiple substrings 5 that are combined on site (the individual substrings 5 are protected by fuses)) (it is necessarily true that one of the fuse in substring 5 will connect to any three of the series connected 3).
Regarding claim 8, Falk teaches the photovoltaic inverter according to claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to: determine that the reverse current value is greater than the first current value ([0030], If this sensor registers a reversed current to the relevant string 2) based on a current direction of the at least one branch being opposite to a preset current direction ([0030], direction-sensitive power sensor 14).
Regarding claim 19, Falk substantially teaches the claim limitations as stated above for claim 1. Falk further teaches, wherein the plurality of photovoltaic units are connected to the direct current bus via the interfaces and the protection switches to form M first branches (e.g. top most branch 2, fig.1) and N second branches (e.g. bottom branches 2, fig.1), wherein each of the first branches comprises one photovoltaic unit (e.g. 3, fig.1), wherein each of the first branches is connected in series to a protection switch (e.g. 9, fig.1) and is connected to the direct current bus (e.g. 8, fig.1), wherein each of the second branches comprises i photovoltaic units (e.g. 3 and 5, fig.1), wherein the i photovoltaic units are connected in parallel ([0030], comparably large number of strings 2 are parallel connected) and are connected to the direct current bus via at least one protection switch (e.g. connected to 8 and 9, fig.1), where M is an integer greater than or equal to 0 (e.g. top one branch of 2, fig.1), N is an integer greater than or equal to 2 (e.g. multiple bottom branches 2, fig.1), and i is 2 or 3 ([0030], a serial connection of photovoltaic modules 3, but also multiple substrings 5 that are combined on site).
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 1.
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.
Claims 3, 5 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk (US 20120126626 A1), and further in view of Ikawa (US 20130200713 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Falk teaches the photovoltaic inverter according to claim 2, wherein positive output ends or negative output ends of three photovoltaic units among the plurality of the photovoltaic units are connected to the direct current bus via a same protection switch (e.g. multiple 3 connected to same 9, fig.1).
Falk does not teach, the opposite output ends of the three photovoltaic units are connected to the direct current bus via two protection switches.
Ikawa teaches in a similar field of endeavor of fault detection apparatus, opposite output ends of the three photovoltaic units are connected to the direct current bus via two protection switches (e.g. switches 21 and 91, fig.5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the opposite output ends of the three photovoltaic units are connected to the direct current bus via two protection switches in Falk, as taught by Ikawa, as it provides the advantage of flexibility in wiring and compactness of design.
Regarding claim 5, Falk teaches the photovoltaic inverter according to claim 2.
Falk does not teach, wherein the controller is configured to: determine that the reverse current value is greater than the first current value based on an absolute value of a current of the at least one branch being greater than an absolute value of a current of the direct current bus.
Ikawa teaches in a similar field of endeavor of fault detection apparatus, determine that the reverse current value is greater than the first current value based on an absolute value of a current of the at least one branch being greater than an absolute value of a current of the direct current bus ([0058], current Ia running through the circuit, breaker 21a runs toward a short circuit point due to sneak currents of the currents Ib to Id running from the other circuit. breakers 21b to 21d).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the determining that the reverse current value is greater than the first current value based on an absolute value of a current of the at least one branch being greater than an absolute value of a current of the direct current bus in Falk, as taught by Ikawa, as it provides the advantage of identifying the faulty units and isolating only a small number of units among a large number of units.
Regarding claim 17, Falk teaches the photovoltaic inverter according to claim 1.
Falk does not teach, wherein at least three photovoltaic units in one branch are connected in parallel and connected to two or three or four protection switch in series; and
wherein positive output ends of the at least three photovoltaic units in one branch are connected in parallel and are connected to one or two protection switch in series, and negative output ends of the plurality of photovoltaic units are connected in parallel and are connected to another one or two protection switches in series; and wherein a positive or negative end of each photovoltaic unit is connected to only one single switch.
Ikawa teaches in a similar field of endeavor of fault detection apparatus, wherein at least three photovoltaic units in one branch are connected in parallel (e.g. PV cells 1, fig.5) and connected to two or three or four protection switch in series (e.g. switches 21, 24, 91, fig.5); and
wherein positive output ends of the at least three photovoltaic units in one branch are connected in parallel and are connected to one or two protection switch in series (e.g. switch 21, 24, switch 91 at the top, fig.5), and
negative output ends of the plurality of photovoltaic units are connected in parallel and are connected to another one or two protection switches in series (e.g. switch 21, switch 91 in the bottom, fig.5); and
wherein a positive or negative end of each photovoltaic unit is connected to only one single switch (e.g. switch 21, fig.5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the wherein at least three photovoltaic units in one branch are connected in parallel and connected to two or three or four protection switch in series; and wherein positive output ends of the at least three photovoltaic units in one branch are connected in parallel and are connected to one or two protection switch in series, and negative output ends of the plurality of photovoltaic units are connected in parallel and are connected to another one or two protection switches in series; and wherein a positive or negative end of each photovoltaic unit is connected to only one single switch in Falk, as taught by Ikawa, as it provides the advantage of identifying the faulty units and isolating only a small number of units among a large number of units, while maintaining flexibility in design.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 9-16 are 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:
Regarding claim 6, Falk (US 20120126626 A1) and Ikawa (US 20130200713 A1) teach the photovoltaic inverter according to claim 5, further comprising: a first current sensor and a second current sensor (Ikawa, e.g. sensors 22, fig.5).
Falk and Ikawa do not teach, wherein the first current sensor is configured to: obtain the absolute value of the current of the direct current bus, and send the absolute value to the controller; and wherein the second current sensor is configured to: obtain a preset absolute value of a current of a respective branch, and send the absolute value to the controller.
Prior art Wiersch (US 20150179363 A1) and Bremicker (US 20150280423 A1) have been considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the first current sensor is configured to: obtain the absolute value of the current of the direct current bus, and send the absolute value to the controller; and wherein the second current sensor is configured to: obtain a preset absolute value of a current of a respective branch, and send the absolute value to the controller.”
Claim 7 is indicated as allowable, as it depends on allowable claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, Falk (US 20120126626 A1) and Ikawa (US 20130200713 A1) teach the photovoltaic inverter according to claim 8, further comprising: a third current sensor and a fourth current sensor (Ikawa, e.g. sensors 22, fig.5);
wherein the third current sensor is configured to: obtain a current detection direction of a first detection point, and send the current detection direction to the controller, wherein the first detection point is located in a respective branch of the at least one branch (Ikawa, [0021], the internal monitor 6 measures currents Ia to Id output from the respective PV cells); and
wherein the fourth current sensor is configured to: obtain a current detection direction of a second detection point, and send the current detection direction to the controller (Ikawa, [0021], the internal monitor 6 measures currents Ia to Id output from the respective PV cells).
Falk and Ikawa do not teach, wherein all branches other than the respective branch in which the first detection point is located are aggregated at the second detection point.
Prior art Wiersch (US 20150179363 A1) and Bremicker (US 20150280423 A1) have been considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein all branches other than the respective branch in which the first detection point is located are aggregated at the second detection point.”
Claims 10-16 are allowable, as they depend on allowable claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SREEYA SREEVATSA whose telephone number is (571)272-8304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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, Thienvu V Tran can be reached at (571) 270-1276. 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.
/SREEYA SREEVATSA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 08/25/2026
Prosecution Insights