DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to the amendment filed on 6/9/26.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claims 1, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There is no disclosure in the specification as originally filed to indicate possession of “a comparison between the separation and one or more threshold.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couleur et al. (US 20180097443) in view of Tang et al. (US 20060152205).
Regarding claim 1: Couleur et al. disclose (i.e. figures 3-6) an apparatus (i.e. IC 301), comprising:
a multiphase power converter controller (i.e. controller of figure 5) configurable to generate pulse signals (i.e. PMW1, PMW2, PMWN); and
a transient detection circuit (i.e. 100) coupled to the multiphase power converter (i.e. converter of 500) and configurable to:
monitoring among the pulse signals (i.e. PMW1, PMW2, PMWN); and
but does not specifically disclose monitor a separation between consecutive ones among th pulse signals; and provide an indication of a transient event responsive to a comparison between the separation and one or more threshold.
Tang et al. disclose a regulator (i.e. figure 2A) that monitoring (i.e. ATR 100) a separation between consecutive ones (i.e. figures 6A: ATR transient event, during asynchronous pwm activity) among pulse signals (i.e. ¶ 90-91 and 113-117); and
provide an indication of a transient event (i.e. figure 6: ATR transient event) responsive to a comparison between the separation (i.e. separation of each PWM1-4) and one or more threshold (i.e. threshold, see ¶ 90-91) (i.e. also see figure 6A-B and 8) (i.e. 92).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Couleur et al.’s invention with the regulator as disclose by Tang et al., because it is desired to more accurately and quickly respond to transient power requirements of a load device.
Regarding claim 2: Couleur et al. disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose the transient detection circuit is configurable to: responsive to the separation exceeding an overshoot entry threshold, provide an indication of an overshoot entry condition; and responsive to the separation falling below an undershoot entry threshold, provide an indication of an undershoot entry condition.
Tang et al. disclose a regulator (i.e. figures: 6B and 6C) comprising the transient detection circuit is configurable to: responsive to the separation (i.e. circled area of figure 6C) exceeding an overshoot entry threshold (i.e. ATRL threshold of figure 6C), provide an indication of an overshoot entry condition (i.e. see figure 6C, signal Vout, VA, and VB); and
responsive to the separation (i.e. circle area of figure 6B) falling below an undershoot entry threshold (i.e. ATRH threshold figure 6B), provide an indication of an undershoot entry condition (i.e. see figure 6B, signal Vout, VA, and VB) (i.e. ¶ 92).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Couleur et al.’s invention with the regulator as disclose by Tang et al., because it is desired to more accurately and quickly respond to transient power requirements of a load device.
Regarding claim 3: Couleur et al. disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose the transient detection circuit is configurable to: monitor for changes in intervals between the pulse signals; responsive to an increasing trend in the intervals, provide an indication of an overshoot exit condition; and responsive to a decreasing trend in the intervals, provide an indication of an undershoot exit condition.
Tang et al. disclose a regulator (i.e. figures: 6B and 6C) comprising the transient detection circuit is configurable to: monitor for changes in intervals between the pulse signals (i.e. circled area of figures 6B and 6C);
responsive to an increasing trend in the intervals (i.e. figure 6B, circled area), provide an indication of an overshoot exit condition (i.e. condition of figure 6B, see signal Vout, Va, and Vb); and responsive to a decreasing trend in the intervals (i.e. figure 6C, circled area), provide an indication of an undershoot exit condition (i.e. see figure 6C, signal Vout, VA, and VB) (i.e. ¶ 92).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Couleur et al.’s invention with the regulator as disclose by Tang et al., because it is desired to more accurately and quickly respond to transient power requirements of a load device.
Regarding claim 4: Couleur et al. disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclsoes the transient detection circuit is configurable to: monitor for changes in intervals between the pulse signals; responsive to an increasing trend in the intervals, provide an indication of an overshoot exit condition; and responsive to a decreasing trend in the intervals, provide an indication of an undershoot exit condition.
Tang et al. disclose a regulator (i.e. figures: 6B and 6C) comprising the transient detection circuit is configurable to: monitor for changes in intervals between the pulse signals (i.e. circled area of figures 6B and 6C); responsive to an increasing trend in the intervals, provide an indication of an overshoot exit condition (i.e. condition of figure 6B, see signal Vout, Va, and Vb); and responsive to a decreasing trend in the intervals (i.e. figure 6C, circled area), provide an indication of an undershoot exit condition (i.e. see figure 6C, signal Vout, VA, and VB) (i.e. ¶ 92).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Couleur et al.’s invention with the regulator as disclose by Tang et al., because it is desired to more accurately and quickly respond to transient power requirements of a load device.
