DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 22 December 2025.
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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority to 4 January 2023.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to for the following informalities: “the system of claim 9” is repeated twice. This is improper. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims read as “The system of claim 9, wherein the system
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 1-8, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As to claim 1, applicant claims “the first inductor is galvanically isolated from the second inductor”. Judging by the rest of the claim language, applicant appears to be referring to Figure 16. This is problematic though, in that both transformers appear to be tied to the same point. T1 and T2 both couple to Vrect on one side, and they also appear to be connected to ground and diode Dser, which would mean that they all have a path for electrical current to get from one point to a next, and isolation typically means differing grounds. While applicant can be his own lexicographer, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). For the purposes of examination, isolated will be interpreted to mean physically separated, which appears to be consistent with applicant’s figures.
As to claim 3, there is a similar problem above, with the inductors sharing varying connecting points, two of which are tied to the same input. It is also noted that the limitation “the at least the first inductor is galvanically isolated from the at least the second inductor” appears to be required in claim 1 as well, so it is unclear which further limitation the applicant wants. For the purpose of examination, the repeated limitations shall be ignored.
As to claim 17, applicant claims “each of the plurality of capacitors comprises two capacitors and the plurality of switches provide a series and a parallel state of connection of the plurality of capacitors”. This is extremely confusing. It is unclear if each capacitor should be connected in series or in parallel or if applicant meant to claim a combination where two capacitors are directly tied either in series or parallel. The line about series and parallel connections was claimed in claim 16, so that also adds confusion as to how that limitation further limits the claim. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed applicant claimed “The system of claim 16, the property is uniform for the plurality of capacitors; and each of the plurality of capacitors comprises at least two capacitors”.
As to claim 19, applicant uses the word recursive, but does not readily show recursive, repetitive or redundant architecture, so it is unclear what the word is trying to mean. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed applicant meant redundant.
Claims 2-8, 18, 20-21 depend directly or indirectly from a rejected claim and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) , or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph for the reasons set above.
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 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.
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. (The claims have been condensed.)
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lewis (US 20030173996).
As to claim 16, Lewis teaches A system comprising (Fig. 3): a plurality of capacitors (capacitors C), each of the plurality of capacitors having a property, wherein the property corresponds to a capacitance (¶15 “Preferably, all of the capacitors have the same capacitance.”), a voltage, or a stored energy; a plurality of switches (S1’…SN’; S1…SN; S1”…SN”), each of the plurality of switches are communicatively coupled to the plurality of capacitors so as to place the plurality of capacitors in a plurality of combinations of series and parallel connections (abstract “The charge transformer includes a plurality of capacitors that are alternatively connected in parallel and series such that a power signal from the first device charges the capacitors when they are connected in parallel, and the capacitors are discharged to the charge sensitive device when they are connected in series.”); and control logic (¶17 “The switches, S, S' and S" can be controlled by a variety of known devices (not shown in FIG. 3). In one embodiment, the switches, S, S' and S" are controlled by a dual pulse generator of the type known to those of skill in the art.”) that operates the plurality of switches for controlling a connection of the plurality of capacitors.
As to claim 17, Lewis teaches the property is uniform for the plurality of capacitors (¶15); and each of the plurality of capacitors comprises two capacitors (N capacitors are shown)and the plurality of switches provide a series and a parallel state of connection of the plurality of capacitors to a source.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-10, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Nakahara (US 20210167690) in view of Taylor (US 20090273969)
As to claim 1, Nakahara teaches power conversion apparatus comprising (see image below): at least a first inductor and a second inductor; a rectifier ;a load (102); and at least a first bulk capacitor and a second bulk capacitor (there are multiple branches shown in Figure 1, which is being used here); wherein: the first inductor is galvanically isolated from the second inductor, each of the first inductor and the second inductor is an output-inductor of the power conversion apparatus, the rectifier is configured to charge at least the first bulk capacitor and the second bulk capacitor, each of the at least the first bulk capacitor and the second bulk capacitor is coupled to the load, and interconnections of the at least the first bulk capacitor and the second bulk capacitor is switched
Though the switches could theoretically connect the capacitors in series and in parallel, the limitation “between at least one of from an electrical series connection to an electrical parallel connection and from the electrical parallel connection to the electrical series connection” is not explicitly taught by Nakahara.
Taylor teaches the first bulk capacitor and the second bulk capacitor is switched between at least one of from an electrical series connection to an electrical parallel connection and from the electrical parallel connection to the electrical series connection (¶79 “However, embodiments of the present disclosure are not so limited, and the capacitive load associated with the sense amps can be a part of fixed and/or adjustable capacitive dividers having other series and/or parallel configurations, e.g., capacitive dividers analogous to those previously described in connection with FIGS. 3, 4, and 5.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
593
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have series and parallel capacitances as described by Taylor to modify the output capacitance.
As to claim 2, Nakahara in view of Taylor teaches wherein the power conversion apparatus further includes a third inductor, wherein: the third inductor is an input inductor that is galvanically isolated from the at least the first inductor and the second inductor; and the third inductor is coupled to the at least the first inductor and the second inductor via isolated functional coupling (this would be taught by the C phase in figure 1).
As to claim 3, Nakahara in view of Taylor teaches further comprising a third inductor and a fourth inductor, wherein:each of the third inductor (204A) and the fourth inductor (204B) is an input inductor; each of the at least the first inductor and the second inductor is galvanically isolated from each of the third inductor and the fourth inductor; and the at least the first inductor is galvanically isolated from the at least the second inductor.
As to claim 4, Nakahara in view of Taylor teaches wherein:each of the first inductor and the second inductor is coupled to at least one of the third inductor and the fourth inductor via a magnetic field based connection (they are connected via transformers).
As to claim 5, Nakahara in view of Taylor teaches wherein:each of the at least the first inductor and the second inductor is coupled to at least one of the third inductor and the fourth inductor via a capacitive connection (this appears to be taught by the resonant capacitors).
As to claim 6, Nakahara in view of Taylor teaches further comprises an input source (they have to have one in order to work).
As to claim 7, Though heavily suggested by the multiple phases, Nakahara in view of Taylor do not specifically teach further comprising a plurality of switched input inductors, wherein:each of the plurality of switched input inductors is coupled to a corresponding output inductor via isolated functional coupling; andeach of the at least the first inductor and the second inductor is coupled to a corresponding bulk capacitor through a rectifying element. However, interleaving phases is old and well known and therefore not patentable. (See MPEP 2144.03 and US 20150180350 ¶120; US 20120262955 ¶56; US 20090231887 Figs. 3-5). The advantages of interleaving would be to reduce stress on the individual elements.
As to claim 8, Nakahara in view of Taylor teaches further comprising a plurality of switched input inductors, wherein: each of the plurality of switched input inductors is coupled to a corresponding output inductor via isolated functional coupling; and each of the at least the first inductor and the second inductor is coupled to a corresponding bulk capacitor through a rectifying element (see image above).
As to claims 9, Nakahara teaches a system comprising: at least two output inductors; a rectifier; a plurality of switches, at least two bulk capacitors; and a load; and wherein each of the at least two output inductors is coupled to one of the at least two bulk capacitors via the rectifier,
Though the switches could theoretically connect the capacitors in series and in parallel, “between at least one of from an electrical series connection to an electrical parallel connection and from the electrical parallel connection to the electrical series connection.” is not explicitly shown by Nakahara.
Taylor teaches the first bulk capacitor and the second bulk capacitor is switched between at least one of from an electrical series connection to an electrical parallel connection and from the electrical parallel connection to the electrical series connection (¶79; FIGS. 3-5.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have series and parallel capacitances as described by Taylor to modify the output capacitance.
As to claim 10, Nakahara in view of Taylor teaches wherein the system is a DC to DC converter (this is taught by the combination, since a DC output is achieved by series and parallel connection of capacitors).
As to claims 22, Nakahara teaches A system comprising: a plurality of capacitors;a rectifier;a controller; anda plurality of switches;wherein:t he plurality of switches are operably connected with the plurality of capacitors, and the controller operable to control each of the plurality of switches to alter a connection-status of the plurality of capacitors (see claim 1 and image above)
Taylor teaches from a series connected configuration to a parallel connected configuration and from the parallel connected configuration to the series connected configuration (see claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have series and parallel capacitances as described by Taylor to modify the output capacitance.
As to claim 23, Nakahara in view of Taylor teaches further comprising a plurality of galvanically isolated output inductors, each of the plurality of galvanically isolated output inductors are coupled to a corresponding one of the plurality of capacitors by the rectifier (see image above).
As to claim 24, Nakahara in view of Taylor teaches further comprising at least one input inductor, wherein: the plurality of galvanically isolated output inductors are coupled to the at least one input inductor via an isolated functional coupling connection (see image above) .
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US 20030173996).
As to claim 18, Lewis teaches wherein the plurality of capacitors includes four capacitors and the plurality of switches include nine switches, wherein the capacitors and switches are configurable in a 4-series, a 4-parallel (he teaches N capacitors connected in series and parallel).
He does not explicitly teach a 2x2 configuration. However, this is obvious, and could easily be achieved by paralleling two phases. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Nakahara (US 20210167690) in view of Salem (US 20180019667) and Taylor (US 20090273969)
As to claim 19, Nakahara teaches A system comprising:a plurality of capacitors and three switches; and the plurality of capacitors
Salem teaches are electrically coupled in a multiple recursive stage based sub- circuit (Salem, item 302, shows multiple redundant charge pumps).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use recursive architecture to increase redundancy.
Taylor teaches and the three switches are operable to alter a connection of the subset of the plurality of capacitors from a series connection to a parallel-connection and from the parallel-connection to the series connection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify output capacitance.
As to claim 20, Nakahara in view of Salem and Taylor teaches further comprising a plurality of galvanically isolated output inductors, wherein each of the plurality of galvanically isolated output inductors are coupled to a corresponding one of the plurality of capacitors using a rectifying component (see image above).
As to claim 21, Nakahara in view of Salem and Taylor teaches further comprising at least one input inductor, wherein the plurality of galvanically isolated output inductors are coupled to the at least one input inductor via an isolated functional coupling connection (see image above).
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular column, paragraph, and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1375. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM,Monday through Thursday, EST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/PETER M NOVAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2839