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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims still contain errors that require attention.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a partial power configuration" in line 3. This should be at least rewritten to recite “the partial power configuration” in order to maintain proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claims 2 and 4; the phrase "a combination thereof" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "a combination"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. What combinations, which combination, how many combinations, what type of combination, a combination of exactly which elements, what elements are included, which elements are not included, all of this is vague and indefinite? This limitation fails to conform to and does not comply with U.S. practice and standards. This is unacceptable claim language in U.S. practice.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said filter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which filter is the applicant referring to? Said active filter, Said passive filter or said filter?
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said filter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which filter is the applicant referring to? Said active filter, Said passive filter or said filter?
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said switching cycle" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Again, which one is the applicant actually referring to?
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the voltage signal at each of said voltage outputs" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6 and 8-10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the reasons are the same as stated in the previous office action dated 6/10/2025.
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
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 GARY L LAXTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2079. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 am-4 pm.
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 571-270-1682. 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.
/GARY L LAXTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 2/23/2026
Prosecution Insights