DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the arguments and amendments filed on 1/2/2026.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the capacitor coupled between the output and the first input of the amplifier of claim 8 and the multiphase converter having control inputs coupled to a power output of claim 12, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 12, the limitations “a control circuit having control outputs coupled to the control inputs of the multiphase converter, an input coupled to the power output, and configurable to, responsive to a voltage at the power output dropping below a threshold, provide control signals to the multiphase converter, in which the multiphase converter is configurable to cause the voltage at the power output to reduce with time responsive to the control signals, is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, and is therefore considered new matter. Dependent claims 13-23 inherits the deficiencies of independent claim 12 and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a).
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.
Claim 8 is 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 claim 8, it’s not clear as to how the capacitor is coupled to the first input of the amplifier, because the first input of the amplifier is coupled to a second reference terminal. It appears that the capacitor is coupled to the second input of the amplifier.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanji (US 2025/0309765) in view of Nomiyama et al. (US Patent 9768695). Regarding claim 1, Tanji discloses an apparatus comprising: an amplifier (11) having first and second inputs (inputs of 11) and an output (output of 11), the first input of the amplifier coupled to a second reference terminal (input connection to terminal of reference 21), the second input of the amplifier coupled to the terminal of a variable resistance circuit (input of 11 connectied to VR1/VR2); and a control signal generation circuit (12/10) having an input (input of 12) and an output (output from 10), the input coupled to the output of the amplifier (input of 12 connected to output from 11). Tanji does not disclose a comparator having first and second inputs and an output, wherein the first input of the comparator is coupled to a first reference terminal, and the second input of the comparator is coupled to a power output; a variable resistance circuit having a control input coupled to the output of the comparator and a terminal. Nomiyama et al. discloses (see fig. 9) a comparator (240) having first and second inputs (inputs of 240) and an output (output from 240), wherein the first input of the comparator is coupled to a first reference terminal (input of 240 connected to Vref), and the second input of the comparator is coupled to a power output (input of 240 connected to Vfb); a variable resistance circuit (250) having a control input coupled to the output of the comparator (control input of 250 connected to output from 240) and a terminal (terminal of 250). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Tanji to include the features of Nomiyama et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanji (US 2025/0309765) in view of Nomiyama et al. (US Patent 9768695) and Arakawa (US Patent 11502680). Regarding claim 6, Tanji does not disclose that the variable resistance circuit includes a digital-to-analog converter (DAC). Arakawa discloses (see fig. 7) that a variable resistance circuit includes a digital-to-analog converter (182 is a DAC which is a variable resistance circuit. See column 6 lines 9-11). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Tanji to include the features of Arakawa because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanji (US 2025/0309765) in view of Nomiyama et al. (US Patent 9768695) and You et al. (US Patent 12176813). Regarding claim 24, Tanji does not disclose that a trans-inductor voltage regulator coupled to the control signal generation circuit. You et al. discloses (see fig. 2 and 10) that a trans-inductor voltage regulator coupled to control signal generation circuit (see connection to control signal generation circuit 140). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Tanji to include the features of You et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 25, Tanji does not disclose a processor coupled to the trans- inductor voltage regulator. You et al. discloses (see fig. 2 and 10) a processor (1000) coupled to the trans- inductor voltage regulator (1000 connection to 100-1). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Tanji to include the features of You et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7 and 9-11 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
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 JEFFREY A GBLENDE whose telephone number is (571)270-5472. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/JEFFREY A GBLENDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights