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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Embodiments A2, B1, and C1 in the reply filed on 4/6/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding Claims 1-20
The claim recites optional language “perform one or both” which is not by itself an issue however creates an antecedent basis issue in that all of said options are later claimed in the remainder of the claim thereby creating an antecedent basis issue. If said optional language remains “one or both of” then an antecedent issue is created for the claim terms. Or, said optional “one or both” is removed thereby eliminating the antecedent basis issue.
The claims will be examined as best understood wherein “one or both of” is read as “both of”.
To clarify, the claim terms at issue creating antecedent basis issues are highlighted and numbered below noting that claimed “optional” terms are then positively reciting making the claim unclear whether said claim term(s) are in fact optional and if so, thereby creating antecedent basis issues for the remainder of the claim(s):
CLAIMS
What is claimed is:
1. A power control circuit comprising a power converter, wherein the power control
circuit is configured to:
perform one or both of:
receive, via a first input connection, (1) a first power signal comprising (1b) a first
voltage; and
receive, via a second input connection (2) a second power signal comprising
the first voltage;
perform one or both of:
receive, via a third input connection, (3) a third power signal comprising (2b) a
second voltage, wherein the first voltage is greater than the second voltage; and
generate, using the power converter based on (1) the first power signal, a (4) fourth power signal comprising (2b) the second voltage;
*Note that the limitations below REQUIRE the presence of the first power signal of the first option of “one or both” thereby not making “one or both” optional:
charge, using (1b) the first power signal, a first capacitor assembly to prevent a
magnitude of a first inrush current associated with (1b) the first power signal from exceeding a
threshold inrush current magnitude; and
*Note that the limitations below REQUIREs the second option provided from the first “one or both” thereby making that “option” unclear:
charge, using one or both of (3) the third power signal and (4) the fourth power signal, a second capacitor assembly to prevent a magnitude of a second inrush current associated
with (2) the second power signal from exceeding the threshold inrush current magnitude.
Regarding independent claims 12 and 20
Claims 12 and 20 suffer from the same 112 issues as detailed with claim 1 above.
Regarding Independent Claims 2-11 and 13-19
The independent claims compound the confusion and uncertainty with the “one or both of” claim language in regard to reciting the otherwise optional first/second/third/forth power signals/voltages making it unclear as to what is optional and what is required/positively recited.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowed if claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 12. 13, 19, and 20 were re-written to overcome the above 112 issues as examined and best understood wherein “one or both of” is amended to read “both of”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CAVALLARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8541. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-18:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights