DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 17th June, 2026. By this amendment, Claim(s) 22 and 33 were amended; No Claim(s) were cancelled, No Claim(s) were withdrawn, and No Claim(s) were added. Therefore, Claim(s) 22-41 are pending in current application and are addressed below. Examiner appreciates the courtesies extended by applicant throughout the prosecution of this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2022 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 8 of 11) with respect to the amendment of Claim(s) 22 and 33 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 8-10 of 11) with respect to the rejection of the Claim(s) 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over LI (US 2016/0266379 A1) in view of HALBERT (US 5,777,860 A) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the combination of Li and Halbert fails to teach or suggest such: (1) generation of a power supply voltage at the output of the power regulator circuit responsive to the excitation signal; (2) obtaining a set of signals representing measurements of the power supply voltage and a power supply current at the output of the power regulator circuit responsive to the power supply voltage; and (3) a determination of a magnitude of power responsive to the measurements of the power supply voltage and power supply current at the output of the power regulator circuit.” The arguments and rationale are based on the claims as currently amended and thus are not commensurate with claims as examined and rejected in the previous office action.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 10 of 11) with respect to the rejection of the Claim(s) 33 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over LI (US 2016/0266379 A1) in view of HALBERT (US 5,777,860 A) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “alleged Li/Halbert combination fails to teach or suggest: (1) providing, by amplifier circuitry, at an output of a power regulator circuit a power supply voltage to a transducer responsive to an excitation signal; (2) obtaining, by sensing circuitry, a set of signals representing measurements of the power supply voltage at the output of the power regulator circuit and a power supply current at the output of the power regulator circuit; and (3) a determination, by a controller, a magnitude of power provided to the transducer responsive to the measurements of the power supply voltage at the output of the power regulator circuit and power supply current at the output of the power regulator circuit, as set forth in claim 33. Thus, independent claim 33 and all claims depending therefrom are allowable over the alleged Li/Halbert combination.” The arguments and rationale are based on the claims as currently amended and thus are not commensurate with claims as examined and rejected in the previous office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over LI (US 2016/0266379 A1) in view of HALBERT (US 5,777,860 A) in further view of LIPKENS (US 2020/0324225 A1).
Referring to Claim(s) 1-21, (Cancelled).
Referring to Claim 22, LI teaches a system, comprising:
a power regulator circuit (driver 100) having an output ([0028]; [0031]: “an amplifier circuit 118 amplifies the excitation signal VS and delivers the drive signal VDRV to the transducer 102” thereby already establishing an output/interface between the driver circuitry and driven transducer), the power regulator circuit comprising:
a controller (100 including 130) configured to determine an excitation signal ([0030]-[0031]);
amplifier circuitry (118) configured to generate a power supply voltage responsive to the excitation signal ([0028]); and
sensing circuitry (120) configured to obtain a set of signals representing measurements of the power supply voltage and a power supply current responsive to the power supply voltage ([0030]-[0031]);
wherein the controller (100 including 130) further configured to:
LI doesn’t explicitly teach generate a power supply voltage at the output of the power regulator circuit responsive to the excitation signal; obtain a set of signals representing measurements of the power supply voltage and a power supply current at the output of the power regulator circuit responsive to the power supply voltage; determine a magnitude of power responsive to the measurements of the power supply voltage and power supply current at the output of the power regulator circuit; and modify an amplitude of the excitation signal responsive to the determined magnitude of the power.
HALBERT teaches determine a magnitude of power responsive to the measurements of the power supply voltage and power supply current (Col. 3, Ln. 27-53: wherein, a power measuring circuit that calculates average electrical power delivered to the transducer using signals corresponding to current and voltage […] the circuit receives a signal commensurate with current flowing through the impedance matching circuit and a signal commensurate with the DC voltage supplied to the inverter, and computes the average electrical power delivered to the load (transducer) constitutes determining magnitude of the power supply voltage and power supply current as a response to the measurements); and
modify an amplitude of the excitation signal responsive to the determined magnitude of the power (Col. 3, Ln. 27-53: wherein, the power measurement output is fed to a power control circuit, which controls the switching times of the semiconductor switches of the inverter circuit. By controlling the switching operation of the inverter that drives the transducer, the system modifies the excitation/drive signal based on calculated power in response to the determined magnitude of the power).
LIPKENS teaches a power regulator circuit (DC source 110 + DC-DC converter 116 + RF DC-AC inverter 118) having an output (output drive signal provided by RF DC-AC inverter 118) ([0117]: Acoustic transducer 112 is driven by an RF power converter composed of DC source 110, DC-DC converter 116 and RF DC-AC inverter 118. The output drive signal provided by inverter 118 is inspected or sensed)
amplifier circuitry configured to generate a power supply voltage at the output of the power regulator circuit responsive to the excitation signal ([0117]-[0118], [0124]: for Fig. 15, inverter 118 is the output power stage: converter 116 supplies its DC voltage and inverter 118 converts that voltage into the high-frequency AC drive signal supplied to the PZT/transducer 112; [0129]: identifies linear amplifier 132, which amplifies the controller output signal “in preparation for driving the PZT”);
sensing circuitry (voltage sense 122 and current sense 124) configured to obtain a set of signals representing measurements of the power supply voltage and a power supply current ([0117]; [0119]: output drive signal provided by inverter 118 is inspected or sensed to obtain voltage sense 122 and current sense 124, which are fed back to a controller 120) at the output of the power regulator circuit responsive to the power supply voltage ([0117]: the structural sequence is explicit: inverter 118 → output drive signal → voltage sense 122/current sense 124 → controller 120. Thus, the V/I sensing is associated directly with the output drive signal of the identified power-conversion circuitry);
determine a magnitude of power responsive to the measurements of the power supply voltage and power supply current at the output of the power regulator circuit ([0119]-[0120]; controller 120 + voltage sense 122 + current sense 124: Controller 120 performs operations and calculations on the signals provided by voltage sense 122 and current sense 124, for example, to obtain a power measure, P=V*I; [0123]; [0127]; controller 120, voltage sense 122, current sense 124, converter 116, inverter 118, transducer 112: controller 120 uses voltage/current sensed at the PZT and adjust the output voltage of (dynamic) buck converter 116 to maintain the desired power output from RF DC-AC inverter 118 and into the acoustic transducer 112).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system disclosed in LI with the determined magnitude of power and modified amplitude of the excitation signal taught in HALBERT with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have improved control of power delivered to the transducer; thereby, enhancing operational efficiency and preventing excessive power delivery to the load. And further to modify the power regulator circuit of LI in view of HALBERT with the output voltage and sensing arrangement taught by LIPKENS with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided feedback representative of the electrical condition at the output of the power regulator circuit; and thereby, permit determination and regulation of the power delivered to the transducer.
Referring to Claim 23, HALBERT teaches the system of claim 22, wherein to modify the amplitude of the excitation signal, the controller is configured to:
compare the determined magnitude of the power with a target magnitude of the power (Col. 5, Ln. 56-Col. 6, Ln. 16);
and modify the amplitude of the excitation signal responsive to the comparison of the determined magnitude and the target magnitude (Col. 5, Ln. 56-Col. 6, Ln. 16).
Referring to Claim 24, LI, as modified, teaches the system of claim 22, further comprising:
a lens (202);
and a transducer (102) configured to cause vibration of the lens responsive to the power supply voltage ([0016]-[0017]).
Referring to Claim 25, LI, as modified, teaches the system of claim 24, wherein to modify the amplitude of the excitation signal, the controller is configured to:
determine whether the magnitude of the power is sufficient to remove a contaminant from the lens ([0034]-[0035]);
and modify the amplitude of the excitation signal responsive to the determination whether the magnitude of the power is sufficient to remove the contaminant from the lens ([0024]-[0025]; [0034]-[0035]).
Referring to Claim 26, LI, as modified, teaches the system of claim 25, wherein the controller is configured to:
determine that the magnitude of the power is insufficient to remove a contaminant from the lens ([0034]);
and increase the amplitude of the excitation signal responsive to the determination that the magnitude of the power is insufficient to remove the contaminant from the lens ([0017]; [0034]-[0035]).
Referring to Claim 27, LI, as modified, teaches the system of claim 22, wherein the controller is configured to:
determine a power factor of the power responsive to the measurements of the power supply voltage and power supply current ([0026]);
modify a frequency of the excitation signal responsive to the determined power factor of the power ([0031]; [0038]).
Referring to Claim 28, LI, as modified, teaches the system of claim 27, wherein the controller is configured to:
modify the frequency of the excitation signal to increase the power factor of the power ([0024]-[0025]; [0038]).
Referring to Claim 29, LI, as modified, teaches the system of claim 27, wherein the controller is configured to determine the power factor responsive to an angle between the power supply voltage and the power supply current ([0029]; [0031]).
Referring to Claim 30, LI, as modified, teaches the system of claim 22, wherein the supply power voltage has a frequency that is an ultrasound frequency ([0017]).
Referring to Claim 31, LI, as modified, teaches the system of claim 22, further comprising:
filter circuitry configured to perform filtering on the power supply voltage ([0029]-[0035]: the driver IC 100 includes a current sense circuit 120 that provides a sense signal IS to the control circuit 130. The control circuit 130, including the sweep and resonance tracking circuit 122, processes the sense signal to identify frequency dependent peaks or valleys of the sensed current values and generates a corresponding frequency control signal Ft. the control circuit 130 thus receives an input (IS) and provides and output (Ft), which is directly coupled to the signal generator 116, and thereby to the regulated drive output VDRV) generated from the amplifier circuitry ([0028]).
Referring to Claim 32, LI, as modified, teaches the system of claim 22, wherein the power supply voltage includes a pulse width modulation (PWM) voltage signal ([0027]; wherein it is the Examiner broadest reasonable interpretation “that the signal generator circuit 116 is a switching circuit to provide a square wave output signal voltage waveform VS” serves as the pulse width modulation (PWM) signal generated by the controller).
Claim 33 is essentially the same as Claim 22 and refers to a method of the system of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 33 is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 22 above.
Claim 34 is essentially the same as Claim 23 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 23 above.
Claim 35 is essentially the same as Claim 24 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 24 above.
Claim 36 is essentially the same as Claim 25 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 25 above.
Claim 37 is essentially the same as Claim 26 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 26 above.
Claim 38 is essentially the same as Claim 27 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 27 above.
Claim 39 is essentially the same as Claim 28 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 28 above.
Claim 40 is essentially the same as Claim 29 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 29 above.
Claim 41 is essentially the same as Claim 30 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 30 above.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding 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.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights