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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/26/2023, 12/12/2024 and 04/24/2026.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restriction requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 4/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the output circuit” in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 9 is depended from claims 1 and 6 which do not comprise the “output circuit” and it is unclear if claim 9 is depended from claim 7. If so, claim 9 should be depended upon claim 7.
Claim 10 recites the same limitation “the output circuit” and it is rejected by the same reason as discussed in claim 9. For examination purposes, claim 10 is depended upon claim 7.
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) 1-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Stura US20200128878A1 (see evidence reference Meehan US 20200373838 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Stura discloses
An apparatus (1, see figs.1-6) comprising:
a bridge circuit (entire circuit shown in figs.3-5a) for applying one or more pulse edges (pulse edges of the voltages VL, see fig.4) to a resonant circuit (1323, see fig.3-5a), the bridge circuit (entire circuit shown in figs.3-5a) having a first limb (D1, see figs.3-5a) in which a first connection point (connection point between T1 and T2, see fig.5a. See first connection point in annotated fig.5a below) is connected to ground (see fig.3-5a), and a second limb (D2, see figs.3-5a) having a third transistor (T4, see fig.5a) connected between a first power source (VDC, see fig.5a) and a second connection point (connection point between T3 and T4, see fig.5a. See second connection point in annotated fig.5a below) and a fourth transistor (T3, see fig.5a) connected between the second connection point (connection point between T3 and T4, see fig.5a) and ground (see annotated fig.5a below),
PNG
media_image1.png
607
915
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.5a of Stura
wherein the resonant circuit (1323, see fig.5a) comprises an inductive element (L, see fig.5a) and a capacitor (C, see fig.5a) connected in series between the first connection point (connection point between T1 and T2) and the second connection point (connection point between T3 and T4, see fig.5a) , wherein the inductive element (L) is for inductively heating a susceptor (21, see para.004-005 and 0054), wherein each applied pulse edge (each of the pulse edge of the voltage VL, see fig.4) induces a pulse response between the capacitor and the inductive element of the resonant circuit (see fig.3-5c, the voltage pulse VL lead to a pulse response between L and C. See the evidence showing the pulse response between L and C in Meehan, figure 1 ), and wherein the pulse response has a resonant frequency (see para.0016: “resonant switching circuit”. A resonant switching circuit implies a resonant frequency).
PNG
media_image2.png
442
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.1 of Meehan
Regarding claim 2, Stura further discloses the bridge circuit is an H-bridge circuit (see fig.5a).
Regarding claim 3, Stura further discloses the first limb (D1, see figs.3-5a) of the bridge circuit (entire circuit shown in figs.3-5a) comprises a first transistor (T1, see fig.3-5a) connected between the first power source (VDC, see fig.3-5a) and the first connection point (connection point between T1 and T2, see fig.5a).
Regarding claim 4, Stura further discloses the first limb (D1, see figs.3-5a) of the bridge circuit (entire circuit shown in figs.3-5a) comprises a second transistor (T2, see fig.3-5a) connected between the first connection point (connection point between T1 and T2, see fig.5a) and ground (see fig.5a).
Regarding claim 5, Stura further discloses the capacitor (C, see fig.5a) of the resonant circuit (1323) is connected to the first connection point (connection point between T1 and T2, see fig.5a) and the inductive element (L) of the resonant circuit (1323) is connected to the second connection point (connection point between T3 and T4, see fig.5a).
Regarding claim 6, Stura further discloses an output connection point (see output connection point in annotated fig.5a below) between the inductive element (L) and the capacitor (C) of the resonant circuit (1323, see fig.5a).
PNG
media_image3.png
597
957
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.5a of Stura
Regarding claim 11, Stura further discloses the capacitor (L) of the resonant circuit (1323, see fig.5a) is provided between the first connection point (connection point between T1 and T2, see fig.5a) and the output connection point (see output connection point in annotated fig.5a above) and the inductive element (L) of the resonant circuit (1323, see fig.5a) is provided between the second connection point (connection point between T3 and T4, see fig.5a) and the output connection point (see output connection point in annotated fig.5a above).
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 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:
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.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stura in view of Meehan (US 20200373838 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Stura discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except an output circuit coupled to the output connection point between the inductive element and the capacitor of the resonant circuit.
Meehan discloses an integrated switch mode power supply device, comprising:
an output circuit (load, see fig.1) coupled to the output connection point between the inductive element (L, see fig.1) and the capacitor (C, see fig.1) of the resonant circuit (LC circuit).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Stura to incorporate the “output circuit coupled to the output connection point between the inductive element and the capacitor of the resonant circuit” as taught by Meehan. Doing so filters the output voltage to provide a desired voltage to the load (See para.0029 of Meehan).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stura in view of Meehan as applied to claim 7 and further in view of Miermans (US 6157179 A)
Regarding claim 8, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the output circuit and the output connection point are coupled using an output capacitor.
Miermans discloses A switched-mode power supply especially suitable for supplying a low output power, comprising:
the output circuit (load X, see fig.2) and the output connection point (N2, see fig.2) are coupled using an output capacitor (C2, see fig.2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Stura in view of Meehan so as “the output circuit and the output connection point are coupled using an output capacitor” as taught by Miermans. Doing so provides a smoother, more consistent voltage for the load.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stura in view of Meehan as applied to claim 7 (See 112(b) rejections above) and further in view of Kang (US 20220346196 A1)
Regarding claim 9, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the output circuit is a DC voltage adjustment circuit.
Kang discloses an induction heating apparatus, comprising:
the output circuit (20, see fig.2) is a DC voltage adjustment circuit (see para.0020: “ a main control circuit … adjusting magnitude of the DC link voltage depending on a final voltage value”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Stura in view of Meehan to incorporate the “DC voltage adjustment circuit” of Kang. Doing so “ensure high power efficiency and ease of control over a heating operation” (see para.0033 of Kang).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stura in view of Meehan as applied to claim 7 (See 112(b) rejections above) and further in view of Gambetta (US 20190222109 A1)
Regarding claim 10, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the output circuit comprises a comparator.
Gambetta discloses a switching power converter circuit, comprising:
the output circuit comprises a comparator (310, see fig.3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Stura in view of Meehan to incorporate the “comparator” as taught by Gambetta, in order for “comparing the prediction of the error voltage to an actual value of the error voltage and for instructing the modulator circuit to enter a pulse skipping mode based on a result of the comparison”. “Thereby, unnecessary toggling between the pulse skip mode and the normal operation mode can be avoided.” (see abstract and para.0013 of Gambetta).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20190173388 A1 discloses Unique systems, methods, techniques and apparatuses of a power converter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights