DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 02/14/2024. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10, 15-18, 21-29 are currently pending.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
the length of the Abstract exceeds the range of 50 to 150 words.
The Abstract is objected for containing claim language, such as "comprise".
Drawing
The drawing submitted on 02/14/2024 is acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/26/2024 and 09/09/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7 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.
Claim 7, Applicant recite the limitations “… a voltage control signal and a current control signal” at line 8 of claim 1, and further recite “… the voltage control signals and the current control signals …” at lines 1-2 of claim 7. It is not clear that what these “the voltage control signals and the current control signals” Applicant intended to refer to in additional to the voltage control signals and the current control signal Applicant recited in claim 1. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Applicant’s clarification and/or correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by MALONE et al. (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20210265907, hereinafter ‘907).
Claim 1, ‘907 teaches a power supply system (e.g., see [0049][0060][0065][0086] [0121],Fig. 1-4) comprising: a loading circuit (e.g., the circuits comprising 280A-C) comprising power electronics configured to, at least, apply DC electrical power to a load (e.g., 290A, 290B, 290C, see Fig. 2); a power supply unit (e.g., the circuits comprising 205, 240, 270) coupled to drive the loading circuit, the power supply unit comprising a converter configured to, at least, convert input AC electrical power to DC electrical power (e.g., see Fig. 2); and a controller (e.g., 103) configured to at least: generate a voltage control signal and a current control signal (e.g., 283A-C/284A-C) to be received as input by the loading circuit, the voltage control signal and current control signal representing voltage and current values respectively to be applied to the load (e.g., see [0049][0060][0065][0086] [0121], Fig. 2-4); determine a voltage level to be supplied by the power supply unit to the loading circuit (e.g., see [0060][0065][0086] [0121], Fig. 2-4); and provide a power supply voltage control signal to the power supply unit, the power supply voltage control signal representing the voltage level to be supplied by the power supply unit to the loading circuit (e.g., see [0060][0065][0086] [0121], Fig. 2-4).
Claim 2, ‘907 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein the voltage level to be supplied by the power supply unit to the loading circuit is greater than the voltage to be applied across the load by a minimum threshold amount (e.g., see [0060][0065][0086][0121], Fig. 2-4).
Claim 4, ‘907 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. It further teaches that comprising a voltage sensor configured to, at least, measure a voltage drop across the load, a current sensor configured to, at least, measure current passing through the load or both the voltage sensor and the current sensor, the voltage control signal and the current control signal at least partially based on the measured voltage, measured current or both (e.g., see [0060][0065][0086][0121], Fig. 2-4).
Claim 7, ‘907 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein the voltage control signals and current control signals are determined at least in part based on open loop control of a performance parameter of the load (e.g., temperature, see [0049]).
Claim 15, ‘907 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein the controller is configurable to, at least, control the loading circuit to provide constant power, constant current, constant voltage or a combination thereof (e.g., see [0060][0065][0086][0121], Fig. 2-4).
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MALONE et al. (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20210265907, hereinafter ‘907).
Claim 5, ‘907 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. ‘907 further teaches that wherein the power electronics comprise a plurality of amplifiers, the plurality of amplifiers comprising at least a first amplifier and a second amplifier to drive corresponding load (e.g., see [0049]).
‘907 does not explicitly disclose that the second amplifier having a greater maximum output current than the first amplifier for driving the corresponding load.
However, it has been held that when the general details of a range or measurement of degree are disclosed in the prior art, providing a more precise range in the claims of the invention without explaining the criticality of the range is not sufficient to overcome the prior art. See In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.")
In this case, Paragraph [0049] of 907 discloses a first amplifier and a second amplifier to drive their corresponding load (e.g., see [0049]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of ‘907 to include the first amplifier to drive the first load, and a second amplifier having a greater maximum output current than the first amplifier in order to drive a second load that is heavier and requiring higher driving current than the first load. Doing so would require only routine skill in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over MALONE et al. (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20210265907, hereinafter ‘907), in view of Schwabe et al. (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20200266706, hereinafter ‘706).
Claim 10, ‘907 teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
‘907 does not explicitly disclose that further comprising a trained machine learning model, the machine learning model trained to, at least, optimize the voltage control signal, the current control signal or both based in part on power dissipation characteristics of the load.
‘706 discloses a power supply system having a trained machine learning model (e.g., the machine-learning process), the machine learning model trained to optimize the voltage control signal, the current control signal or both based in part on power dissipation characteristics of the load (e.g., load profiles, Voutput and Ioutput, see Abstract; [0006][0014][0018][0021][0034][0089], Fig. 1-7).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify ‘907 by the machine-learning process as taught by ‘706 in order of being able to improved regulator control over a wide range of operating schemes for the load (e.g., see Abstract, [0019]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 16-18 and 21-29 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 matters:
For claim 6, the prior art does not disclose or suggest, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, primarily,… a first relay operable to, at least, couple an output of the first amplifier to the load; … a second relay operable to, …, couple an output of the second amplifier to the load; wherein the controller is configured to, …, activate the first relay, the second relay or both based on a maximum current that is to pass through the load, the maximum current being less than the maximum output current of the amplifier corresponding to the activated relay.
For claims 16-18 and 21-29, the prior art does not disclose or suggest, in combination with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, primarily, …; …; a baseline reference circuit, the baseline reference circuit configured to, …, generate a baseline voltage, the baseline reference circuit configurable by the controller; … a difference circuit, the difference circuit configured to, at least, subtract the baseline voltage from the input analog voltage signal.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUE ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1263. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM-5:00PM
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Lewis can be reached on 571-272-2838. 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.
/JUE ZHANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838