The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/12/2024 has been entered. Upon entering amendment, claim 1 has been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-12 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/12/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states with respect to the newly amended language that the first DC-DC converter has been renamed to “auxiliary DC-DC converter circuit”, the second DC-DC converter has been renamed to “main DC-DC converter”, the first load to “auxiliary load”, the second load to “main load” (Remarks, pg.6). It is noted that relabeling the name of components does not impart any new structure and/or functionality into the claim.
Applicant states that the “only-main-converter-to-main-load” feature is found in Applicant’s fig.1 and in applicant’s pars [0018]- [0020] (Remarks, pg.6). It is noted that the word “only” does not appear anywhere in applicant’s disclosure. Thus, the term “only” is not defined in applicant’s specification and the applicant does not provide a specific meaning to the term. The examiner does not interpret “only” as a negative limitation, because the claim does not recite that there is no possibility/no instance ever of the main load being powered by the auxiliary power source. For example, Lim’s fig.1B shows an instance/moment in time in which the “main load” 116 “only” receives power from the main DC-DC converter circuit 102 when second bidirectional switch 106 is on and the first bidirectional switch 110 is off. There are no stipulations recited as to what is intended by “only” in the claim.
Applicant argues that “Lim et al. teaches that both the first battery charger 102 and the second battery charger 112 provide power to VSYS 116. Lim et al.’s Fig.1B shows that VSYS 116 receives power from the first battery charger 102 through current path 119b, and Lim et al.’s Fig.1C shows that VSYS 116 receives power from the second battery charger 112 through current path 124c. Thus, Lim et al. does not teach or suggest Applicant’s only-main converter-to-main-load feature.” (Remarks, pg.6). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Lim, par [17] states that “Additionally, the voltage and current output from the second battery charger 112c can also be coupled to the output terminal, VSYS 116c (e.g., current path indicated by the fourth arrowed line 124c) if the first control signal, CTRL1, is applied simultaneously to the control terminal or gate of the first transistor switch 106c.” The phrase the voltage and current output… can also be coupled to…VSYS 116c… if the first control signal, CTRL1, is applied…” suggests an option that is not required to be implemented. The use of the terms “can also” and “if” introduces an instance not depicted in which the path 124c does not exist in which the second bidirectional switch 106 is off (because CTRL 1 is not applied to the gate of the second switch). Specifically, “can also” indicates that that current path 124c is an optional or additional feature rather than a default or mandatory feature. Furthermore, the term “if” establishes a conditional dependency on the application of the control signal, CTRL1, to the gate of the switch. This conditional structure suggests that there exists a situation or instance in which the control signal is not applied, and consequently (in the instance it is not applied), the current path 124c in Lim’s fig.1C is not supplied to the main load Vsys 116 from the auxiliary DC-DC converter 112. Lastly, the last sentence of Lim’s par [17] states that “…the second battery charger 112c can be utilized to deliver a regulated an current to charge the battery stack or cells 108c, and/or deliver a regulated supply voltage to Vsys 116c.” The “or” in “and/or” means that delivering power to Vsys116C is optional and not required to ever happen. Therefore, contrary to applicant’s assertions, the examiner maintains that Lim still teaches the newly amended language of claim 1.
Should applicant amend the language to further recite a negative limitation to prohibit even the option of the main load being supplied from the aux dc-dc converter, it is noted that Winick (2002/0135235), cover page, par [30] explicitly teaches only bidirectional switch 124 being turned on and bidirectional switch 174 being turned off and vice versa at the same time (par [30]). Thus, Lim would be modified by Winick to remove the optional feature that may never be implemented by only having one of the two bidirectional switches on at the same time, which would simplify the system. Further, deleting an option and its function would have been obvious and well-within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (2017/0279284 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Lim (fig.1A-1B) teaches a power supply circuit comprising:
an auxiliary direct-current to direct-current (DC-DC) converter circuit (112, par [14]; Note: the term “auxiliary” does not impart structure and/or functionality into the claim. It is simply a label/nomenclature) connected to an auxiliary load (108) via a first bidirectional switch (110);
a main DC-DC converter circuit (102, par [12]; Note: the term “main” does not impart structure and/or functionality into the claim. It is simply a label/nomenclature) directly connected to a main load (116, see fig.1A) and connected, via a second bidirectional switch (106), to the auxiliary load (108, see figs.1A-1B); and
a control circuit (pars [13, 15]; “CTRL1” and “CTRL2” are control signals applied to the first and second bidirectional switches, respectively. The circuitry associated with generating the control signals is read on by “a control circuit”) to turn ON and turn OFF the first bidirectional switch (110) and the second bidirectional switch (106) in a complementary manner so that the auxiliary load receives power from either the auxiliary DC-DC converter circuit (112) or the main DC-DC converter circuit (102), while the main load (116) only receives power from the main DC-DC converter circuit (fig.1B, pars [16-17]; in fig.1B, CTRL 1 turns on second bidirectional switch 106 and control signal 2 turns off first bidirectional switch 110 so that the aux load receives power from the main DC-DC converter 102, while the main load 116 only receives power from the main DC-DC converter 102 in that instance- the switches are controlled in a complementary manner. Par 17, see response to arguments, states “voltage or current output… can also be coupled to the output terminal, Vsys 116c… if the first control signal, CTRL1, is applied…” The word “if” is conditional/an option/not required to happen. In the instance in which conditional CTRL 1 signal is not applied to the second switch 106 to turn it on (for the purpose of this office action, CTRL1 is never applied), the option of turning on bidirectional switch 106 is never implemented, and consequently, path 124 never happens. In this instance, 106 is off and 110 is on and the aux load 108 receives power from the aux DC-DC converter 112 while the main load 116 does not- switches are controlled in a complementary manner. That is, the instance shown in Lim’s fig.1B is when the main load 116 only receives power from the main converter 102).
Regarding Claim 2,
Lim teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches wherein the first and second bidirectional switches are metal-oxide semiconductor field effect transistors (pars [13, 15]).
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) 3, 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (2017/0279284 A1) in view of Winick et al. (2002/0135235 A1).
Regarding Claim 3,
Lim teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 2 and further teaches wherein a source of the first bidirectional switch (110) is connected to a source of the second bidirectional switch (106, par [15]).
Lim does not explicitly disclose a drain of the first bidirectional switch is connected to a drain of the second bidirectional switch.
Winick (fig.1), however, similarly teaches first and second bidirectional switches (124 and 174) controlled in a complementary manner (pars [30-31, 34-35] and related discussion; both switches 124, 174 “will not be turned on at the same time” and so when one switch is turned on, the other is turned off/complementary manner). Winick further teaches a drain of the first bidirectional switch (Winick, fig.1, “D” of 124) is connected to a drain of the second bidirectional switch (Winick, fig.1, “D” of 174).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lim to that of Winick. The motivation would have been because there are a limited number of options to how to connect the first and second bidirectional switches to each other without having any effect on the switches being controlled in a complementary manner and said options (two) are taught by the prior art. One skilled in the art would have obviously selected the drain of both switches connected to each other based on their intended use and design.
Regarding Claim 5,
Lim teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. Lim does not explicitly disclose a protection circuit to output a shutdown signal to the control circuit.
Winick, however, teaches a protection circuit (fig.1, 161, 162 or 162, par [28]) to output a shutdown signal (“shutdown” signal output on line 165, pars [28-29, 31]; Note: “shutdown signal” is a label given to a signal. The claim does not recite where the protection circuit is, which component is it connected to, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lim to further include a protection circuitry. The motivation would have been for added safety and protection purposes so that the switching circuitry and the power supplies/converters are protected from anomalies and to prevent causing a large voltage deviation at the aux load. Furthermore, the protection circuitry advantageously is used as a means to control the MOSFETs of the control circuit.
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and Winick further teaches wherein the shutdown signal turns ON the first bidirectional switch (124, par [31]; shutdown signal on line 165 causes 124 to be turned on) and turns OFF the second bidirectional switch (174, par [31]; and turns OFF 174).
Regarding Claim 7,
Lim teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1. Lim does not explicitly disclose a microcontroller to output a control signal to the control circuit.
Winick, however, teaches further comprising a microcontroller (162, par [28]) to output a control signal (fig.1, par [29]; control signal on line 165) to the control circuit (pars [29-31, 34-35]; control signal applied to the transistor 156 of the control circuit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have relied upon Winick. The motivation would have been to provide a means for controlling the control circuit in the case that that the control circuit are MOSFETs (see Winick’s 156, 196…) and would require a control signal to control a MOSFET type control circuit. Alternatively, or additionally, the microcontroller would advantageously provide a superordinate controller for the bidirectional switches.
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 7 and Winick further teaches wherein the control signal turns OFF the first bidirectional switch (124) and turns ON the second bidirectional switch (174, pars [34-35]).
Regarding Claim 9,
Lim teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and further teaches the first and second bidirectional switches are turned on and off in the complementary manner (see rejection of claim 1).
Lim does not explicitly disclose wherein the control circuit includes a power supply voltage; a first transistor connected between the power supply voltage and ground; and a second transistor connected between the power supply voltage and ground; a drain of the first transistor, a gate of the second transistor, and a gate of the first bidirectional switch are connected to each other and to the power supply voltage; a drain of the second transistor and a gate of the second bidirectional switch are connected to each other and to the power supply voltage; and the first transistor is turned ON and OFF such that the first and second bidirectional switches are turned ON and OFF in the complementary manner.
Winick (fig.1), however, similar to Lim, teaches a first bidirectional switch (124) and a second bidirectional switch (174) controlled in a complementary manner (pars [30-31, 34-35] and related discussion; both switches 124, 174 “will not be turned on at the same time” and so when one switch is turned on, the other is turned off/complementary manner). Winick further teaches the control circuit includes a power supply voltage (fig.1, “VCC”); a first transistor (156) connected between the power supply voltage (VCC) and ground (see fig.1); and a second transistor (196) connected between the power supply voltage (VCC) and ground (see fig.1); a drain (“D”) of the first transistor (156), a gate (“G”) of the second transistor (196), and a gate (“G”) of the first bidirectional switch (124) are connected to each other and to the power supply voltage (VCC, see fig.1); a drain (“D”) of the second transistor (196) and a gate (“G”) of the second bidirectional switch (174) are connected to each other and to the power supply voltage (VCC, see fig.1); and the first transistor (156) is turned ON and OFF (pars [31, 34-35]) such that the first and second bidirectional switches (124, 174) are turned ON and OFF in the complementary manner (pars [31, 34-35]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have relied on the teachings of Winick. The motivation would have been because Lim does not depict what the control circuit looks like and therefore one skilled in the art would have obviously looked to Winick for the teachings of what the control circuit would look like in order to control the first and second bidirectional switches in the recited manner.
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 9 and Winick further teaches comprising a microcontroller (162, par [28]) to output a control signal (fig.1, par [29]; control signal on line 165) to turn ON and OFF the first transistor (156, pars [31, 34-35]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (2017/0279284 A1) in view of Winick et al. (2002/0135235 A1) in further view of Chen et al. (2010/0109433 A1).
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination teaches the claimed subject matter in claim 1 and Winick further teaches wherein the control circuit includes two transistors (fig.1, 156 and 196).
The combination does not explicitly disclose the control circuit includes four transistors.
Chen (fig.4), however, teaches it is known in the art for the control circuit (208, par [16]) to include four transistors (Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination to that of Chen of realizing a control circuit with four transistors. The motivation would have been to allow more complex configurations, and increased control precision. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize four transistors as taught within Chen, since it has been held that the mere duplication of essential working parts of a device (i.e., the two transistors 156, 196 in Winick’s control circuit) involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis. Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. This is especially true given the fact that claim 4 broadly recites “four transistors” without reciting if/how they are connected to each other. The prior art clearly shows the obviousness of the control circuit including two transistors or four transistors and selecting four transistors would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art according to the intended design.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 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 (i.e., claim 9).
With respect to dependent claim 11, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the limitations “the control circuit further includes third and fourth transistors; gates of the third and fourth transistors are connected together; a drain of the third transistor is connected to a gate of the first transistor; a drain of the fourth transistor is connected to the drain of the second transistor; and the third and fourth transistors are turned ON and OFF together such that the first and second bidirectional switches are turned ON and OFF in the complementary manner” in combination with claim 9.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11 and is therefore indicated as allowable for similar reasons.
PRIOR ART DEEMED RELEVANT BUT NOT CURRETNLY RELIED UPON:
Wataru (2020/0343763 A1)- cover page, auxiliary source (13) connected to an auxiliary load (23) via a first bidirectional switch (15); a main source (44) directly connected to a main load (21) and connected, via a second bidirectional switch (14), to the aux load (21) and a control circuit (16) that controls the first and second bidirectional switches in a complementary manner (see fig.2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASEM MOURAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7770. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6.
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 on (571)272-7492. 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.
/RASEM MOURAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REXFORD N BARNIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights