Ex Parte Nelson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2017

12840398 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/840,398 07/21/2010 Robert J. Nelson 2010P06672US 1048
28524 7590 02/17/2017
SIEMENS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
EXAMINER
AMRANY, ADI
Orlando, EL 32817 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2836
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ipdadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT J. NELSON and HONGTAO MA
Appeal 2015-008250
Application 12/840,3981
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the September 3, 2014
Non-Final rejection of claims 1, 4—6, 9-11, 13—19, and 21—24. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ invention generally relates to methods and apparatuses
related to producing electrical energy for supply to an electrical grid and
minimizing harmonics generated in a wind turbine park. (Spec. 1—3).
Independent claims 1,10, and 19 are representative of the scope of the
1 The real party in interest is Siemens Aktiengesellschaft. (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2015-008250
Application 12/840,398
subject matter presented on appeal. Claim 1 is reproduced from the Brief
below:
1. A system for supplying electrical energy to a grid, the
system comprising:
a plurality of voltage sources each comprising a generator
configured to supply power to a converter, each converter
outputting a fundamental frequency current and outputting
harmonic frequency currents harmonically related to the
fundamental frequency, each fundamental frequency current
having a time displacement and each harmonic frequency
current having a time displacement dependent on an order of
the harmonic frequency current, the time displacements relative
to a current on the grid;
each one of the plurality of voltage sources connected to a
collector system through one of a plurality of transformers, each
transformer having a primary winding connected to a respective
converter in a voltage source to receive the fundamental
frequency current and the harmonic frequency currents
harmonically related to the fundamental frequency, each
transformer imparting a phase angle shift to the fundamental
frequency current and further imparting a phase angle shift to
each harmonic frequency current dependent on an order of the
harmonic frequency current;
the collector system connected to a secondary winding of each
transformer;
each fundamental frequency current time displacement canceled
by the phase angle shift resulting in each fundamental
frequency current being in phase on the collector system; and
due to the time displacement of each harmonic frequency
current and the phase angle shift of each harmonic frequency
current certain like-order harmonic frequency currents are
substantially canceled on the collector system and other like-
2
Appeal 2015-008250
Application 12/840,398
order harmonic frequency currents are reduced in magnitude on
the collector system.
The Examiner has maintained the rejection of claims 1, 4—6, 9—11,
13—19, and 21—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Wang et al.,
US 2010/0156192 Al, published June 24, 2010 (“Wang”).
OPINION2
We have reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for patentability.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection for essentially those reasons expressed
in the Non-Final Action and Answer3, including the Response to Argument
section. We add the following:
We refer to the Examiner’s Non-Final Action for a complete
statement of the rejection. (Non-Final Act. 5—9).
The Examiner found Wang discloses a plurality of sources and
converters whose output currents have time displacements relative to the
collector. (Fig 8,139). The Examiner found the displaced currents are each
passed through a respective transformer (22) that imparts a phase angle shift
in order to cancel the time displacement. (| 40). The Examiner found Wang
discloses “due to the time displacement of each harmonic frequency current
and the phase angle shift of each harmonic, certain like-order harmonics are
2 Appellants present their substantive arguments addressing independent
claims 1,10, and 19 together. Appellants also have not presented arguments
specific to dependent claims 4—6, 9, 11, 13—18, and 21—24. We limit our
discussion to independent claim 1 as representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
3 We refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 1, 2015.
3
Appeal 2015-008250
Application 12/840,398
canceled and other like-order harmonics are reduced in magnitude on the
collector system (par 40).” (Non-Final Act. 6).
Appellants argue Wang performs control actions to cancel or reduce
harmonics at the converter level. (App. Br. 8—10). Appellants specifically
argue Wang reduces or eliminates the harmonics that arise in the converter
by use of selective control of pulse width modulation (PWM) interleaving at
the converter level and uses phase restoration at the transformer level. {Id. at
9). Appellants further argue Wang’s transformers do not perform harmonic
cancelation. {Id. at 10-12).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error.
According to the Specification, it is recognized that converters generate
harmonic voltages that are added to the fundamental frequency waveform.
(Spec. 2). The Specification further discloses that even acceptable harmonic
currents, corresponding to applicable standards, can damage power system
components if they are not constrained. {Id.). The Specification discloses it
is known to use transformers between the electric generator and the electric
grid to phase shift the fundamental and harmonic components. {Id. at 2—3).
In essence Appellants argue that Wang’s PWM interleaving at the
converter level eliminates harmonic currents and therefore treatment of
harmonic currents does not occur at the transformer level. Appellants have
not disputed that Wang describes generators configured to supply power that
output a fundamental frequency current and harmonic frequency currents.
Appellants also have not disputed that Wang describes imparting phase shift
angle to the current that results from the generators. As set forth above it is
recognized by those skilled in the art that generators in addition to the
fundamental current also create harmonic currents, which can damage power
4
Appeal 2015-008250
Application 12/840,398
system components. It is also known to utilize transformers to
control/eliminate these harmonic currents. Appellants’ recognize that Wang
transformers play a role in harmonic cancelation. Specifically Appellants
state Wang involves both a control system and a phase-shifting transformer
in order to perform the harmonic cancelation, whereas the present invention
involves just a phase-shifting transformer to perform the harmonic
cancelation. (App. Br. 8). We agree with the Examiner (Answer 6) that
Appellants’ claimed invention does not exclude the use of a control system
to aid in harmonic cancellation.
The Examiner further asserted that Wang’s claim 13 is further
evidence that the transformer is utilized in harmonics cancellation.
Appellants’ response in the Reply Brief is limited to a discussion of the
issued patent4 that resulted from the reference utilized in the present
rejection. (Reply Br. 2). The discussion of the subject matter of the
resulting claims from the issued patent does not detract from the disclosure
of the reference before us. Consequently, these arguments are not
persuasive of reversible error.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the transformer 22 operation on
voltage pulses are not persuasive of reversible error. {Id. at 2—3). While
Wang discloses “[tjurbine transformers 22 may be used to transform the
voltage pulses and restore the shifted phases between wind turbine electrical
systems 18 (Wang 137, emphasis added), Wang also discloses the
transformer 22 is used “for transforming the alternating current into a
4 US 7,999,418
5
Appeal 2015-008250
Application 12/840,398
constant voltage and a certain frequency before the alternating current is fed
to electric grid 14 at PCC.” (Wang 125).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4—
6, 9-11, 13—19, and 21—24 for the reasons presented by the Examiner and
given above.
ORDER
The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 4—6, 9—11, 13—19,
and 21—24 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
6