DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed 02/09/2024, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because item numbers 11, 13 (Fig 1) and 443 (Fig 4) are blank boxes and are not shown or labeled as to their use or purpose as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawings. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Figures 1-3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 § 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 1-5, 11, 12, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parisi et al. (“Parisi”, US 2019/02222126) in view of Chen et al. (“Chen”, US 2017/0353125).
Re claim 1, Parisi teaches a DC-DC converter [Fig 3], comprising: a resonant oscillator [112] coupled to a primary winding of a galvanic isolation transformer [111], a rectifier [113] being coupled to a secondary winding [110] of the galvanic isolation transformer to provide an output voltage [Vo]; and a regulation loop [115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122] configured to regulate the output voltage with respect to a reference voltage [Vref] by controlling a current flowing in the resonant oscillator based on a signal [k] indicative of a comparison between the output voltage and the reference voltage [using 115], but does not teach wherein the resonant oscillator is configured to operate at a frequency that is below a resonance frequency of the resonant oscillator and which improves a quality factor of the resonant oscillator.
Chen teaches a device wherein a resonant oscillator is configured to operate at a frequency that is below a resonance frequency of the resonant oscillator [paragraph 30] and which improves a quality factor of the resonant oscillator [since operation is at the frequency below the resonance frequency, it is implied that the quality factor is improved, paragraph 30]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Parisi to include the features of Chen because it is used to prevent excessive and potentially destructive vibrations that can lead to mechanical failure or structural damage, thus improving the quality of the device, which increases efficiency.
Re claim 2, Parisi teaches wherein the resonant oscillator is configured to operate at the frequency that is below a resonance frequency of an LC tank circuit [26a, 26b, Fig 6] of the resonant oscillator which maximizes a quality factor of the LC tank circuit [paragraphs 61-62].
Re claim 3, Parisi teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but does not teach wherein the resonant oscillator is configured to operate at the frequency that is tuned at a sub-harmonic frequency.
Chen teaches wherein the resonant oscillator is configured to operate at the frequency that is tuned at a sub-harmonic frequency [paragraph 31]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Parisi to include the features of Chen because it is used to prevent excessive and potentially destructive vibrations that can lead to mechanical failure or structural damage, thus improving the quality of the device, which increases efficiency.
Re claim 4, Parisi teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but does not teach wherein an operating frequency is a sub-harmonic of the resonance frequency.
Chen teaches wherein an operating frequency is a sub-harmonic of the resonance frequency [6 MHz being a sub-harmonic of 30 MHz, paragraph 31]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Parisi to include the features of Chen because it is used to prevent excessive and potentially destructive vibrations that can lead to mechanical failure or structural damage, thus improving the quality of the device, which increases efficiency.
Re claim 5, Parisi teaches wherein the galvanic isolation transformer includes: a central tap on the primary winding to which an output of the resonant oscillator is coupled; and a central tap on the secondary winding to which an input of the rectifier is coupled, and the rectifier is a synchronized rectifier [as shown in Fig 3, paragraph 69].
Re claim 11, Parisi teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but does not teach wherein the converter operates at a frequency in a range between 10 and 200 megahertz (MHz).
Chen teaches wherein the converter operates at a frequency in a range between 10 and 200 megahertz [resonant frequency of 30MHz, paragraph 31]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Parisi to include the features of Chen because it is used to prevent excessive and potentially destructive vibrations that can lead to mechanical failure or structural damage, thus improving the quality of the device, which increases efficiency.
Re claim 12, Parisi teaches a method [Fig 3], comprising: providing an output voltage [Vo] by a rectifier [113] that is coupled to a secondary winding of a galvanic isolation transformer [111], a resonant oscillator [112] being coupled to a primary winding of the galvanic isolation transformer; regulating, by a regulation loop [115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122], the output voltage with respect to a reference voltage [Vref] by controlling a current flowing in the resonant oscillator based on a signal [k] indicative of a comparison between the output voltage and the reference voltage; but does not teach operating, by the resonant oscillator, at a frequency that is below a resonance frequency of the resonant oscillator and which improves a quality factor of the resonant oscillator.
Chen teaches a device wherein a resonant oscillator is configured to operate at a frequency that is below a resonance frequency of the resonant oscillator [paragraph 30] and which improves a quality factor of the resonant oscillator [since operation is at the frequency below the resonance frequency, it is implied that the quality factor is improved, paragraph 30]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Parisi to include the features of Chen because it is used to prevent excessive and potentially destructive vibrations that can lead to mechanical failure or structural damage, thus improving the quality of the device, which increases efficiency.
Re claim 15, Parisi teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but does not teach operating, by the resonant oscillator, at the frequency that is below a resonance frequency of an LC tank circuit [26a, 26b, Fig 6] of the resonant oscillator which maximizes a quality factor of the LC tank circuit [paragraphs 61-62].
Chen teaches operating, by the resonant oscillator, at the frequency that is below a resonance frequency of an LC tank circuit of the resonant oscillator which maximizes a quality factor of the LC tank circuit.
Re claim 16, Parisi teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but does not teach operating, by the resonant oscillator, at the frequency that is tuned at a sub-harmonic frequency.
Chen teaches operating, by the resonant oscillator, at the frequency that is tuned at a sub-harmonic frequency. Chen teaches wherein an operating frequency is a sub-harmonic of the resonance frequency [6 MHz being a sub-harmonic of 30 MHz, paragraph 31]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Parisi to include the features of Chen because it is used to prevent excessive and potentially destructive vibrations that can lead to mechanical failure or structural damage, thus improving the quality of the device, which increases efficiency.
Re claim 17, Parisi teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but does not teach wherein an operating frequency is a sub-harmonic of the resonance frequency.
Chen teaches operating, by the resonant oscillator, at the frequency that is tuned at a sub-harmonic frequency. Chen teaches wherein an operating frequency is a sub-harmonic of the resonance frequency [6 MHz being a sub-harmonic of 30 MHz, paragraph 31]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Parisi to include the features of Chen because it is used to prevent excessive and potentially destructive vibrations that can lead to mechanical failure or structural damage, thus improving the quality of the device, which increases efficiency.
Re claim 18, Parisi teaches wherein the galvanic isolation transformer includes: a central tap on the primary winding to which an output of the resonant oscillator is coupled; and a central tap on the secondary winding to which an input of the rectifier is coupled, and the rectifier is a synchronized rectifier [as shown in Fig 3, paragraph 69].
Claims 6, 7, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parisi in view of Chen and Rogers (US 2003/0025566).
Re claim 6, Parisi teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but does not teach wherein the regulation loop includes: a current generator stage configured to determine the current flowing in the resonant oscillator current sink, wherein the current generator stage includes a plurality of current generators in parallel that set a respective current path from the resonant oscillator when activated.
Rogers teaches a device [Fig 3] wherein the regulation loop includes: a current generator stage configured to determine the current flowing in the resonant oscillator current sink, wherein the current generator stage includes a plurality of current generators in parallel [Qt1-Qt6] that set a respective current path from the resonant oscillator when activated [paragraph 39]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Parisi to include the features of Rogers because it is used to effectively reduce noise and increase stability, thus improving the utility of the device, which increases efficiency.
Re claim 7, Parisi teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but does not teach wherein the regulation loop includes: a logic stage configured to: receive the signal indicative of the comparison between the output voltage and the reference voltage; and select for activation a corresponding set of current generators of the plurality of current generators.
Rogers teaches wherein the regulation loop includes: a logic stage [32, 34, 36] configured to: receive the signal indicative of the comparison between the output voltage and the reference voltage; and select for activation a corresponding set of current generators of the plurality of current generators [paragraph 39]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Parisi to include the features of Rogers because it is used to effectively reduce noise and increase stability, thus improving the utility of the device, which increases efficiency.
Re claim 19, Parisi teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but does not teach determining, by a current generator stage of the regulation loop, the current flowing in the resonant oscillator current sink, wherein the current generator stage includes a plurality of current generators in parallel that set a respective current path from the resonant oscillator when activated.
Rogers teaches determining, by a current generator stage [Fig 3] of the regulation loop, the current flowing in the resonant oscillator current sink, wherein the current generator stage includes a plurality of current generators in parallel [Qt1-Qt6] that set a respective current path from the resonant oscillator when activated [paragraph 39]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Parisi to include the features of Rogers because it is used to effectively reduce noise and increase stability, thus improving the utility of the device, which increases efficiency.
Re claim 20, Parisi teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but does not teach receiving, by a logic stage of the regulation loop, the signal indicative of the comparison between the output voltage and the reference voltage; and selecting, by the logic stage, for activation a corresponding set of current generators of the plurality of current generators.
Rogers teaches wherein the regulation loop includes: a logic stage [32, 34, 36] configured to: receive the signal indicative of the comparison between the output voltage and the reference voltage; and select for activation a corresponding set of current generators of the plurality of current generators [paragraph 39]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Parisi to include the features of Rogers because it is used to effectively reduce noise and increase stability, thus improving the utility of the device, which increases efficiency.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paridi in view of Chen and Bernardon (US 2023/0396174).
Re claim 10, Parisi teaches the limitations as applied to the claim above but does not teach wherein the transformer is an integrated coreless transformer.
Bernardon teaches a device [Fig 1] having a transformer as an integrated coreless transformer [paragraph 15]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Parisi to include the features of Bernardon because it is known for its faster operation while preventing saturation, thus improving the utility of the device, which increases efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 13, and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or disclose:
Re claim 8 and its dependents thereof, the closet prior art (which has been made of record) fail to disclose (by themselves or in combination): “switch off the plurality of current generators in sequence from a current generator drawing a largest current to a current generator drawing a smallest current in response to the output voltage being greater than the reference voltage; and switch on the plurality of current generators in sequence from the current generator drawing the smallest current to the current generator drawing the largest current in response to the output voltage being less than the reference voltage” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by Applicant.
Re claim 13 and its dependents thereof, the closet prior art (which has been made of record) fail to disclose (by themselves or in combination): “switching off a plurality of current generators in sequence from a current generator drawing a greatest current to a current generator drawing a smallest current in response to the output voltage being greater than the reference voltage; and switching on the plurality of current generators in sequence from the current generator drawing the smallest current to the current generator drawing the greatest current in response to the output voltage being less than the reference voltage” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by Applicant.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note:
Examiner has cited particular columns 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 LAKAISHA JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3111. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MONICA LEWIS can be reached on 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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/LaKaisha Jackson/
Examiner, Art Unit 2838