DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6-10, 13-15, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Donahue et al. (US 2022/0131374 A1).
Re Claim 1: Donahue teaches a power conversion system (see fig.3B para 0025,0027, 0080-0084) comprising: a DC element (see 3124a, 306a para 0027, 0033, 0081); a source inverter interfacing an AC source and the DC element (see 3122a, 3122b fig.3Bpara 0027, 0028, 0080-0081); a load inverter interfacing a load and the DC element (see 3124 f fig.3B para 0025,0027, 0030, 0081-0084); a controller (see 314 fig.3A para 025, 0068-0071, 0075-0077), wherein: voltage of an output of the load inverter is controlled by the controller (see para 0164, 0177, 0184 inverter controlled by controller) to reduce power consumption of the load according to a variable charge state of the DC element (see para 0024, 0104, 0160, 0175; reducing freq. reduced power consumed by load).
Re Claim 6, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue further teaches wherein frequency of the output of the load inverter is controlled by the controller to reduce power consumption according to the variable charge state of the DC element (see 310, 312, 314 fig.3A para 0024-0026, 0068-0069, 0075-0076, 0109).
Re Claim 7, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue further teaches wherein the controller reduces the frequency of the output of the load inverter when the charge state is low (see para 0024, 0068-0069, 0075-0076, 0109).
Re Claim 8, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue further teaches, wherein the controller reduces the frequency proportionate to magnitude of the charge of the DC element (see para 0024, 0068-0069, 0109).
Re Claim 9, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue further teaches wherein the frequency is reduced by greater than 5% with respect to a frequency of the AC source (see para 0068, 0109, see freq. ranges).
Re Claim 10, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue further teaches wherein the frequency is reduced by greater than 10% with respect to a frequency of the AC source (see para 0068, 0109).
Re Claim 13, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue further teaches wherein the DC element is a battery (see 306a fig.3B, 2A/2B para 0033, 0062, 0064, 0078).
Re Claim 14, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue further teaches further comprising a variable DC source interfacing the DC element (see 3124a, 306a, 306c, 306b, fig.3B, para 0031, 0064, 0078-0084, 0123-0124).
Re Claim 15, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue further teaches wherein the DC source is a solar PV DC source (see 306b fig.3B, 2A/2B para 0064, 0078-0081, 0142).
Re Claim 23, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue further teaches wherein the load comprises at least one consumer appliance (see para 0068, 0072, 0122, 0130, 0135, consumer appliances load).
Re Claim 24, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue further teaches wherein the AC source is a utility grid (see fig.2A/2Bpara 0062-0066, 0097-0102).
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) 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donahue et al. (US 2022/0131374 A1) in view of Lehn et al. (US 2018/0366948 A1).
Re Claim 2, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue Doesn’t expressly teach wherein the controller reduces voltage of the output of the load inverter when the charge state is low.
In an analogous art Lehn teaches wherein the controller reduces voltage of the output of the load inverter when the charge state is low (see para 0041-0046, 0051-0053, 0074-0075).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention was claimed to use the SOC-based droop-voltage reference adjustment of Lehn in the invention of Donahue to reduce inverter output voltage as available stored energy declines; thereby reducing load power consumption and protecting the energy storage with predictable results.
Re Claim 3, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue Doesn’t expressly teach wherein the controller reduces the voltage proportionate to magnitude of the charge of the DC element.
In an analogous art Lehn teaches wherein the controller reduces the voltage proportionate to magnitude of the charge of the DC element (see para 0051-0053, 0061-0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention was claimed to use the SOC-based droop-voltage reference adjustment of Lehn in the invention of Donahue to reduce inverter output voltage as available stored energy declines; thereby reducing load power consumption and protecting the energy storage with predictable results.
Re Claim 4, Combination Donahue and Lehn teaches invention set forth above, Lehn further teaches wherein the voltage is reduced by greater than 5% with respect to a voltage of the AC source (see para 0062-0063).
Re Claim 5, Combination Donahue and Lehn teaches invention set forth above, Lehn further teaches wherein the voltage is reduced by greater than 10% with respect to a voltage of the AC source (see para 0066, 0069-0071).
Claim(s) 11, 12, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donahue et al. (US 2022/0131374 A1) in view of Katcha et al. (US 2023/0369982 A1).
Re Claim 11, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue Doesn’t expressly teach wherein the charge state is determined according to at least one of nominal VDC, operational VDC, state of charge and cell temperature data inputs of the DC element.
In an analogous art Katcha teaches wherein the charge state is determined according to at least one of nominal VDC, operational VDC, state of charge and cell temperature data inputs of the DC element (see para 0015, 0029, 0030, 0048, 0063-0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to use the battery charge-state determination using SOC/Temperature/voltage inputs of Katcha in the invention of Donahue to improve control decisions for managing stored energy and inverter/load behavior thereby increasing robustness and efficiency.
Re Claim 12, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue Doesn’t expressly teach wherein the DC element is a capacitor.
In an analogous art Katcha teaches wherein the DC element is a capacitor (see 116 para 0030, 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to use the Dc Bus Capacitor of Katcha in the invention of Donahue to stabilize the DC bus and support inverter power delivery thereby improving power conversion performance.
Re Claim 18, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue Doesn’t expressly teach wherein the source inverter is bidirectional in that the source inverter is controllable by the controller to either: export power to the grid from the DC element; or import power from the grid to the DC element.
In an analogous art Katcha teaches wherein the source inverter is bidirectional in that the source inverter is controllable by the controller to either: export power to the grid from the DC element; or import power from the grid to the DC element. (see 100, 1104, 110, 112, 118, 126/130/134 and 102 fig.1 para 0014, 0015, 0030-0036,)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to use the bi directional grid import/export control of Katcha in the invention of Donahue to enable selectable export of energy from DC element to grid and import energy from the grid to dc element to improve operational flexibility.
Re Claim 19, Combination Donahue and Katcha teaches invention set forth above, Donahue further teaches wherein the controller independently controls voltages of outputs of the load inverter and source inverter (see para 0027-0031, 0041-0044, 0065, 0080-0084).
Re Claim 20, Combination Donahue and Katcha teaches invention set forth above, Donahue further teaches wherein the controller sets at least one of voltage and frequency of the output of the source inverter according to at least one measured voltage and frequency of the AC source (see para 0026, 0042, 0028 grid output inverter, 0065 grid sensing): Katcha further teaches when the charge state is high (see para 0015, 0020, 0063-0066).
Re Claim 21, Combination Donahue and Katcha teaches invention set forth above, Katcha further teaches wherein the controller alters the phase of the voltage of the output of the source inverter depending on whether the charge state is high or low (see para 0015, 0020, 0063-0066).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donahue et al. (US 2022/0131374 A1) in view of Nasirian et al. (US 2016/0276830 A1).
Re Claim 16, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue Doesn’t expressly teach wherein the controller is configurable in modes of operation and wherein the controller is configured to control the voltage of the output of the load inverter according to the mode of operation.
In an analogous art Nasirian teaches wherein the controller is configurable in modes of operation and wherein the controller is configured to control the voltage of the output of the load inverter according to the mode of operation. (see para 0023-0024, 0027-0029, 0043-0044, 0048, 0054-0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to use the mode-based voltage setpoints control of Nasirian in the invention of Donahue to control inverter output voltage to an operating mode thereby achieving predictable grid operational behavior and power management.
Re Claim 17, Combination Donahue and Nasirian teaches invention set forth above, Nasirian further teaches wherein, in a mode of operation, the controller is configured to decrease the voltage by greater than 20% (see 0048, 0054-0056 eq.2).
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donahue et al. (US 2022/0131374 A1) in view of Chiang et al. (US 2015/0256103 A1).
Re Claim 22, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue Doesn’t expressly teach wherein the controller controls voltage and frequency of the output of the load inverter according to a load impedance power factor measured at the output of the load inverter.
In an analogous art Chiang teaches wherein the controller controls voltage and frequency of the output of the load inverter according to a load impedance power factor measured at the output of the load inverter (see para 0012-0014, 0018-0020, 0024-0031, 0041-0044, 0047-0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to use the active/reactive power -based voltage and frequency reference generation of Chiang in the invention of Donahue to control the inverters output voltage and frequency based on measured output electrical characteristics thereby improving stability and load-matching efficiency.
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donahue et al. (US 2022/0131374 A1) in view of Oughton JR. et al. (US 2015/0085546 A1).
Re Claim 25, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue Doesn’t expressly teach wherein the source inverter comprises a neutral point clamp control circuit.
In an analogous art Chiang teaches wherein the source inverter comprises a neutral point clamp control circuit (see 112a/112b, D1/D2, Q1-Q4, 118, 200 fig.1, fig.2 para 0003, 0006, 0015-0017)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to use the Neutral point clamped multilevel inverter control of Oughton in the invention of Donahue to implement a known multilevel inverter typology with predictable switching/control behavior thereby improving inverter operation.
Claim(s) 26 and 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donahue et al. (US 2022/0131374 A1) in view of Bhowmik et al. (US 2013/0181527 A1).
Re Claim 26, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue Doesn’t expressly teach wherein the load inverter comprises an H bridge circuit.
In an analogous art Bhowmik teaches wherein the load inverter comprises an H bridge circuit.
(see H bridge figs. 2A-2D para 0007, 0053-0054, 0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to use the H-Bridge inverter implementation of high-frequency switching control of Bhowmik in the invention of Donahue to implement a known multilevel inverter typology to improve inverter control and performance.
Re Claim 27, Donahue teaches invention set forth above, Donahue Doesn’t expressly teach wherein power semiconductors of the inverters are controlled at approximately 100 kHz control frequency.
In an analogous art Bhowmik teaches wherein power semiconductors of the inverters are controlled at approximately 100 kHz control frequency (see para 0028, 0114, 100Khz).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to use the H-Bridge inverter implementation of high-frequency switching control of Bhowmik in the invention of Donahue to implement a known multilevel inverter typology to improve inverter control and performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aqeel H Bukhari whose telephone number is (571)272-4382. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9am to 5pm).
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 571-2727492. 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.
/AQEEL H BUKHARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836