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 § 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0052091 (Klein) in view of US 2016/0190812 (Myer) further in view of US 2017/0099027 (Park).
Regarding claim 1, Klein teaches a photovoltaic module (Fig. 4 shows a photovoltaic module) comprising: a photovoltaic panel comprising a plurality of cell strings (Fig. 1 shows plurality of solar cell strings 413) [0022]; a plurality of optimizers connected to output power of the cell strings, respectively, and connected in series to each other (Fig. 4 shows plurality of power point optimizer 402 connected to output power of cell strings 413 respectively and connected in series to each other) [0023]; and a controller (Fig. 4 shows MPPT and Regulator 414) connected to both ends of the plurality of optimizers connected in series to each other (MPPT and Regulator 414 connected to both ends of the plurality of local power point optimizers 402 connected in series to each other) [0024].
However, Klein does not teach wherein the controller is disposed in a first case, and wherein each of the optimizers is disposed in a second case, and the second case is connected in series with another second case.
However, Myer teaches wherein the controller is disposed in a first case (Fig. 5a shows control system 58 and inverter 42 having a first compartment) [0090], and wherein each of the optimizers is disposed in a second case (Fig. 5a shows MPPT 54 having a second compartment) [0090, 0103].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the controller is disposed in a first case, and wherein each of the optimizers is disposed in a second case as taught by Myer in order to protect the various components of the circuitry from overheating and damages.
However, Park teaches the second case is connected in series with another second case (Fig. 1 shows generation efficiency optimization device 200 being connected in series with another generation efficiency optimization device 200 furthermore Fig. 10-11 shows generation efficiency optimization device 200 being in a case 210) [0050, 0073].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second case is connected in series with another second case as taught by Park in order to ensure that each of the circuit components in the various second cases are protected by the casing in an event of overheating.
Regarding claim 2, Klein teaches wherein the controller (Fig. 4 shows MPPT and regulator 414) comprises: two input terminals connected to both ends of a string formed by connecting a plurality of optimizers in series to each other (Fig. 4 shows MPPT and Regulator 414 having two input terminals connected to both ends of a string formed by connecting a plurality of local power point optimizer 402) [0024]; and two output terminals connected to a controller of an outside or another photovoltaic module (Fig. 4 shows two output terminals connected to inverter of a load) [0024].
However, Klein does not teach controller being in a first case and plurality of optimizers being in second cases.
However, Myer teaches controller being in a first case and a plurality of optimizers being in second cases (Fig. 5a shows control system 58 and inverter 42 having a first compartment and MPPT 54 having a second compartment) [0090].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controller being in a first case and a plurality of optimizers being in second cases as taught by Myer in order to provide a thermal barrier to protect the components of the circuitry.
Regarding claim 3, Klein teaches wherein the optimizer (Fig. 4 shows local power point optimizer 402) comprises: two input terminals connected to output terminals at both ends of each of the cell strings (Fig. 4 shows local power point optimizer 402 comprising two input terminals connected to output terminals at both ends of each of the cell strings 413); and two output terminals connected to an adjacent optimizer or the controller (Fig. 4 shows local power point optimizer 402 comprises two output terminals connected to an adjacent local power point optimizer 402 or the MPPT and regulator 414).
However, Klein does not teach controller being in a first case and plurality of optimizers being in second cases.
However, Myer teaches controller being in a first case and a plurality of optimizers being in second cases (Fig. 5a shows control system 58 and inverter 42 having a first compartment and MPPT 54 having a second compartment) [0090].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controller being in a first case and a plurality of optimizers being in second cases as taught by Myer in order to provide a thermal barrier to protect the components of the circuitry.
Regarding claim 4, Klein teaches wherein the output terminals are connected in series when connected to the adjacent optimizer (Fig. 4 shows the output terminals are connected in series when connected to adjacent local power point optimizer 402).
However, Klein does not teach the optimizers to be in the (adjacent) second case.
However, Myer teaches the optimizers to be in the (adjacent) second case (each MPPT 54 for teach solar panel to be in adjacent second case) [0090, 0103].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optimizers to be in the (adjacent) second case as taught by Myer in order to optimize providing power with efficiency to the load to meet load demands safely.
Regarding claim 5, Klein teaches wherein the output terminals are connected through a connection unit embedded in the photovoltaic panel (Fig. 4 shows the output terminals are connected through a connection unit embedded in the photovoltaic panel).
Regarding claim 6, Klein teaches wherein the connection unit embedded in the photovoltaic panel comprises a bus bar or a cable (Fig. 4 shows the output terminals are connected through a connection unit embedded in the photovoltaic panel comprises a bus bar).
Regarding claim 7, Klein does not teach wherein the optimizer comprises: a bypass unit connected in parallel between the two output terminals (Fig. 5 shows local power point optimizer comprises a bypass unit connected in parallel between the two output terminals).
However, Klein does not teach the optimizer to be in a second case.
However, Myer teaches the optimizer to be in a second case (Fig. 5a shows MPPT 54 being in a second case) [0090].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optimizer to be in a second case as taught by Myer in order to protect the circuitry component from overheating and other environmental agents.
Regarding claim 8, Klein does not teach wherein the second case is positioned at a position corresponding to the output terminals of each of the cell strings.
However, Myer teaches wherein the second case is positioned at a position corresponding to the output terminals of each of the cell strings (Fig. 5a and Fig. 9 shows second case 54 is positioned at a position corresponding to the output terminals of each of the cell strings of solar panel 1).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the second case is positioned at a position corresponding to the output terminals of each of the cell strings as taught by Myer in order to ensure efficient power supply to the load while also protecting the circuitry from environmental factors such as heat and cold.
Regarding claim 9, Klein does not teach wherein the controller detects at least one parameter of a voltage, a current, a temperature, humidity, or solar irradiance, from the optimizer, and detects abnormality of each of the cell strings or each of the optimizers, based on the parameter.
However, Myer teaches the controller (Fig. 9 shows control system 58) detects at least one parameter of a voltage, a current, a temperature, humidity, or solar irradiance, from the optimizer, and detects abnormality of each of the cell strings or each of the optimizers, based on the parameter (control system 58 controls temperature sensor 60, 61 which detects the temperature abnormality of each of the cells strings of each of the MPPT 54 based on parameter detection) [0090, 0100].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach the controller detects at least one parameter of a voltage, a current, a temperature, humidity, or solar irradiance, from the optimizer, and detects abnormality of each of the cell strings or each of the optimizers, based on the parameter as taught by Myer in order to accurately optimize the supply of power to the load to meet the demands of the load.
Regarding claim 10, Klein does not teach wherein the first case or the second case comprises: a case body and a case cover to cover the case body.
However, Myer teaches wherein the first case or the second case comprises: a case body and a case cover to cover the case body (Fig. 5a shows control system 58 in a first case having a case body and a case cover).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the first case or the second case comprises: a case body and a case cover to cover the case body as taught by Myer in order to protect the circuitry within the case from heat and cold environmental conditions.
Regarding claim 11, Klein does not teach wherein the case body and the case cover are formed in a waterproof structure.
However, Myer teacher wherein the case body and the case cover are formed in a waterproof structure [0084].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the case body and the case cover are formed in a waterproof structure as taught by Myer to protect the circuitry from damages due of weather causing water damage.
Regarding claim 12, Klein does no teach wherein an interior of the first case or the second case is filled with a heat-dissipating material.
However, Myer teaches wherein an interior of the first case or the second case is filled with a heat-dissipating material [0088-91].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein an interior of the first case or the second case is filled with a heat-dissipating material as taught by Myer to protect the circuitry from damages due to overheating.
Regarding claim 13, Klein does not teach wherein the first case or the second case is attachable to and detachable from the photovoltaic panel.
However, Myer teaches wherein the first case or the second case is attachable to and detachable from the photovoltaic panel [0101, 0107, 0119].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the first case or the second case is attachable to and detachable from the photovoltaic panel as taught by Myer to ensure that load demand is met with efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, Klein teaches wherein each of the plurality of optimizers comprises a power conversion unit configured to convert power from the cell string [0023].
Regarding claim 15, Klein teaches wherein the power conversion unit performs MPPT for each of the plurality of cell string [0023].
Regarding claim 16, Klein teaches wherein the power conversion unit comprises at least one of a buck converter, a boost converter, and a buck-boost converter [0025-26].
Regarding claim 17, Klein teaches wherein the second case comprises a bypass unit configured to bypass the power conversion unit [0030].
Regarding claim 18, Klein teaches wherein the controller controls the power conversion unit [0024]
Regarding claim 19, Klein does not teach wherein the controller comprises a communication unit configured to communicate with the plurality of optimizers.
However, Myer teaches wherein the controller comprises a communication unit configured to communicate with the plurality of optimizers [0046-47].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the controller comprises a communication unit configured to communicate with the plurality of optimizers as taught by Myer in order to provide efficient power to the load according to load demands.
Regarding claim 20, Klein does not teach wherein the communication unit uses a power line communication (PLC) to communicate with the plurality of optimizers.
However, Myer teaches wherein the communication unit uses a power line communication (PLC) to communicate with the plurality of optimizers (ethernet communication) [0046-47].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the communication unit uses a power line communication (PLC) to communicate with the plurality of optimizers as taught by Myer in order to provide efficient power to the load according to load demands.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0052091 (Klein) in view of US 2017/0099027 (Park).
Regarding claim 1, Klein teaches a photovoltaic module (Fig. 4 shows a photovoltaic module) comprising: a photovoltaic panel comprising a plurality of cell strings (Fig. 1 shows plurality of solar cell strings 413) [0022]; a plurality of optimizers connected to output power of the cell strings, respectively, and connected in series to each other (Fig. 4 shows plurality of power point optimizer 402 connected to output power of cell strings 413 respectively and connected in series to each other) [0023]; and a controller (Fig. 4 shows MPPT and Regulator 414) connected to both ends of the plurality of optimizers connected in series to each other (MPPT and Regulator 414 connected to both ends of the plurality of local power point optimizers 402 connected in series to each other) [0024].
However, Klein does not teach wherein the controller is disposed in a first case, and wherein each of the optimizers is disposed in a second case, and the second case is connected in series with another second case.
However, Park teaches wherein the controller is disposed in a first case (Fig. 1 shows inverter 2000 i.e. controller is disposed in a first enclosure) [0048-49, 0092], and wherein each of the optimizers is disposed in a second case (Fig. 5 shows generation efficiency optimization device 200 being in case 210 as shown in Fig. 10-11 which does not include inverter 2000 i.e. controller) [0073], the second case is connected in series with another second case (Fig. 1 shows generation efficiency optimization device 200 being connected in series with another generation efficiency optimization device 200 furthermore Fig. 10-11 shows generation efficiency optimization device 200 being in a case 210) [0050, 0073].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the controller is disposed in a first case, and wherein each of the optimizers is disposed in a second case, and the second case is connected in series with another second case as taught by Park in order to ensure that the optimization device is separate from inverter i.e. controller to protect each of the components in an event where either of the components are damaged due to heat and furthermore each of the circuit components in the various second cases are protected by the casing in an event of overheating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SWARNA N CHOWDHURI whose telephone number is (571)431-0696. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-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 571-272-7496. 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 71-272-1000.
SWARNA N. CHOWDHURI
Examiner
Art Unit 2836
/S.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights