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 Amendment
Claims 15-32 are still pending.
Claims 15, 21 and 27 were amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15-17, 21-23 and 27-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is necessitated due to applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 15-17 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fahlenkamp US Patent 9768697 (Fahlenkamp) .
PNG
media_image1.png
524
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Transitioned to
Normal load conditions)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Suppressing
Sleep Period)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
573
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Fahlenkamp discloses a method of operating a pulse width modulation- controlled (PWM-controlled) system, comprising:
controlling a switch transistor (i.e., 118) (Fig. 1) using a PWM control signal generated by a PWM control circuit (i.e., 101) (Fig. 1) operating in a burst mode (see fig. 3, more particularly until reaching t6) corresponding to an underloaded condition (Fahlenkamp discloses an underloaded condition wherein the burst mode operation provides at least a toffBurst and tonBurst period, the period is based on Vfb values, wherein during burst mode operation the tonBurst period is provided while Vfb is changing from V2 towards V1) (for example see Fig. 3 and column 4 lines 39-43) of the PWM-controlled system, so that burst periods (for example see toffBurst and tonBurst period) (Fig. 3) of the PWM control signal alternate with sleep periods (for example see toffBurst) (Fig. 3) of the PWM control signal;
determining that the PWM-controlled system has transitioned to a normal load condition in response to a feedback signal (i.e., Vfb) (Fig. 3) satisfying a nominal load threshold (Fahlenkamp, for example, discloses determining that the PWM-controlled system has transitioned after Vfb satisfies V2 and increase to reach V3, see time t5-t6 when Vfb satisfies V2 or higher voltage value until reaching V3) (Fig. 3);
and suppressing the sleep periods (i.e., toffBurst is suppress, for example see reference in Fig. 3, wherein toffBurst period is no longer provided ones the PWM-controlled system has transitioned based on Vfb value satisfying voltage values as V2 increasing to reach V3) (Fig. 3) of the PWM control signal (see Fig. 3, more particularly Vcs graphic) while the PWM control circuit (i.e., 101) (Fig. 1) continues to operate in the burst mode (i.e., tonBurst between t5 and t6) (Fig. 3), in response to the determining that the PWM-controlled system has transitioned to the normal load condition (for example see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Fahlenkamp, as applied above, discloses transitioning from burst mode (i.e., tonBurst) (Fig. 3) to normal mode after the suppressing begins (see Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 17, Fahlenkamp, as applied above, discloses the feedback signal (i.e., fb) (Fig. 3) is responsive to an output current of the PWM-controlled system.
Regarding claim 21, Fahlenkamp, discloses a device (i.e., 100) (Fig. 1) comprising: a pulse width modulation (PWM) control circuit (i.e., 101) (Fig. 1) configurable to generate a PWM signal to control a transistor (i.e., 118) (Fig. 1) in a burst mode corresponding to an underloaded condition (For example Vfb between V1 and V2 until reaching t4) (Fig. 3), so that burst periods (i.e., tonBurst) (Fig. 3) of the PWM signal alternate with sleep periods (i.e., toffBurst) (Fig. 3) of the PWM signal; and a burst mode logic circuit (for example see 126) (Fig. 1) coupled to the PWM control circuit (i.e., 101) (Fig. 1) and configurable to:
determine that the device (i.e., 100) (Fig. 1) has transitioned to a normal load condition (Fahlenkamp, for example, discloses determining that the PWM-controlled system has transitioned after Vfb satisfies V2 and increase to reach V3, see time t5-t6 when Vfb satisfies V2 or higher voltage value until reaching V3) (Fig. 3) in response to a feedback signal (i.e., Vfb) (Fig. 3) satisfying a nominal load threshold (i.e., V3) (Fig. 3);
and suppress the sleep periods (i.e., toffBurst and Suppressing Sleep Period above) (Fig. 3) of the PWM signal while the PWM control circuit continues to operate in the burst mode (i.e., toffBurst is suppress, for example see reference in Fig. 3, wherein toffBurst period is no longer provided ones the PWM-controlled system has transitioned based on Vfb value satisfying voltage values as V2 increasing to reach V3) (Fig. 3), in response to the determining that the device has transitioned to the normal load condition.
Regarding claim 22, Fahlenkamp, as applied above, discloses the burst mode logic circuit (i.e., 136) (Fig. 1) configurable to transition from burst mode to normal mode after the suppressing begins (for example see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 23, Fahlenkamp, as applied above, discloses the feedback signal (i.e., Vfb) is responsive to an output current of a power converter circuit including the transistor (i.e., 118) (Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahlenkamp US Patent 9768697 (Fahlenkamp) in view of Futamura US Publication 20130207625 (Futamura).
Regarding claim 27, Fahlenkamp, discloses a system comprising: a sensor configurable to generate a sensed signal; a power converter circuit including a transistor (i.e., 118) (Fig. 1); and a controller device (i.e., 101) (Fig. 1) configurable to:
control the transistor (i.e., 118) (Fig. 1) in a burst mode corresponding to an underloaded condition, so that burst periods (i.e., tonBurst) (Fig. 3) alternate with sleep periods (i.e., toffBurst) (Fig. 3);
and determine that the controller device (i.e., 101) (Fig. 1) has transitioned to a normal load condition in response to the sensed signal satisfying a nominal load threshold (i.e., V3) (Fig. 3);
and suppress the sleep periods (i.e., toffBurst) (Fig. 3) while the controller device (i.e., 101) (Fig. 1) continues to operate in the burst mode (i.e., toffBurst is suppress, for example see reference in Fig. 3, wherein toffBurst period is no longer provided ones the PWM-controlled system has transitioned based on Vfb value satisfying voltage values as V2 increasing to reach V3) (Fig. 3), in response to the determining that the controller device has transitioned to the normal load condition.
Fahlenkamp fails to disclose an optocoupler for sensing the state of the circuit through feedback but fails to disclose a current sensor.
Futamura, in the same field of endeavor discloses the use of current sensor (i.e., 12) (Fig.1) to sensing the state of a circuit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally provided a current sensor in Fahlenkamp, as taught by Futamura, to sense the state of the circuit.
Regarding claim 28, Fahlenkamp in view of Futamura, as applied in linking claims, discloses the claimed invention. More particularly Fahlenkamp discloses the controller device (i.e., 101) (Fig. 1) is configurable to transition from burst mode to normal mode after the suppressing begins.
Regarding claim 29, Fahlenkamp in view of Futamura, as applied in linking claims, discloses the claimed invention. More particularly Futamura discloses the current sensor (i.e., 12) (Fig.1) is configurable to generate the sensed signal responsive to an output current of the power converter circuit.
Regarding claim 30, Fahlenkamp in view of Futamura, as applied in linking claims, discloses a system of wherein the controller device (i.e., 101) (Fig.1) is configurable to transition to operating in a normal mode (i.e., 124) (Fig.1) corresponding to the normal load condition in response to an interrupt service routine determining that a feedback signal (i.e., Vfb)(Fig. 3) indicates the normal load condition (for example see Fig. 6), and wherein the controller device (i.e., 101) (Fig.1) is configurable to determine that the feedback signal indicates the normal load condition is completed after transitioning to the normal load condition.
Regarding claim 31, Fahlenkamp in view of Futamura, as applied in linking claims, discloses the claimed invention. More particularly Fahlenkamp discloses wherein the feedback signal (i.e., Vfb) (Fig. 3) indicates an output voltage of the power converter circuit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20, 24-26 and 32 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18, Fahlenkamp, as applied above, discloses the feedback signal (.i.e., Vfb) (Fig. 3) is a first feedback signal;
the transitioning the PWM control circuit (i.e., 101) (Fig. 1) to operating in a normal mode corresponding to the normal load condition of the PWM-controlled system (for example see column 5, lines 20-23);
wherein the transitioning the PWM control circuit is performed in response to an interrupt service routine determining that the feedback signal indicates (for example see Fig. 6) the normal load condition;
and wherein the determining that the second feedback signal indicates the normal load condition is completed after the determining that the PWM-controlled system has transitioned to the normal load condition is completed.
Fahlenkamp, as applied above, fail to discloses wherein the transitioning the PWM control circuit is performed in response to an interrupt service routine determining that a second feedback signal indicates the normal load condition and wherein the determining that the second feedback signal indicates the normal load condition is completed after the determining that the PWM-controlled system has transitioned to the normal load condition is completed in combination will all recited element of linking claims.
Claim 19 depends of claim 18.
Claim 24 in combination with linking claims and all recited elements, is allowable for the same reasons as claim 18.
Claim 25 depend of claim 24.
Regarding claim 20, Fahlenkamp, as applied above, alone or in combination, fails to disclose the controlling performed in response to a burst mode flag, an output of a comparator that performs the determining, and a burst mask.
Claim 26, in combination with linking claims and all recited elements, is allowable for the same reasons as claim 20.
Claim 32 in combination with linking claims and all recited elements, is allowable for the same reasons as claim 20.
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 YAHVEH COMAS TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-4011. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursday 830am.
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, Thienvu V Tran can be reached on (571) 270-1276. 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.
/YAHVEH COMAS TORRES/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights