9DETAILED 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 101-107 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/12/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 (claims 69-100 and 108-115) in the reply filed on 11/12/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant’s traversal is on the ground(s) that the designated invention groups encompassed overlapping subject matter and that there is no serious burden to search or examine. This is not found persuasive. Although the claims include multiple embodiments (e.g. groups 1 and 2) in the claims, they may be presented for examination only if they involved a single inventive concept (basically they are same and the differences are minor and not patentably distinct). There is nothing in the record showing them to be obvious variant and not encompassing overlapped subject matter. Moreover, these groupings have acquired separate statuses in the art because of their divergent claimed subject matter.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 3/3/22, 10/11/22, 8/15/23, 3/4/24 (2 copies) and 9/26/24 have all been considered and placed of record. The six (6) initialed copies are attached herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the circuits shown in figures 1-20 are too small and the text is too blurry. 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 69, 70, 74-79, 81-89, 91, 92, 96, 97, 99, 108 and 110-112 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (US 2012/0268063) in view of an article by Zhang et al. entitled “A GaN Transistor based 90W AC/DC Adapter with a Buck-PFC Stage and an Isolated Quasi-Switched-Capacitor DC/DC stage” (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Re claims 69 and 91, the Qiu discloses an apparatus/method having, inter alia, para 17 and 20-21) and at least one controller 28 configured to control para 18-19). See also figure 1. (Note: method steps in claim 91 mirrored claim 69).
Qiu does not disclose a switch regulator. Official notice is taken of the fact that a switch regulator is a known circuit to convert dc voltage to a desired dc voltage. An example is provided by Zhang whereby the PFC stage (regulator) regulates the ac input current (figs 1-4). It would have been obvious to have substituted the ac adapter 16 of Qiu with a switch regulator as exemplified by Zhang to ensure a more efficient and a stable output voltage.
Re claims 70 and 92, the Qiu and Zhang further teach the charge pump 29 is positioned between a voltage 22 and the switch regulator (substituting ac adapter 16 (reasoning above)).
Re claims 74 and 96, Qui and Zhang further teach the at least one controller 28 is configured to control the switching regulator and the charge pump 29 such that energy passes through the charger 12 and through at least one of: the switching regulator, the charge pump 29, or a combination of the switching regulator and the charge pump to charge the battery (see figure 1).
Re claims 75-78, Qui and Zhang do not teach the controller having a plurality of controllers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided a plurality of controllers wherein each controller manipulates different operations (referencing instant claims 76-78), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 79 and 97, Qui and Zhang do not teach the charge pump having a first charge pump and a second charge pump. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have included more than one charge pump for different operations, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 81 and 99, Qui further discloses the charge pump configured to charge the battery (para 18).
Re claim 82, Qui further discloses the charger 12 charges the battery (para 18).
Re claim 83, Qui further discloses the charge 12 is a buck-boost charger (para 18 and 21).
Re claim 84, Qui and Zhang do not teach wireless charging. Official notice is taken of the fact that wireless charging required no wiring connection between the charger and the portable device allowing a user more freedom with his device. It would have been obvious to have substituted the wired charger with a wireless charger to reduce physical port/connection wear, wire clutter and to provide a more modern aesthetic look for the user.
Re claim 85, Qui and Zhang are silent on having a USB port to provide voltage. Official notice is taken of the fact that USB port is considered to be a standard feature on any charger. It would have been obvious to have included a USB port to enjoy many advantages including charging versatility (e.g. can be connected to multiple devices, plug-and-play scenario) and data/power transfer on same port.
Re claim 86, Qui further discloses the charger comprises a circuitry configured to maintain a constant current or a constant voltage while charging the battery (para 23).
Re claim 87, Qui and Zhang do not teach a circuitry configured to measure an amount of charge on the battery. Official notice is taken of the fact that having a circuit to measure the amount of charge in the battery to ensure the battery is not overcharged and correct amount of charge present. It would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Qui in view of Zhang with a SOC circuit to ensure proper charge is being provided.
Re claim 88, Qui and Zhang do not teach a circuitry configured to provide protection from a fault. Official notice is taken of the fact that having a circuit to detect fault would ensure that the charger is operated correctly and within specification. It would have been obvious to have included a fault detection in the charger of Qui in view of Zhang to properly provide a safe device for a user.
Re claim 89, Qui further discloses a switch to selectively uncouple the battery 22 from the load 20 (end of para 17).
Re claim 108, Qui discloses an integrated circuit having, inter alia, para 18-19). See figure 1.
Qui does not disclose a switch regulator having a plurality of switches connected to the ac/dc converter. Official notice is taken of the fact that a switch regulator is a known circuit to convert dc voltage to a desired dc voltage. An example is provided by Zhang whereby the PFC stage (regulator) regulates the ac input current (figs 1-4). In addition, the regulator of Zhang configured to have a plurality of switches (figs 2 and 4). It would have been obvious to have substituted the ac adapter 16 of Qiu with a switch regulator as exemplified by Zhang to ensure a more efficient and a stable output voltage.
Re claim 110, Qui discloses an integrated circuit having, inter alia, a charger 12; and a controller 28 configured to control the charger to receive a voltage from at least one of: para 18-19). Figure 1.
Qui does not disclose a switch regulator. Official notice is taken of the fact that a switch regulator is a known circuit to convert dc voltage to a desired dc voltage. An example is provided by Zhang whereby the PFC stage (regulator) regulates the ac input current (figs 1-4). It would have been obvious to have substituted the ac adapter 16 of Qiu with a switch regulator as exemplified by Zhang to ensure a more efficient and a stable output voltage.
Re claim 111, Qui further discloses the charger having the controller configured to maintain a constant current or a constant voltage while charging the battery (para 23).
Re claim 112, Qui further discloses a switch to selectively uncouple the battery 22 from the load 20 (end of para 17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 71-73, 80, 90, 93-95, 98, 100, 109 and 113-115 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.
Re claims 71-73 and 93-95, the art made of record fails to disclose or make obvious diverse nodes for connection.
Re claims 80, 90, 98 and 100, the art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the charge pump having a plurality of bypass switches or forming a switched capacitive network.
Re claim 109, the art of record fails to disclose or make obvious an inductor external to the IC configured in the claim.
Re claims 113-115, the art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the claimed second controller configured to performed operations as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Taelor Kim and he can be reached at 571.270.7166. The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800.786.9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571.272.1000.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087