DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to the amendment filed on 2/5/26.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 23, and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-4, 6, 15, 19, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cohen (US 20240364223).
Regarding claim 1: Cohen disclsoes (i.e. figures 1-2) a discharge unit (i.e. unit of figure 2) for a power converter (i.e. 200) comprising an inductive element (i.e. 120), the discharge unit (i.e. unit of figure 2) configured to:
sense a voltage difference (i.e. voltage of 102) across the inductive element (i.e. 102); and
activate a discharge path (i.e. discharge path from 102) for the inductive element (i.e. 102) in the power converter (i.e. 200) based on the voltage difference (i.e. voltage of 102), wherein the discharge path (i.e. discharge path from 102) comprises a first current source (i.e. current source of 102), and the discharge path (i.e. discharge path from 102) is activated by closing a clamping switch (i.e. switch 124 closed) coupled (i.e. electrically coupled) to the first current source (i.e. current source of 102) (i.e. ¶ 16-21).
Regarding claim 2: (i.e. figures 1-2) comprising a voltage sensing unit (i.e. 114) for sensing the voltage difference (i.e. voltage of 102) across the inductive element (i.e. 102) (i.e. ¶ 16-21).
Regarding claim 3: (i.e. figures 1-2) wherein the inductive element (i.e. 102) is coupled (i.e. electrically coupled) between a first node (i.e. node between 106, 102) providing a first voltage and a second node (i.e. node between 102, 104) providing a second voltage (i.e. ¶ 16-21).
Regarding claim 4: (i.e. figures 1-2) wherein: the voltage sensing unit (i.e. 114) is configured to receive the first voltage and the second voltage (i.e. first and second voltage from the nodes); and the voltage difference (i.e. voltage of 102) is the difference between the first voltage and the second voltage (i.e. first and second voltage from the nodes) (i.e. ¶ 16-21).
Regarding claim 6: wherein the discharge unit (i.e. unit of figure 2) is configured to deactivate the discharge path (i.e. discharge path from 102) for the power converter based on the voltage difference (i.e. voltage of 102) (i.e. ¶ 16-21).
Regarding claim 15: (i.e. figures 1-2) wherein the discharge unit (i.e. unit of figure 2) is configured to deactivate the discharge path (i.e. discharge path from 102) for the power converter (i.e. 200) based on the voltage difference (i.e. voltage of 102) (i.e. ¶ 16-21).
Regarding claim 19: (i.e. figures 1-2) wherein the discharge unit (i.e. unit of figure 2) comprises a second current source (i.e. from 144) coupled (i.e. electrically coupled) to the clamping switch (i.e. 124).
Regarding claim 23: Cohen disclsoes an apparatus (i.e. figures 1-2) comprising:
a power converter (i.e. 200) comprising an inductive element (i.e. 102); and
a discharge unit (i.e. unit of figure 2) for the power converter (i.e. 200), the discharge unit (i.e. unit of figure 2) configured to:
sense a voltage difference (i.e. voltage of 102) across the inductive element (i.e. 102); and
activate a discharge path (i.e. discharge path from 102) for the inductive element (i.e. 102) in the power converter (i.e. 200) based on the voltage difference (i.e. voltage of 102), wherein the discharge path (i.e. discharge path from 102) comprises a first current source (i.e. current source of 102), and the discharge path (i.e. discharge path from 102) is activated by closing a clamping switch (i.e. switch 124 closed) coupled (i.e. electrically coupled) to the first current source (i.e. current source of 102) (i.e. ¶ 16-21).
Regarding claim 25: the method steps will be met during the normal operation of the apparatus described above. (Examiner notes: For method claims, note that under MPEP 2112.02, the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 20240364223) in view of Wood (US 600213).
Regarding claim 5: Cohen disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose the voltage sensing unit is configured to compare the voltage difference to a threshold voltage; and the discharge unit is configured to activate the discharge path based on the comparison of the voltage difference to the threshold voltage, thereby activating the discharge path based on the voltage difference.
Wood discloses a power supply comprising (i.e. figures 1-3) wherein: the voltage sensing unit (i.e. unit includes 40, 42, 18, 42, 44) is configured to compare the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) to a threshold voltage (i.e. Vref); and the discharge unit (i.e. unit of figure 1) is configured to activate (i.e. switch 10, 11) the discharge path (i.e. path of 10, 11) based on the comparison of the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) to the threshold voltage (i.e. Vref), thereby activating the discharge path based on the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) (i.e. Col. 5, lines 25-55 through Col. 6, lines 1-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cohen’s invention with the power supply as disclose by Wood, because it suitable for use in a resonant power supplies and cost saving.
Regarding claim 7: Cohen disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose the voltage sensing unit is configured to compare the voltage difference to a threshold voltage; and the discharge unit is configured to deactivate the discharge path based on the comparison of the voltage difference to the threshold voltage, thereby deactivating the discharge path based on the voltage difference.
Wood discloses a power supply comprising (i.e. figures 1-3) wherein: the voltage sensing unit (i.e. unit includes 40, 42, 18, 42, 44) is configured to compare the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) to a threshold voltage (i.e. Vref); and the discharge unit is configured to deactivate (i.e. switch 10, 11) the discharge path (i.e. path of 10, 11) based on the comparison of the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) to the threshold voltage (i.e. Vref), thereby deactivating the discharge path based on the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) (i.e. Col. 5, lines 25-55 through Col. 6, lines 1-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cohen’s invention with the power supply as disclose by Wood, because it suitable for use in a resonant power supplies and cost saving.
Regarding claim 8: Cohen disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose the voltage sensing unit is configured to deactivate the discharge path for the power converter when the voltage difference is less than the threshold voltage, thereby deactivating the discharge path based on the comparison of the voltage difference to the threshold voltage.
Wood discloses a power supply comprising (i.e. figures 1-3) wherein: the voltage sensing unit (i.e. unit includes 40, 42, 18, 42, 44) is configured to deactivate (i.e. switch 10, 11) the discharge path (i.e. path of 10, 11) for the power converter when the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) is less than the threshold voltage (i.e. Vref), thereby deactivating the discharge path (i.e. path of 10, 11) based on the comparison of the voltage difference to the threshold voltage (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) (i.e. Col. 5, lines 25-55 through Col. 6, lines 1-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cohen’s invention with the power supply as disclose by Wood, because it suitable for use in a resonant power supplies and cost saving.
Regarding claim 10: Cohen disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose the voltage sensing unit is configured to compare the voltage difference to a threshold voltage; and the discharge unit is configured to activate the discharge path based on the comparison of the voltage difference to the threshold voltage, thereby activating the discharge path based on the voltage difference.
Wood discloses a power supply comprising (i.e. figures 1-3) wherein: the voltage sensing unit (i.e. unit includes 40, 42, 18, 42, 44) is configured to compare the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) to a threshold voltage (i.e. Vref); and the discharge unit is configured to activate (i.e. switch 10, 11) the discharge path (i.e. path of 10, 11) based on the comparison of the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) to the threshold voltage (i.e. Vref), thereby activating (i.e. switch 10, 11) the discharge path based on the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) (i.e. Col. 5, lines 25-55 through Col. 6, lines 1-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cohen’s invention with the power supply as disclose by Wood, because it suitable for use in a resonant power supplies and cost saving.
Regarding claim 11: Cohen disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose the voltage sensing unit is configured to activate the discharge path for the power converter when the voltage difference is greater than the threshold voltage, thereby activating the discharge path based on the comparison of the voltage difference to the threshold voltage; and the voltage sensing unit is configured to activate the first current source when the voltage difference is greater than the threshold voltage.
Wood discloses a power supply comprising (i.e. figures 1-3) wherein: the voltage sensing unit (i.e. unit includes 40, 42, 18, 42, 44) is configured to activate (i.e. switch 10, 11) the discharge path (i.e. path of 10, 11) for the power converter when the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) is greater than the threshold voltage (i.e. Vref), thereby activating the discharge path (i.e. path of 10, 11) based on the comparison of the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) to the threshold voltage (i.e. Vref); and the voltage sensing unit (i.e. unit includes 40, 42, 18, 42, 44) is configured to activate (i.e. by activate the switch 10, 11) the first current source (i.e. from input) when the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) is greater than the threshold voltage (i.e. Vref).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cohen’s invention with the power supply as disclose by Wood, because it suitable for use in a resonant power supplies and cost saving.
Regarding claim 13: Cohen disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose the voltage sensing unit is configured to activate the discharge path for the power converter when the voltage difference is greater than a threshold voltage, thereby activating the discharge path based on the comparison of the voltage difference to the threshold voltage; and the discharge unit is configured to close the clamping switch when the voltage difference is greater than the threshold voltage.
Wood discloses a power supply comprising (i.e. figures 1-3) wherein: the voltage sensing unit (i.e. unit includes 40, 42, 18, 42, 44) is configured to activate (i.e. switch 10, 11) the discharge path (i.e. path of 10, 11) for the power converter when the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) is greater than the threshold voltage (i.e. Vref), thereby activating (i.e. switch 10, 11) the discharge path (i.e. path of 10, 11) based on the comparison of the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) to the threshold voltage (i.e. Vref); and the discharge unit (i.e. unit of figure 1) is configured to close the clamping switch (i.e. switch 10, 11) when the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) is greater than the threshold voltage (i.e. Vref) (i.e. Col. 5, lines 25-55 through Col. 6, lines 1-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cohen’s invention with the power supply as disclose by Wood, because it suitable for use in a resonant power supplies and cost saving.
Regarding claim 14: Cohen disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose the inductive unit is discharged via the clamping switch when the voltage difference is greater than the threshold voltage.
Wood discloses a power supply comprising: (i.e. figures 1-3) wherein the inductive unit (i.e. unit of figure 1) is discharged via the clamping switch (i.e. switch 10, 11) when the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) is greater than the threshold voltage (i.e. Vref) (i.e. Col. 5, lines 25-55 through Col. 6, lines 1-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cohen’s invention with the power supply as disclose by Wood, because it suitable for use in a resonant power supplies and cost saving.
Regarding claim 16: Cohen disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose the voltage sensing unit is configured to compare the voltage difference to a threshold voltage; and the discharge unit is configured to deactivate the discharge path based on the comparison of the voltage difference to the threshold voltage, thereby deactivating the discharge path based on the voltage difference.
Wood discloses a power supply comprising (i.e. figures 1-3) wherein: the voltage sensing unit (i.e. unit includes 40, 42, 18, 42, 44) is configured to compare the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) to a threshold voltage (i.e. Vref); and the discharge unit (i.e. unit of figure 1) is configured to deactivate the discharge path (i.e. path of 10, 11) based on the comparison of the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) to the threshold voltage (i.e. Vref), thereby deactivating the discharge path (i.e. path of 10, 11) based on the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) (i.e. Col. 5, lines 25-55 through Col. 6, lines 1-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cohen’s invention with the power supply as disclose by Wood, because it suitable for use in a resonant power supplies and cost saving.
Regarding claim 17: Cohen disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose the voltage sensing unit is configured to deactivate the discharge path for the power converter when the voltage difference is less than the threshold voltage, thereby deactivating the discharge path based on the comparison of the voltage difference to the threshold voltage; and the voltage sensing unit is configured to deactivate the first current source if the voltage difference is less than the threshold voltage.
Wood discloses a power supply comprising (i.e. figures 1-3) wherein: the voltage sensing unit (i.e. unit includes 40, 42, 18, 42, 44) is configured to deactivate (i.e. switch 10, 11) the discharge path (i.e. path of 10, 11) for the power converter when the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) is less than the threshold voltage (i.e. Vref), thereby deactivating the discharge path (i.e. path of 10, 11) based on the comparison of the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) to the threshold voltage (i.e. Vref); and the voltage sensing unit (i.e. unit includes 40, 42, 18, 42, 44) is configured to deactivate (i.e. switch 10, 11) the first current source (i.e. from input) if the voltage difference (i.e. provided by the voltage sensor) is less than the threshold voltage (i.e. Vref) (i.e. Col. 5, lines 25-55 through Col. 6, lines 1-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cohen’s invention with the power supply as disclose by Wood, because it suitable for use in a resonant power supplies and cost saving.
Regarding claim 21: Cohen disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose the discharge unit comprises an isolation device.
Wood discloses a power supply comprising (i.e. figures 1-3) the discharge unit comprising an isolation device (i.e. diode of figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cohen’s invention with the power supply as disclose by Wood, because it suitable for use in a resonant power supplies and cost saving.
Regarding claim 22: Cohen disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose the isolation device is coupled to the second node providing the second voltage; and the isolation device is configured to block a conductive path between the first node and the second node when the second node is coupled to ground.
Wood discloses a power supply comprising (i.e. figures 1-3) wherein the isolation device (i.e. 12) is coupled (i.e. electrically coupled) to the second node (i.e. second node of 50 coupled to 12) providing the second voltage; and the isolation device (i.e. 12) is configured to block a conductive path (i.e. path through 11) between the first node (i.e. first node of 50 coupled to 52) and the second node(i.e. second node of 50 coupled to 12) when the second node is coupled (i.e. electrically coupled) to ground (i.e. ground).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cohen’s invention with the power supply as disclose by Wood, because it suitable for use in a resonant power supplies and cost saving.
8. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 20240364223).
Regarding claim 24: Cohen and Wood disclose the driver (i.e. 30) implement on a chip the claimed invention except for comprising a chip, the power converter and the discharge unit being implemented on the chip. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the power converter and the discharge unit being implemented on the chip to save space and cost. Since, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routing skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claim 20 is 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
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1269. The examiner can normally be reached Flex: M-F 8-7.
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.
/Nguyen Tran/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights