DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to the RCE filed on 1/29/26.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/29/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 18 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
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 and 8 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) a controller (i.e. IC 301), comprising:
a transient detection circuit (i.e. 100) capable of monitoring among pulse signals (i.e. PMW1, PMW2, PMWN) associated with voltage conversion phases (i.e. phases of figure 5) supplying current (i.e. IO) to a load circuit (i.e. 330); and
the transient detection circuit (i.e. 100) capable of identifying a transient event (i.e. transient even identify by 100) condition corresponding to a change in current demand (i.e. load required current) of the load circuit (i.e. 330) and responsively output an indication (i.e. from 100) of the transient event condition (i.e. transient even identify by 100) (i.e. ¶ 20-23),
but does not specifically disclose monitoring a separation between consecutive ones among pulse signals.
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).
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 8: 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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 at least an entry threshold and an exit threshold for the transient event condition.
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 at least an entry threshold and an exit threshold for the transient event condition, because it provides more effectively delivering power to a load.
9. Claim 18 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); based on a property of the separation (i.e. figure 6A: separation of ATR), 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), wherein the transient event condition is an overshoot condition (i.e. overshoot) or an undershoot condition (i.e. undershoot) (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.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 2-6, 9-14, 16-17, and 19-20 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.
Conclusion
11. 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