DETAILED 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
The anticipation rejection has been withdrawn.
The obviousness rejection has been sustained. Applicant argues that: “a supporting structure having a conductor” is not taught by the combination. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As evidence, Examiner points to the copper enclosure described in the Figure of Bleus. As to the limitation “a filter circuit having first, second and third filter inputs, and having a filter output, the third filter input coupled to a conductor”, this is taught by Yeong. Since each limitation has been pointed out by at least one reference, all limitations have been taught by the combination and as such the obvious rejection is sustained.
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed 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 of this title, 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 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleus (US 20180205309) in view of Yeong (KR 20200128974).
As to claim 1, Blues discloses (see image below) a system comprising: a supporting structure having a conductor (image below copper enclosure) a filter circuit having first, second and
Bleus does not disclose third filter inputs, and an inductor coupled between the conductor and a ground terminal.
Yeong teaches a third filter input (each capacitor forms an input)and an inductor (inductor to common capacitor) coupled between the conductor and a ground terminal (GND symbol).
PNG
media_image1.png
712
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The combination teaches (see image below) a system comprising: a conductor a filter circuit having first (first input into item D), second (second input into item D) and third filter inputs (power input into amplifier), and having a filter output (first output into A), the third filter input (VCC powering amplifier) coupled to a conductor (wire powering op AMP) ;a first capacitor (C17) coupled between first terminal and the first filter input; a second capacitor (C16) coupled between a second terminal and the second filter input; a third capacitor (C13) coupled between the filter output and the second terminal; a fourth capacitor coupled between the first power terminal and the power terminal; and an inductor (item C) coupled between the conductor and a ground terminal.
PNG
media_image2.png
395
351
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use the active filter as disclosed in Yeong to further reduce noiuse.
As to claim 2, Bleus in view of Yeong teaches wherein the filter output is a first filter output, the filter circuit includes a second filter output, and the circuit further comprises a fifth capacitor coupled between the second filter output and the first power terminal (see combination image above (C12).
As to claim 8, Bleus in view of Yeong teaches an amplifier having an input and an amplifer output (see image above), and a fifth capacitor (C0) coupled between the amplifier input and amplifier output (since the control terminal is on its own ground, VCC, C0, the inductor and op amp form a series circuit, electrically coupling the items).
As to claim 9, Bleuss in view of Yeong teaches wherein the gain of the amplifier varies as a function of a frequency of a signal at the voltage source terminal (there is an LR filter on the input and and LC filter on the output).
As to claim 10, this is similar to claim 1 above with the difference being that there is more specific mention of the common mode sensing. However, the combination clearly shows this via the Y connection on the three capacitors which would be feeding a theoretical neutral. As such, this claim is also obvious.
As to claim 13, Bleuss in view of Yeong teaches further comprising:causing
As to claim 14, Bleuss in view of Yeong make obvious further comprising: performing a first filter operation on the first and the second signals with a third capacitor coupled between a first terminal of the first inductive coil and a first terminal of the second inductive coil; and performing a second filter operation on the first and second signals with a fourth capacitor coupled between a second terminal of the first inductive coil and a second terminal of the second inductive coil (These capacitors refer to C19 and C20. Though they are in a slightly different order than what applicants describe, they still perform filtering functions. Per MPEP 2144(VI)(C), this is regarded as obvious).
As to claim 15, Bleuss in view of Yeong teaches providing a fourth signal to at least one of the first or second terminals responsive to the common mode noise signal (see image above, it is injecting current to reduce noise).
As to claim 16, this is similar to the combination taught in claim 1 above and is obvious for similar reasons.
As to claim 17, Bleuss in view of Yeong teaches wherein the filter output is a first filter output, the filter circuit includes a second filter output, and the circuit further comprises a fifth capacitor coupled between the second filter output and the first terminal (see image above).
As to claim 21, Bleuss in view of Yeong teaches wherein an amplifier having an input and an amplifer output (see image above), and a fifth capacitor (C0) coupled between the amplifier input and amplifier output (since the control terminal is on its own ground, VCC, C0, the inductor and op amp form a series circuit, electrically coupling the items).
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, 19 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleus (US 20180205309) in view of Yeong (KR 20200128974) and Lu (US 20180292720).
As to claim 4, Bleus in view ofYeong does not teach wherein the circuit further comprises a clamp circuit coupled between the conductor and the ground terminal.
Lu teaches wherein the circuit further comprises a clamp circuit coupled between the conductor and the ground terminal (Lu, TVS ckt).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use the clamp as disclosed in Lu to prevent overvotlaging the op-amp.
As to claim 5, Bleus in view of Yeong and Lu teaches wherein the clamp circuit includes a transient voltage suppression (TVS) diode.
Claims 11, 12, 18, 19 are similar to claims 4 and 5 above and are obvious for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 3, the prior art fails to disclose: “further comprising: a power converter having a first converter input and a second converter input; a fifth capacitor coupled between the first converter input and the conductor; and a sixth capacitor coupled between the second converter input and the conductor” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
Please note: while objected or allowed claims have been indicated, only the presented claims have been examined for compliance with form and 35 USC 112 consideration. As a reminder, claims that are dependent upon objected claims still require examination for form and 35 USC 112 issues even if they overcome 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections. Similarly, amendments incorporating allowable subject matter into independent claims requires reconsideration for dependent claim form and any possible 35 USC 112 issues that arise through amendments even if the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are overcome. As such, applicant is advised that while examiner can enter previously allowed claims or previously objected claims rewritten into independent form after final rejection, any other claims may not be entered.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular column, paragraph, and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety 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. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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 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 PETER M NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1375. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM,Monday through Thursday, EST.
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, Thienvu Tran can be reached on 571-270-1276. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/PETER M NOVAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2839