Regarding claims 8-14: the method steps will be met during the normal operation of the apparatus described above. (Examiner notes: For method claims, note that under MPEP 2112.02, the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated).
Regarding claim 21: comprising a multiphase power converter (i.e. figure 2A) having phase inputs coupled to phase outputs of the multiphase power converter controller (i.e. controller of figure 2A) and a power output coupled to at least one of a central processing unit or a graphical processing unit coupled to the power output (i.e. load ¶ 14).
7. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couleur et al. (US 20180097443) in view of Tang et al. (US 20060152205) and further in view of Martin et al. (US 20080157743).
Regarding claims 7 and 15: Couleur et al. disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose a set of programmable registers defining the one or more thresholds for the transient event.
Martin et al. disclose a power supply comprising a boundary register to store the highest magnitude threshold that is being exceeded within a control threshold group (i.e. ¶ 183).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Couleur et al.’s invention with the power supply as disclose by Martin et al. in order to have a set of programmable registers defining the one or more thresholds condition, because it provides more effectively delivering power to a load.
8. Claims 18-19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 20060152205) in view of Sreenivas et al. (US 20140312858).
Regarding claim 18: Tang et al. disclose (i.e. figures 2A and 6A) monitor a separation between consecutive ones of pulse signals (i.e. figure 6A: PWM1-4) that activate voltage conversion phases supplying current (i.e. output current) to a load circuit (i.e. 80);
responsive to a comparison between the separation (i.e. separation of each PWM1-4) and one or more threshold (i.e. threshold, see ¶ 90-91) (i.e. also see figure 6A-B and 8) (i.e. 92), determine a transient event condition (i.e. ATR condition) corresponding to a change in current demand (i.e. current required) of the load circuit (i.e. 80); and output an indication of the transient event condition (i.e. from ATR 100) (i.e. ¶ 90-91 and 113-117).
but does not specifically disclose an apparatus, comprising: one or more computer readable storage media; program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by a processing system to direct the processing system to at least:
Sreenivas et al. disclose an apparatus, comprising: one or more computer readable storage media; program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable by a processing system to direct the processing system to at least carry out the operation of the converter (i.e. ¶ 126-127).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Tang et al.’s invention with the apparatus as disclose by Sreenivas et al. because the power supply control circuitry to adjust control signals in a power supply during transient conditions in which a relatively fast change in current is needed to power a dynamic load.
Regarding claim 19: responsive to the separation exceeding an overshoot entry threshold, indicate an overshoot entry condition (i.e. condition of figure 6B, see signal Vout, Va, and Vb); responsive to the separation falling below an overshoot exit threshold or responsive to a decreasing trend in intervals (i.e. figure 6C, circled area) between the pulse signals, indicate an overshoot exit condition (i.e. see figure 6C, signal Vout, VA, and VB); responsive to the separation falling below an undershoot entry threshold (i.e. figure 6B, circled area), indicate an undershoot entry condition (i.e. condition of figure 6B, see signal Vout, Va, and Vb); and responsive to the separation increasing above an undershoot exit threshold or responsive to an increasing trend in the intervals (i.e. figure 6B, circled area), indicate an undershoot exit condition (i.e. ¶ 92).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 5-6, 16-17, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's remarks filed 6/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant stated that “Claim 1 has been amended to include at least some of the subject matters of claim 2, which the Office indicates as allowable. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is allowable over the cited references. Claims 8 and 18 are also allowable for at least similar reasons as claim 1. The dependent claims are also allowable at least due to their dependence from one of allowable claims 1, 8, or 18. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the Office withdraw the § 103 rejections and allow the claims.”
The Examiner disagrees, because claim 1 has been amended to include at least some of the subject matter of claim 2 is not allowable. It is required all of the subject matters of claim 2. In addition, the scope of claim 1 has been changed according to the amended limitations (similarly to claims 8 and 18).
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1269. The examiner can normally be reached Flex: M-F 8-7.
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.
/Nguyen Tran/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights