DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 11/14/25, for application number 17/841,550 has been received and entered into record. Claim 7 has been amended. Therefore, Claims 1-29 are presented for examination.
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
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 8-11, 15, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer, US 2007/0230227 A1, in view of Cueva et al., US 2020/0310522 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Palmer discloses a dongle [adapter 20, Fig. 1] comprising:
a multi-type power adapter port [power adapter 20 can be variable not only in terms of the power it outputs but also in terms of the power it inputs, par 48];
an output port [port 80]; and
circuitry coupled with the multi-type power adapter port and the output port [Fig. 1].
However, Palmer does not explicitly teach a universal serial bus (USB) Type-C port; circuitry coupled with the multi-type power adapter port and the USB Type-C port, wherein the circuitry is to: determine a first power level for the dongle to supply power to the electronic device, wherein the determination of the first power level is based on communication with an electronic device coupled with the dongle via a USB connection that uses the USB Type-C port; identify that the dongle is unable to provide power at the first power level to the electronic device, wherein the identification that the dongle is unable to provide the power at the first power level is based on power received from the multi-type power adapter port; determine a second power level that is lower than the first power level, wherein the determination of the second power level is based on communication with the electronic device in response to the identification that the dongle is unable to provide the power at the first power level; and supply power to the electronic device based on the second power level.
In the analogous art of power management, Cueva teaches a universal serial bus (USB) Type-C port [USB port 102 is a USB-C port, par 19]; circuitry coupled with the multi-type power adapter port and the USB Type-C port [power regulator 108 and USB port 102 of Fig. 1], wherein the circuitry is to: determine a first power level for the dongle to supply power to the electronic device, wherein the determination of the first power level is based on communication with an electronic device coupled with the dongle via a USB connection that uses the USB Type-C port; identify that the dongle is unable to provide power at the first power level to the electronic device, wherein the identification that the dongle is unable to provide the power at the first power level is based on power received from the multi-type power adapter port; determine a second power level that is lower than the first power level, wherein the determination of the second power level is based on communication with the electronic device in response to the identification that the dongle is unable to provide the power at the first power level; and supply power to the electronic device based on the second power level [power delivery (PD) controller is in charge of regulator, and receives request for power; when it is determined the request cannot be met since it is above a maximum amount, then a lower power is provided, par 30].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Palmer and Cueva before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the determination of power output as taught by Cueva, into the dongle as disclosed by Palmer, to avoid undesirable power oscillation from occurring in the USB device [Cueva, par 30].
Regarding Claim 2, Palmer and Cueva disclose the dongle of Claim 1. Cueva further teaches wherein the dongle is to communicate with the electronic device to identify the first power level or the second power level via a communication channel (CC) of the USB connection [in the case where the USB device 112 asks for 20 watts but was allocated 30 watts, the GPU 104 allocates the unused 10 watts to the GPU 104 and improves GPU performance as previously described (USB asks for power, which would occur through the communication channel), par 30].
Regarding Claim 8, Palmer and Cueva disclose the dongle of Claim 1. However, while Palmer discloses the input terminal being coupled to various batteries or storage devices, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the multi-type port is configurable to couple with a tubular port and a flat port.
Examiner notes, however, devices which operate “on basically the same principle and in the same manner” where the differences, in addition to being well-known, “solve no stated problem and would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art” are obvious variations of one another and thus not patentably distinct. See In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPQ 1975). As such, the particular port of the multi-type port being configurable to couple with a tubular port and a flat port appears to simply be a design choice, and would perform the function of coupling to a power supply regardless.
Regarding Claim 9, Palmer discloses a dongle [adapter 20, Fig. 1] comprising:
a multi-type power adapter port to receive power from a power source [power adapter 20 can be variable not only in terms of the power it outputs but also in terms of the power it inputs, par 48];
an output port to provide power at a first power level to an electronic device coupled with the dongle via a connection [port 80 coupled to consumer device 30].
However, Palmer does not explicitly teach a universal serial bus (USB) Type-C port; a power monitor to identify whether the power received from the power source is less than the first power level; and a power delivery (PD) module communicatively coupled with the power monitor, wherein the PD module is to: determine a second power level that is less than the first power level, wherein determination of the second power level is based on communication with the electronic device in response to identification by the power monitor that the power received from the power source is less than the first power level; and facilitate provision of power to the system at the second power level.
In the analogous art of power management, Cueva teaches a universal serial bus (USB) Type-C port [USB port 102 is a USB-C port, par 19]; a power monitor to identify whether the power received from the power source is less than the first power level [power request 131 checked by GPU 104, par 30]; and a power delivery (PD) module communicatively coupled with the power monitor, wherein the PD module is to: determine a second power level that is less than the first power level, wherein determination of the second power level is based on communication with the electronic device in response to identification by the power monitor that the power received from the power source is less than the first power level; and facilitate provision of power to the system at the second power level [the tuning performance data 137, in one example, changes the USB device 112 power level that is different from the requested USB device power level 131 and in other implementations maintains the same power level. For example, if the profile database 134 indicates that an even lower USB device power level can be appropriate for a given application the GPU performance tuning logic 132 instead provides data indicating that the USB device 112 should employ a lower power level, par 34].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Palmer and Cueva before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the determination of power output as taught by Cueva, into the dongle as disclosed by Palmer, to avoid undesirable power oscillation from occurring in the USB device [Cueva, par 30].
Regarding Claim 10, Palmer and Cueva disclose the dongle of Claim 9. Cueva further teaches wherein the power monitor is to identify that the power received from the power source is less than the first power level based on a power droop that occurs while the dongle is supplying power to the electronic device at the first power level [FSM controller circuit 101 asserts a DROOP signal in response to supply voltage VCC (as indicated by signals BINCD) decreasing below the lower threshold voltage LTH; i.e. the droop alarm occurs when the supply voltage is less than the threshold (the first power level), par 40].
Regarding Claim 11, Palmer and Cueva disclose the dongle of Claim 9. Claim 11 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 2, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 15, Palmer and Cueva disclose the dongle of Claim 9. Claim 15 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 8, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 16, Palmer discloses an embedded controller [power adapter 20] to be used in an electronic device, wherein the EC comprises: one or more processors [micro-controller 120]; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions [adapter necessarily contains media storing instructions in order for processing device 120 to perform tasks such as performing tests on load device 30 to determine the power requirements of the load device [par 40]. The remainder of Claim 16 recites limitations similar to those presented in Claim 9, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 22, Palmer discloses an electronic device [adapter 20] that includes: a power input port to receive power from a power supply [port 40]; and a processor [micro-controller 120]. However, Palmer does not explicitly teach a power monitor to monitor the power received from the power supply; and to identify, based on an alarm received from the power monitor, that power provided by the power supply is below a first power level that is related to an operating parameter of the processing unit; identify, based on an indication received from the power monitor, a second power level that is less than the first power level; facilitate adjustment of the operating parameter based on the second power level; and facilitate operation of the processor at the second power level.
In the analogous art of power management, Cueva teaches a power monitor to monitor the power received from the power supply [power delivery (PD) controller is in charge of regulator, and receives request for power, par 30]; and to identify, based on an alarm received from the power monitor, that power provided by the power supply is below a first power level that is related to an operating parameter of the processing unit; identify, based on an indication received from the power monitor, a second power level that is less than the first power level; facilitate adjustment of the operating parameter based on the second power level; and facilitate operation of the processor at the second power level [when it is determined the request cannot be met since it is above a maximum amount (i.e. an alert/alarm), then a lower power is provided, par 30].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Palmer and Cueva before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the determination of power output as taught by Cueva, into the dongle as disclosed by Palmer, to avoid undesirable power oscillation from occurring in the USB device [Cueva, par 30].
Claims 3, 12, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer and Cueva, and further in view of Kato et al., US 2020/0310705 A1.
Regarding Claim 3, Palmer and Cueva disclose the dongle of Claim 1. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein determination of the first power level is responsive to boot process of the electronic device.
In the analogous art of power control, Kato teaches determination of the first power level is responsive to boot process of the electronic device [the communication processing unit 12A of the present embodiment determines the required voltage value and current value with reference to the power list based on a first startup power amount SW1 and a second startup power amount SW2, par 57].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Palmer, Cueva, and Kato before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the power level determination as taught by Kato into the dongle as disclosed by Palmer and Cueva, to ensure sufficient power to operate on battery power when not connected to an external device or a commercial power source [Kato, par 4].
Regarding Claims 12, 17, and 23, Palmer and Cueva disclose the dongle of Claim 9, EC of Claim 16, and electronic device of Claim 22, respectively. Claims 12, 17, and 23 recite claim limitations similar to those of Claim 3, and are rejected accordingly.
Claims 4, 13, 18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer and Cueva, and further in view of Patel et al., US 7,962,769 B1.
Regarding Claim 4, Palmer and Cueva disclose the dongle of Claim 1. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein determination of the first power level is responsive to a workload of the electronic device.
In the analogous art of power management, Patel teaches wherein determination of the first power level is responsive to a workload of the electronic device [computing an amount of power required to operate the cooling system components to adequately cool the at least one electronic component based upon the amount of power determined to be required to perform the workload, claim 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Palmer, Cueva, and Patel before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the determination of power responsive to a workload as taught by Patel, into the dongle as disclosed by Palmer and Cueva, to ensure sufficient cooling to the system [Patel, col. 1, ll. 8-17].
Regarding Claims 13, 18, and 24, Palmer and Cueva disclose the dongle of Claim 9, EC of Claim 16, and electronic device of Claim 22, respectively. Claims 13, 18, and 24 recite claim limitations similar to those of Claim 4, and are rejected accordingly.
Claims 5-7, 14, 20, 21, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer and Cueva, and further in view of Gabriel et al., US 2022/0006459 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, Palmer and Cueva disclose the dongle of Claim 1. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein determination of the second power level is based on an alarm generated by a power monitor of the dongle.
In the analogous art of power supply management, Gabriel teaches wherein determination of the second power level is based on an alarm generated by a power monitor of the dongle [FSM controller circuit 101 asserts a DROOP signal in response to supply voltage VCC (as indicated by signals BINCD) decreasing below the lower threshold voltage LTH; i.e. droop alarm when supply voltage is less than threshold (i.e. first power level), par 40].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Palmer, Cueva, and Gabriel before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the alarm indication based on the power level as taught by Gabriel, into the dongle as disclosed by Palmer and Cueva, to avoid voltage tampering of integrated circuits which may cause the system to violate system timing requirements [Gabriel, par 2].
Regarding Claim 6, Palmer, Cueva, and Gabriel disclose the dongle of Claim 5. Gabriel further teaches wherein the alarm is based on identification of a power droop while the dongle is attempting to supply power to the electronic device at the first power level [FSM controller circuit 101 asserts a DROOP signal in response to supply voltage VCC (as indicated by signals BINCD) decreasing below the lower threshold voltage LTH; i.e. droop alarm when supply voltage is less than threshold (i.e. first power level), par 40].
Regarding Claim 7, Palmer, Cueva, and Gabriel disclose the dongle of Claim 6. Gabriel further teaches wherein the power droop is based on a power provided by a power supply coupled with the dongle via the power adapter port being lower than the first power level [FSM controller circuit 101 asserts a DROOP signal in response to supply voltage VCC (as indicated by signals BINCD) decreasing below the lower threshold voltage LTH; i.e. droop alarm when supply voltage is less than threshold (i.e. first power level), par 40].
Regarding Claims 14 and 21, Palmer and Cueva disclose the dongle of Claim 9 and the EC of Claim 16, respectively. Claims 14 and 21 recite limitations similar to those of Claim 7, and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 20, Palmer and Cueva disclose the EC of Claim 16. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein identifying that power provided by the power supply is below the first power level is based on a comparison of the power provided by the power supply to a power threshold level.
In the analogous art of power supply management, Gabriel teaches wherein identifying that power provided by the power supply is below the first power level is based on a comparison of the power provided by the power supply to a power threshold level [FSM controller circuit 101 asserts a DROOP signal in response to supply voltage VCC (as indicated by signals BINCD) decreasing below the lower threshold voltage LTH; i.e. droop alarm when supply voltage is less than threshold, par 40].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Palmer, Cueva, and Gabriel before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the comparison of power provided as taught by Gabriel, into the dongle as disclosed by Palmer and Cueva, to avoid voltage tampering of integrated circuits which may cause the system to violate system timing requirements [Gabriel, par 2].
Regarding Claim 26, Palmer and Cueva disclose the electronic device of Claim 22. Claim 26 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 20, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 27, Palmer, Cueva, and Gabriel disclose the electronic device of Claim 26. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the power threshold level is 80% of the first power level.
Examiner notes, however, devices which operate “on basically the same principle and in the same manner” where the differences, in addition to being well-known, “solve no stated problem and would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art” are obvious variations of one another and thus not patentably distinct. See In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPQ 1975). As such, the power threshold being 80% of the first power level appears to simply be a design choice, and would perform the function of a power threshold regardless.
Regarding Claim 28, Palmer and Cueva disclose the electronic device of Claim 22. Claim 28 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 6, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 29, Palmer, Cueva, and Gabriel disclose the electronic device of Claim 28. Cueva further discloses wherein the second power level is equal to the maximum level of the power provided by the power supply [power delivery (PD) controller is in charge of regulator, and receives request for power; when it is determined the request cannot be met since it is above a maximum amount, then a lower power is provided, par 30], and Gabriel further teaches detection of a power droop [FSM controller circuit 101 asserts a DROOP signal in response to supply voltage VCC (as indicated by signals BINCD) decreasing below the lower threshold voltage LTH; i.e. droop alarm when supply voltage is less than threshold, par 40].
Claims 19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer and Cueva, and further in view of Regini et al., US 2012/0260258 A1.
Regarding Claim 19, Palmer and Cueva disclose the EC of Claim 16. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein adjusting the operating parameter includes powering down one or more cores of the processor.
In the analogous art of system power management, Regini teaches wherein adjusting the operating parameter includes powering down one or more cores of the processor [reacts to an identified parallel workload by adjusting one or more operating parameters on the PCD 100, such as either powering "ON" additional cores 222, 224, 226 or powering "OFF" such cores as described above in Blocks 525 and 540 in connection with FIG. 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Palmer, Cueva, and Regini before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the powering down of processors as part of the operating parameters, as taught by Regini, into the EC as disclosed by Palmer and Cueva, to allow for adjustments to support workloads and control power to multiple cores in a multicore processor of a system [Regini, par 3, 4].
Regarding Claim 25, Palmer and Cueva disclose the electronic device of Claim 22. Claim 25 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 19, and is rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the combination of references fails to teach the limitation that the dongle is to “identify that the dongle is unable to provide power at the first power level to the electronic device, wherein the identification that the dongle is unable to provide the power at the first power level is based on power received from the multi-type power adapter port.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes the claim discloses the dongle comprises a power adapter port; USB Type-C port; and circuitry coupled to the ports, and the claim further requires the circuitry to perform the identification at issue. In the rejection previously presented (and repeated above), Palmer discloses the dongle [adapter 20, Fig. 1], and Cueva discloses the identification through similar circuitry [power delivery controller 106 in charge of power regulator 108, which controls the ports 114, Fig. 1] which is equivalent to the dongle of the instant application.
As such, the GPU of Cueva, in conjunction with the power delivery controller, adjusts the regulator to identify that the dongle is unable to provide power at the first power level and instead provides power at a second level.
Applicant’s arguments as to the external and internal components of the cited prior art compared to the instant application appear to be arguing for features which may be present in the Specification, but are not found in the claims as presented.
Applicant also argues the combination of references fails to teach the limitation that the dongle is to “determine a second power level that is lower than the first power level, wherein the determination of the second power level is based on communication with the electronic device in response to the identification that the dongle is unable to provide power at the fist power level.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted above, the rejection, relying on Cueva with regards to the instant limitation, compares the determination by the features of the power delivery controller, GPU, and regulator of the device of Fig. 1 in Cueva to disclose the determination of a second power level. The power level is based on a request via the USB port and in turn the power delivery controller for power, and in response to determining the power is unable to be met, a lower power is provided instead [Cueva, par 30].
As with the previous argument, Applicant makes mention of external electronic devices and external power supplies. Examiner notes once again that Applicant appears to be arguing features not required by the claims as presented.
As no additional arguments were presented as to the remaining limitations and claims, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PT.
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, Andrew J Jung can be reached at (571) 270-3779. 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.
/Paul Yen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175