DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the arguments and amendments filed on 12/5/2025.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higaki et al. (US Patent 12316122) discloses Quek et al. (US Patent 11799311) and Wray (US Patent 10009973). Regarding claim 6, Higkai et al. discloses (see fig. 1-2) a switched-mode power supply arrangement for supplying power to distributed consumers (21/22), the switched-mode power supply arrangement comprising: said consumers including at least one of sensors and actuators (21/22); a housing (see housing around converter 3); a switched-mode power supply arranged in said housing (31-33); said housing having a first power output providing a first operating voltage (V2) for a first one of said consumers (V2 output for 21); said housing having a second power output providing a second operating voltage (V3) for a second one of said consumers (V3 output for 22). Higaki et al. does not disclose that said second operating voltage (U2) at said second power output being greater than said first operating voltage (U1) at said first power output and an electronic fuse incorporated in said housing and being configured to electrically protect at least one of said first and second power outputs of said housing. Quek et al. discloses (see fig. 1 and fig. 4b) that said second operating voltage (Uo2) at a second power output being greater than a first operating voltage (Uo1) at said first power output (Uo2 being greater than Uo1). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the arrangement of Higaki et al. to include the features of Quek et al. because it provides for a reduction in operational variances due to varying loads, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Wray discloses (see fig. 1 and 5) an electronic fuse (128/129 see column 7 lines 25-30) incorporated in a housing (128/129 being within the digital power module) and being configured to electrically protect at least one of first and second power outputs of said housing (operation of 128/129). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the arrangement of Higaki et al. to include the features of Wray because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 2, Higaki et al. discloses (see fig. 1-2) an intralogistics system for conveying materials and/or goods on a conveyor track (column 2 lines 58-67 discloses that the loads can be a conveyor); said switched-mode power supply being installed in said intralogistics system and being configured to supply electric power to at least one of said first and second consumers (operation of 3 supplying power to loads); and, said first one of said consumers of said intralogistics system is connected to said first power output for supplying power thereto at said first operating voltage (V2 to 21) and said second one of said consumers of said intralogistics system is connected to said second power output for supplying power thereto at said second operating voltage (V3 to 22). Regarding claim 3, Higaki et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the second operating voltage being an integer multiple of said first operating voltage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the second operating voltage be an integer multiple of said first operating voltage, since it has been held that discovering optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the arrangement of Higaki et al. to include the features of having the second operating voltage be an integer multiple of said first operating voltage because it provides for a reduction in component variance, which can increase operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 4, Higaki et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first operating voltage having a nominal value of 24 volts and said second operating voltage having a nominal value of 48 volts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the first operating voltage be nominal value of 24 volts and said second operating voltage be a nominal value of 48 volts, since it has been held that discovering optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the arrangement of Higaki et al. to include the features of having the first operating voltage be nominal value of 24 volts and said second operating voltage be a nominal value of 48 volts because it provides for a reduction in component variance, which can increase operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 5, Higaki et al. discloses (see fig. 1-2) a control element (31) arranged in said housing (31 inside of 3); and said control element being configured to change at least one of said first and second operating voltages (output from 31 controlling the operation of 32 and 33) of corresponding ones of said first and second power outputs (outputs from 32 and 33 changing based on output from 31).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higaki et al. (US Patent 12316122) in view of Quek et al. (US Patent 11799311), Wray (US Patent 10009973) and Pabon (US 2011/0057724). Regarding claim 10, Higaki et al. does not disclose that said housing has an externally readable display device configured to indicate the state of at least one of said first and second power outputs. Pabon discloses (see fig. 2) that a housing (220 housing) has an externally readable display device (224) configured to indicate the state of at least one of said first and second power outputs (operation of 224). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the arrangement of Higaki et al. to include the features of Pabon because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a reduction in operational variances, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 11-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to teach or disclose a switched-mode power supply arrangement for supplying power to distributed consumers, the switched-mode power supply arrangement comprising: wherein at least one of said first power output and said second electric power output is a monitored power output; a limit value (In) is input into said electronic fuse; and, said electronic fuse is configured to lower electrical power output on said monitored power output when said input limit value (In) is exceeded, in combination with all the limitations set forth in claim 7. Regarding claim 11, the prior art fails to teach or disclose a switched-mode power supply arrangement for supplying power to distributed consumers, the switched-mode power supply arrangement comprising: wherein said switched-mode power supply is regenerative so as to cause an electrical current (IR) flowing into said switched-mode power supply via one of said first power output and said second power output to be supplied to a network and/or to an additional consumer connected to the switched-mode power supply, in combination with all the limitations set forth in claim 11. Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to teach or disclose a switched-mode power supply system comprising: wherein said switched-mode power supply being configured to connect a current (IR) flowing into said switched-mode power supply via said first power output to said second power output of said switched-mode power supply to supply power to said second power output, in combination with all the limitations set forth in claim 12.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A GBLENDE whose telephone number is (571)270-5472. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-272-1838. 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.
/JEFFREY A GBLENDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838