DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicant’s extensive information disclosure statement submissions are difficult to review. The Applicants’ assistance is requested, as previously agreed to in other applications, to filter the foreign documents and non-patent literature for the following key words:
“pv”, “photovoltaic” or “solar” in the same sentence as “inverter” and “inverter” in the same sentence as “isolating” or “galvanic”
“inverter” in the same sentence as “isolating” or “galvanic” and “inverter” in the same sentence as “duty cycle”.
“pv”, “photovoltaic” or “solar” in the same sentence as “inverter” or “converter” and “pv”, “photovoltaic” or “solar” in the same sentence as “casing” or “housing” and “ground”.
The IDS submissions are not reviewed at this time. They will be considered once the Applicant submits a shorted list using the Examiner’s key words. As the foreign documents and non-patent literature cannot be initialed at this time, any consideration of the IDS’s would result in only considering the US documents and crossing out all others – this would just add clutter to the application file.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The claims of this continuation are exclusively directed to the converter circuit. The PV panel circuitry is not claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4, 6, 10, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 4 and 14 are descriptive of the duty cycle. “is adjustable” is a passive voice phrasing describing what can be done to the duty cycle. The claims does not recite the structure (i.e. a controller) or actual functionality (“adjusting”) necessary to actually achieve any duty cycle adjustment
Claims 6 and 16 recite a hypothetic. “configured to be connected” indicates a future event that happens outside the scope of the claim. The claim should recite that either the converter has narrowing structure to give it a small size (to fit into another component) or the converter is actually installed into this other component.
Claims 10 and 20 recite that the converter comprises “an isolating inverter”. Regarding “isolating”, claims 1 and 11 already recite that the converter circuit comprises a power output that is “galvanically isolated” from its power input. Regarding “inverter”, claim 1 already recites that the converter circuit is configured to convert DC power at the input to AC power at the output and claim 11 already recites converting a DC power at the input to an AC power at the output. Thus, all of the features of claims 10 and 20 are already present in claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Chisenga (US 2010/0309692).
With respect to claim 1, Chisenga discloses an apparatus (fig 1-2; page 5) comprising: a converter circuit (fig 1, item 1; fig 2, all, except for source 20) comprising:
a power input (left side) comprising:
a first input terminal (top-left of converter 3/21) configured to connect to a first photovoltaic terminal of a photovoltaic panel (the Chisenga first input terminal is an electrical conductor and is “configured to connect” to a PV panel); and
a second input terminal (bottom-left of 3/21) configured to connect to (the Chisenga second input terminal is an electrical conductor and is “configured to connect” to any other electrical circuit, including the listed ones): a second photovoltaic terminal of the photovoltaic panel, a casing of the photovoltaic panel, and a ground connection via the casing of the photovoltaic panel; and
a power output (right side of converter 5/23) galvanically isolated from the power input (via transformer within 21) and comprising a first output terminal (top-right) and a second output terminal (bottom-right); and
wherein the converter circuit is configured to:
convert a DC power at the power input to an AC power at the power output (converter 1 is a DC-AC converter, as can be seen in the figures; see also the first two lines of paragraph 47); and
operate at a peak voltage that is, with respect to the ground connection, greater than a maximum voltage rating of the photovoltaic panel (par 52), the maximum voltage rating being between the casing of the photovoltaic panel and one of the first photovoltaic terminal or the second photovoltaic terminal of the photovoltaic panel (none of these components are claimed).
The claim is limited to only the DC-AC converter. The PV panel, its casing and a ground terminal are not distinct claimed limitations. The claim recites what the input/output terminals are “configured to connect” to, but this language does not require any actual connections. An electrical input terminal (or output terminal) is “configured to connect” to any other electrical terminal because it is a conductor. For example, no modifications would be required to be made of the Chisenga converter to actually connect it to a PV casing.
Chisenga discloses its converter provides boost functionality and, therefore, is interpreted as providing an output peak voltage that is greater than the maximum voltage of its input (a hypothetical and unclaimed PV panel). The claim then ends with an explanation of where the maximum voltage rating is measured – but these terminals all exist outside the scope of the claim. Making a maximum voltage rating at these terminal be higher/lower (i.e. to satisfy the claimed limitation that the peak voltage is greater than it) would not be modification of the converter itself.
With respect to claim 3, Chisenga discloses the converter circuit comprises an adjustable duty cycle (par 52).
With respect to claim 4, Chisenga discloses the adjustable duty cycle is adjustable to provide an open circuit voltage across the first output terminal and the second output terminal of the converter circuit (par 52) prior to connecting converter outputs of a plurality of converter circuits in parallel. The Chisenga duty system “is adjustable” at all times. Chisenga does not have any other converters in parallel to the figure 2 converter circuit and, therefore, its duty cycle adjustment is “prior” to such a connection.
The claim does not explicitly introduce the limitation of: 1) any duty cycle control circuit; 2) other converter circuits; or 3) the structure necessary to selectively connect converter outputs together. The claim is descriptive (“is adjustable”) of the duty cycle. This language (is verb) is passive and describes an event/effect that happens to an object – it does not recite a subject performing an action. The timing (“prior”) of when a signal is adjustable does not further narrow the structure of the converter circuit. Its presence in the claim carries no patentable weight.
With respect to claim 5, Chisenga discloses the peak voltage is at least double the maximum voltage rating of the photovoltaic panel (see par 52 and fig 9). Paragraph 52 discloses that the peak voltage is higher than the grid voltage (at least 120VAC). Figure 9 shows that the PV panel maximum voltage rating is about 40v. 120 is at least twice 40.
With respect to claim 6, Chisenga discloses the converter circuit is configured to be incorporated into the photovoltaic panel. Claim 1 defines the metes and bounds of the converter circuit. Chisenga anticipates this structure. Claim 6 does not introduce any additional components or features – it simply states that the claim 1 structure is “configured to be integrated” (“to be” is a future hypothetical). Since Chisenga anticipates the claim 1 structure, it is configured as claimed.
With respect to claim 7, Chisenga discloses the power output is configured to be connected to a second ground connection (Chisenga’s power output are electrical conductors and are “configured to connect” to any electrical terminal/node), and wherein a ground potential of the ground connection is different than a ground potential of the second ground connection (not claimed). The grounds are claimed – only the converter’s configure to connect to them. Whether the grounds are the same or different does not affect the structure of the converter circuit itself.
With respect to claim 8, Chisenga discloses the peak voltage is at least triple the maximum voltage rating of the photovoltaic panel (120 = 40 x 3), as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 5.
With respect to claim 9, Chisenga discloses the converter circuit comprises a transformer (see fig 2) that galvanically isolates the power input from the power output.
With respect to claim 10, Chisenga discloses the converter circuit comprises an isolating inverter (see fig 2).
With respect to claims 11 and 13-20, Chisenga discloses the apparatus necessary to complete the recited method steps, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 1 and 3-10, respectively. Regarding claim 13, Chisenga does not place any limits on its duty cycle adjustment and “less than 10%” is interpreted as being included within the scope of the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 6, 12 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chisenga over Mun (US 2012/0274264).
With respect to claim 2, Chisenga discloses the converter circuit, but does not expressly disclose it is housed in a junction box. Mun discloses a converter circuit housed in a junction box (abstract), and wherein the junction box is configured to be mechanically connected to the photovoltaic panel (abstract). Mun also shows the junction box as item 200 in figure 2.
Chisenga and Mun are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely PV converter circuits. At the time of the Applicant’s earliest priority date, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Chisenga to have its converter circuit placed in a junction box, as taught by Mun. The motivation for doing so would have been to protect the electrical components from the elements.
While Mun’s converter is DC-DC (not DC-AC), the reference is only relied on for its teaching of putting a converter into a junction box. The specific type of converter (isolating DC-AC) is already taught by Chisenga.
With respect to claim 6, the references combine to disclose the converter circuit is integrated with the PV panel, and the references are analogous, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 12 and 16, Chisenga and Mun combine to teach the apparatus necessary to complete the recited limitations, and the references are analogous, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 2 and 6, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the following references, previously cited during prosecution of the parent applications, all disclose an isolating inverter. The broad language of the claim does not require that the inverter actually be connected to any other components (photovoltaic, ground, etc.). The Applicant should consider these references while drafting amendments to overcome Chisenga.
Chapman (US 2012/0087158);
Phadke (US 2012/0127764);
Garrity (US 2012/0081933);
Victor (US 2008/0055941).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Rex Barnie can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836