DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 7/27/2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/27/2026 has been entered.
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 at a pre-determined rate 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).
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) and Nakanishi (US Patent 5774347). 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); 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 and a variable resistance circuit coupled between a current sense terminal and the second input of the amplifier, the variable resistance circuit having a control input coupled to the output of the comparator. 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. Nakanishi discloses (see fig. 4) a variable resistance circuit (Rv) coupled between a current sense terminal (terminal between 17 and Rs) and a second input of an amplifier (connection to 21). 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 Nakanishi 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), Nakanishi (US Patent 5774347) 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) 8 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), Nakanishi (US Patent 5774347) and Xia et al. (US 2021/0399638). Regarding claim 8, Nomiyama et al. does not disclose a capacitor coupled between the output and the second input of the amplifier. Xia et al. discloses (see fig. 3) that a capacitor (315a) is coupled between an output and a second input of an amplifier (see connection of 315a to output and second input of amplifier 310). 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 Xia et al. because it provides for a filtering means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus 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), Nakanishi (US Patent 5774347) 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) a trans-inductor voltage regulator coupled to a 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
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