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 .
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the claims filed 11/25/2025. Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. II. Applicant argues that art of record fails to disclose the features of the independent claims as amended. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 (and similar claims 11 and 20) has been amended to include the limitation “wherein the first USB-C channel is further configured to determine that the first power adaptor is not providing the first portion of the average current, and to direct the first power adaptor to modify a first adaptor current to equal the first portion of the average current and wherein the second USB-C channel is further configured to determine that the second power adaptor is not providing the second portion of the average current, and to direct the second power adaptor to modify a second adaptor current to equal the second portion of the average current.”
However, Ivanov discloses dynamically adjusting power provided from power providers [i.e., USB channels] based on a power demand (Ivanov par. 86-87, dynamic power allocator 204 may utilize a plurality of available power providers to meet power needs, dynamic power allocator 204 may automatically determine the most appropriate power providers to utilize and the manner of allocating the available power to the various power consumers; and Ivanov par. 33, power consumption demand may be expressed as an average power consumption). Furthermore, Ivanov discloses that power consumption demand may change based on the operation (Ivanov par. 69) and that the dynamic power allocator may determine to use a certain power provider (e.g., charge provider 142 or an internal/external battery, or a combination thereof) to distribute across the consumers of computing device (Ivanov par. 52). Therefore, Ivanov discloses wherein the first USB-C channel is further configured to determine that the first power adaptor is not providing the first portion of the average current (Ivanov par. 69, power consumption demand from a power consumer may change based on the operation and may be transmitted at predetermined intervals, or may be transmitted each time the consumption demand of the consumer changes [i.e., due to average power needed changing, the portion of average current provided by the provider is determined to no longer be the desired portion]), and to direct the first power adaptor to modify a first adaptor current to equal the first portion of the average current (Ivanov par. 86, power is dynamically allocated [i.e., directed] from the power provider to the multiple power consumers based at least in part on the power delivery capabilities, the power consumption demands, and power allocation factors; also see par. 87, may aggregate the power delivery capabilities across a plurality of available power providers [i.e., a first provider and a second provider]) and wherein the second USB-C channel is further configured to determine that the second power adaptor is not providing the second portion of the average current (Ivanov par. 69, power consumption demand from a power consumer may change based on the operation and may be transmitted at predetermined intervals, or may be transmitted each time the consumption demand of the consumer changes [i.e., due to average power needed changing, the portion of average current provided by the provider is determined to no longer be the desired portion]), and to direct the second power adaptor to modify a second adaptor current to equal the second portion of the average current (Ivanov par. 86, power is dynamically allocated [i.e., directed] from the power provider to the multiple power consumers based at least in part on the power delivery capabilities, the power consumption demands, and power allocation factors; also see par. 87, may aggregate the power delivery capabilities across a plurality of available power providers [i.e., a first provider and a second provider]).
III. No additional arguments were made as to the dependent claims, and as such, the rejection is maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 9-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov et. al. (US 2019/0250689 A1) [previously cited] in view of Wang (US 2015/0076910 A1) [previously cited].
Regarding Claim 1, Ivanov teaches an information handling system (Ivanov FIG. 1, system 100), comprising:
a first USB-C channel configured to receive power from a first power adaptor (Ivanov FIG. 1, ports 114; and par. 32, ports may be USB Type C ports and may provide an interface between charge provider/consumer [i.e., adapter]);
a second USB-C channel configured to receive power from a second power adaptor (Ivanov FIG. 1, charging interface 122; and par. 38, charge provider 142 may provide power to charging interface 122 [i.e., charging interface received power]… charging interface 122 may be a USB Type C port); and
a […] controller (Ivanov FIG. 1, power balancer 120) configured to determine an average current delivered to the information handling system from the first power adaptor and the second power adaptor (Ivanov par. 33, power demand may be expressed as an average power consumption; and par. 68, power consumption demand may be in described using current; and par. 40, power balancer uses power consumption demand in order to deliver the appropriate amount of power [power balancer allocates power delivered based on power demand]; also see par. 53, dynamic power allocator 204 may further obtain power delivery capabilities for the power providers), to allocate a first portion of the average current to the first power adaptor and a second portion of the average current to the second power adaptor, and to direct the first power adaptor to provide the first portion of the average current and the second power adaptor to provide the second portion of the average current (Ivanov par. 86-87, dynamic power allocator 204 may utilize a plurality of available power providers to meet power needs [i.e., allocate a first portion of need to one provider and a second portion to another]); and Ivanov par. 33, power consumption demand may be expressed as an average power consumption; and Ivanov par. 52, dynamic power allocator determines which providers to use for allocating power and the power levels at which each provider may transmit power [i.e., dynamic power allocator directs power adapters to provide power]),
wherein the first USB-C channel is further configured to determine that the first power adaptor is not providing the first portion of the average current (Ivanov par. 69, power consumption demand from a power consumer may change based on the operation and may be transmitted at predetermined intervals, or may be transmitted each time the consumption demand of the consumer changes [i.e., due to average power needed changing, the portion of average current provided by the provider is no longer the desired portion]), and to direct the first power adaptor to modify a first adaptor current to equal the first portion of the average current (Ivanov par. 86, power is dynamically allocated [i.e., directed] from the power provider to the multiple power consumers based at least in part on the power delivery capabilities, the power consumption demands, and power allocation factors; also see par. 87, may aggregate the power delivery capabilities across a plurality of available power providers [i.e., a first provider and a second provider]) and wherein the first USB-C channel is further configured to determine that the first power adaptor is not providing the first portion of the average current (Ivanov par. 69, power consumption demand from a power consumer may change based on the operation and may be transmitted at predetermined intervals, or may be transmitted each time the consumption demand of the consumer changes [i.e., due to average power needed changing, the portion of average current provided by the provider is determined to no longer be the desired portion]), and to direct the first power adaptor to modify a first adaptor current to equal the first portion of the average current (Ivanov par. 86, power is dynamically allocated [i.e., directed] from the power provider to the multiple power consumers based at least in part on the power delivery capabilities, the power consumption demands, and power allocation factors; also see par. 87, may aggregate the power delivery capabilities across a plurality of available power providers [i.e., a first provider and a second provider]) and wherein the second USB-C channel is further configured to determine that the second power adaptor is not providing the second portion of the average current (Ivanov par. 69, power consumption demand from a power consumer may change based on the operation and may be transmitted at predetermined intervals, or may be transmitted each time the consumption demand of the consumer changes [i.e., due to average power needed changing, the portion of average current provided by the provider is determined to no longer be the desired portion]), and to direct the second power adaptor to modify a second adaptor current to equal the second portion of the average current (Ivanov par. 86, power is dynamically allocated [i.e., directed] from the power provider to the multiple power consumers based at least in part on the power delivery capabilities, the power consumption demands, and power allocation factors; also see par. 87, may aggregate the power delivery capabilities across a plurality of available power providers [i.e., a first provider and a second provider]).
Ivanov does not explicitly disclose:
a baseboard management controller (BMC) configured to determine an average current delivered to the information handling system from the first power adaptor and the second power adaptor;
Regarding the baseboard management controller, Ivanov does not explicitly use the term “baseboard management controller” to describe the implementation of the power balancer. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the description of the implementation of the power balancer in Ivanov par. 128 [power balancer may be implemented in a system on a chip, microcontroller, microprocessor, digital signal processor (DSP), etc.] could be implemented as a baseboard management controller, especially as Ivanov discloses the computing system may need to be managed remotely (par. 50).
Ivanov discloses using multiple power providers, therefore would read on the claims of providing a portion of the average current to a first USB-C channel and a second USB-C channel. In the alternative, in the analogous art of distributing power from multiple inputs, Wang teaches:
a first […] channel configured to receive power from a first power adaptor (Wang FIG. 1, AC 1);
a second […] channel configured to receive power from a second power adaptor (Wang FIG. 1, AC 2); and
to allocate a first portion of the average current to the first power adaptor and a second portion of the average current to the second power adaptor, and to direct the first power adaptor to provide the first portion of the average current and the second power adaptor to provide the second portion of the average current (Wang par. 77, power supply system adjusts the output current of the two parallel-connected power supply device; and Wang par. 88, two power supply device 1 are connected in parallel and are both operated under the droop current sharing mode; and Wang par. 52, an average current-sharing method can be performed);
Therefore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ivanov and Wang before them, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ivanov’s system for allocating power suppliers for a device with Wang’s use of control modes for two power suppliers, the motivation being to ensure proper coordination and operation among the power supply devices (Wang par. 6).
Regarding Claim 2, Ivanov in view of Wang teaches the information handling system of claim 1, wherein, in allocating the first portion of the average current to the first power adaptor and the second portion of the average current to the second power adaptor, the BMC is further configured to set a voltage level of the first power adaptor (Ivanov par. 33, power needs may be addressed in voltage; and par. 52, dynamic power allocator sets the power levels at which each provider may transmit power [which includes the first adapter]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ivanov in view of Wang teaches the information handling system of claim 2, wherein, after setting the voltage level of the first power adaptor, the BMC is further configured to determine an adaptor current provided by the first power adaptor (Ivanov par. 53, dynamic power allocator [part of the controller] may obtain power delivery capabilities and power consumption demands of the providers and consumers, respectively; Ivanov par. 54, dynamic power allocator 204 may determine that a power provider is providing power below a threshold value [therefore it can determine the power delivered]), to compare the adaptor current to the first portion of the average current, and to determine whether the adaptor current is greater than or less than the first portion of the average current (Wang par. 42, feedback control circuit is used for weight-adjusting internal feedback voltage and external feedback voltage at the output voltage converter [i.e., comparing the adapter current to a target current]).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Ivanov and Wang as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, Ivanov in view of Wang teaches the information handling system of claim 3, wherein when the first current is greater than the first portion of the average current, the BMC is further configured to decrease the voltage level of the first power adaptor (Wang par. 89, upward adjustment and downward adjustment of the output voltage can be attained by sending the first and second control voltage; and par. 64, droop current-sharing circuit 40 serves to fit the need of decreasing the output voltage.); and
when the first current is less than the first portion of the average current, the BMC is further configured to increase the voltage level of the first power adaptor (Wang par. 89, upward adjustment and downward adjustment of the output voltage can be attained by sending the first and second control voltage; and par. 61-62, PWM signal outputted from the MCU will increase the output voltage).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Ivanov and Wang as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, Ivanov in view of Wang teaches the information handling system of claim 1 wherein, in allocating the first portion of the average current to the first power adaptor and the second portion of the average current to the second power adaptor, the BMC is further configured to set a first current output from the first power adaptor to the first portion of the average current, and to set a second current output from the second power adaptor to the second portion of the average current (Ivanov par. 86-87, dynamic power allocator 204 may utilize a plurality of available power providers to meet power needs [i.e., allocate a first portion of need to one provider and a second portion to another]; and Ivanov par. 86, power is dynamically allocated [i.e., set] from the power provider to the multiple power consumers based at least in part on the power delivery capabilities, the power consumption demands, and power allocation factors).
Regarding Claim 6, Ivanov in view of Wang teaches the information handling system of claim 1 wherein, in allocating the first portion of the average current to the first power adaptor and the second portion of the average current to the second power adaptor, the BMC is further configured to determine a first current capacity of the first power adaptor and a second current capacity of the second power adaptor (Ivanov par. 51 and 63, power budgeter determines the overall power providing capabilities of the power providers; and par. 22, power limitations may include current).
Regarding Claim 9, Ivanov in view of Wang teaches the information handling system of claim 6, wherein, in allocating the first portion of the average current to the first power adaptor and the second portion of the average current to the second power adaptor, the BMC is further configured to set the first portion of the average current equal to the first current capacity, and to set the second portion of the average current equal to a remainder of the average current (Ivanov par. 53, dynamic power allocator 204 may allocate power from a first provider to the highest consumer, next highest consumer, and so on, until the highest priority provider has no further power available for allocation based on its power providing capability).
Regarding Claim 10, Ivanov in view of Wang teaches the information handling system of claim 1, wherein, in allocating the first portion of the average current to the first power adaptor and the second portion of the average current to the second power adaptor, the BMC is further configured to allocate the average current equally between the first power adaptor and the second power adaptor (Wang par. 77 and 88, the power supply system adjusts the output current of the two parallel-connected power supply devices (such as 50% for each power supply device, also called current-sharing)).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Ivanov and Wang as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, Ivanov discloses a method (Ivanov par. 148, method of balancing power delivery).
The remaining limitations of claim 11 are similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim is similar in scope to claim 2 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is similar in scope to claim 3 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is similar in scope to claim 4 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim is similar in scope to claim 5 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is similar in scope to claim 6 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim is similar in scope to claim 9 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 20, Ivanov discloses an information handling system.
Ivanov does not explicitly teach:
a first power delivery integrated circuit; and
a second power delivery integrated circuit;
[Note: Ivanov discusses that a power balancer that may be in the base unit, portable unit, or both and is connected to the ports used for power delivery (Ivanov par. 32), but not the specific packages used in this unit.]
In the analogous art of distributing power from multiple inputs, Wang teaches:
a first power delivery integrated circuit (Wang par. 46, current-sharing control circuit 20 [which is connected to each power delivery input, see FIG. 2] may be a UCC39002 current-sharing control integrated circuit (IC) or other equivalent ICs); and
a second power delivery integrated circuit (Wang par. 46, current-sharing control circuit 20 [which is connected to each power delivery input, see FIG. 2] may be a UCC39002 current-sharing control integrated circuit (IC) or other equivalent ICs);
Therefore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ivanov and Wang before them, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ivanov’s system for allocating power to a device with Wang’s use of an IC for current control, the motivation being ease of use for ICs that are known and widely available (Wang par. 46, e.g., a UCC39002 is a specific example of an IC that may be implemented).
The remaining limitations of claim 20 are similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7-8, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Wang, further in view of Hazani et. al. (US 2017/0238248 A1) [previously cited].
Regarding Claim 7, Ivanov in view of Wang teaches the information handling system of claim 6.
Ivanov in view of Wang does not explicitly teach:
in allocating the first portion of the average current to the first power adaptor and the second portion of the average current to the second power adaptor, the BMC is further configured to set the first current in proportion to the average current as the first current capacity is to a sum of the first current capacity and the second current capacity;
[Note: Ivanov discloses using a power balancer to determine the power need for the system using power allocation factors, which may include the power needs of the system, expressed as an average (Ivanov par. 33), and allocating power based on the capabilities of the power deliverers (Ivanov par. 63).]
In the analogous art of combining power from multiple power inputs, Hazani teaches:
in allocating the first portion of the average current to the first power adaptor and the second portion of the average current to the second power adaptor (Hazani par. 38, combined output power 222 can be provided as a proportion of electrically isolated output power 228(1)-228(3) in accordance with the relative maximum power supplying capabilities of the three (3) power supplies [i.e., a portion of the output is allocated to a first and second power supply]), the [controller] is further configured to set the first current in proportion to the average current as the first current capacity is to a sum of the first current capacity and the second current capacity (Hazani par. 90, proportionally control the contribution of power from each of the input power ports to the combined output power based on the measured available power from the respective power supplies);
Therefore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ivanov, Wang, and Hazani before them, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ivanov and Wang’s system for allocating power to a device with Hazani’s power allocation proportional to each power supply, the motivation being to improve tolerance of inaccuracies in the output power from the power supplies (Hazani par. 30).
Regarding Claim 8, Ivanov in view of Wang, further in view of Hazani teaches the information handling system of claim 7, wherein, in allocating the first portion of the average current to the first power adaptor and the second portion of the average current to the second power adaptor, the BMC is further configured to set the second current in proportion to the average current as the second current capacity is to the sum (Hazani par. 38-39 and 90, proportionally control the contribution of power from each of the input power ports to the combined output power based on the measured available power from the respective power supplies).
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is similar in scope to claim 7 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim is similar in scope to claim 8 as addressed above and is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLE JIAWEI WENTZEL whose telephone number is (703) 756-4762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-5:30pm ET (Mon-Fri).
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, Andrew Jung can be reached on (571) 270-3779. 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.
/C.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2175
/ANDREW J JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2175