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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected claims, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/13/2026.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The basis that the Groupings A and B “identify shared subject matter relating to a power converter” is not persuasive as the existence of shared subject matter does not negate the differences as identified in the 6/25/2026 restriction requirement.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 6 additional boost converter or charge pump converter coupled between the battery and the output node not shown.
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 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.
Claims 7-8 are 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.
Claims 7 and 8 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform to current U.S. practice, because the language of the claim does not provide the necessary clarity and precision required thereby making the scope of the invention sought to be patented undeterminable from the language of the claim with any reasonable degree of certainty. The claim generally recites what the apparatus does, without requisite structure to perform said claimed operation.
Particularly, the following limitations are unclear:
7. The power converter of claim 4, wherein, in a discharging phase of the battery, the second dc-dc converter is configured to convert a battery voltage outputted by the battery to a first voltage received by the first dc-dc converter, and the first dc-dc converter is configured to regulate and provide the system output voltage, in response to the first voltage from the second dc-dc converter. (Pure narrative language directed to the operation of the converter and fails to recite any additional structure to be added to the apparatus claim).
8. The power converter of claim 4, wherein, in a charging phase of the battery, the first dc-dc converter is configured to provide the system output voltage, in response to the regulated DC input voltage from the programmable power supply circuit, and the second dc-dc converter is configured to provide a charging voltage to the battery, in response to the regulated DC input voltage from the programmable power supply circuit. (Pure narrative language directed to the operation of the converter and fails to recite any additional structure to be added to the apparatus claim).
The narrative language of the claims further fails to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim as required by MPEP 2173.05(g), and is thus indefinite. The above functional language purports to define the invention by reciting a function or result achieved by the invention, thereby making the boundaries of the claim scope ambiguous and unclear. The Examiner acknowledges that an apparatus may be claimed via positively recited structure and/or through use of functional language however said function must be tied to identifiable structure/component in order for said otherwise narrative language to functionally limit said structure (see MPEP 2114), else the claim simply becomes a narrative recitation of the desired function/result achieved of the device, as with the present case. As such, it is noted per MPEP 2114 that an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function noting that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (see MPEP 2114).
Because of the great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim(s), it is not proper to reject the present claim(s) 7-8 on the basis of prior art. (See MPEP 2173.06 and In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 9, 11-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alves et al. US 2018/0301986 in view of Landesfeind et al. (Land) US 2024/0339684.
Alves teaches:
4. A power converter for use with a power supply circuit, comprising:
a charging circuit configured to couple to the power supply circuit (ie 114, FIG1), the power supply circuit being configured to provide a DC input voltage, the charging circuit comprising: a first dc-dc converter (102) configured to couple to the power supply circuit and configured to convert the regulated DC input voltage to a system output voltage at an output node (ie 110); and
a battery (116) configured to couple electrically coupled to the first dc-dc converter, and configured to be charged or discharged (FIG2E), directly or indirectly via the output node (110), wherein the charging circuit further comprises a second dc-dc converter (104) configured to be coupled in series between the programmable power supply circuit and the battery (FIG2C operation), wherein one of the first dc-dc converter and the second dc-dc converter is an unregulated converter (202).
Alves fails to teach the power supply being a programmable power supply.
Land teaches a charging power supply being a programmable power supply (read on by Adjustable Voltage Source (AVS) 54 @ [0050]). It would have been obvious to include the AVS taught by Land in place of the charging source of Alves with the motivation of flexibility and precise matching to non-standard, custom and deeply discharged battery packs.
Alves further teaches:
5. The power converter of claim 4, wherein the first dc-dc converter and the second dc-dc converter are configured to operate simultaneously (ie operation of FIG2C).
9. The power converter of claim 4, further comprising: a charger transistor (208, FIG2) configured to be coupled in series between the first dc-dc converter (202) and the battery via the output node (218) and configured to enable or disable charging or discharging of the battery.
11. The power converter of claim 19, wherein the charger transistor is configured to be coupled between the first dc-dc converter and the second dc-dc converter (via common connection 218, FIG2).
Alves teaches:
12. A power converter for use with a power supply circuit, comprising:
a charging circuit configured to couple to the power supply circuit (ie 114, FIG1), the power supply circuit being configured to provide a DC input voltage, the charging circuit comprising: a first dc-dc converter (102) configured to couple to the power supply circuit and configured to convert the regulated DC input voltage to a system output voltage at an output node (ie 110); and
a battery (116) configured to couple electrically coupled to the first dc-dc converter, and configured to be charged or discharged (FIG2E), directly or indirectly via the output node (110),
wherein the charging circuit further comprises a second dc-dc converter (104) configured to be coupled in series between the programmable power supply circuit and the battery (FIG2C operation), wherein one of the first dc-dc converter and the second dc-dc converter is an unregulated converter (202) wherein the first dc-dc converter and the second dc-dc converter are configured to operate simultaneously (ie operation of FIG2C).
Alves fails to teach the power supply being a programmable power supply.
Land teaches a charging power supply being a programmable power supply (read on by Adjustable Voltage Source (AVS) 54 @ [0050]). It would have been obvious to include the AVS taught by Land in place of the charging source of Alves with the motivation of flexibility and precise matching to non-standard, custom and deeply discharged battery packs.
Alves further teaches:
13. The power converter of claim 12, wherein the first dc-dc converter and the second dc-dc converter are configured to be electrically coupled in parallel (via common grounds, FIG1, as seen at common output connection 110).
14. The power converter of claim 12, further comprising: a charger transistor (208, FIG2) configured to be coupled in series between the first dc-dc converter and the battery via the output node and configured to enable or disable charging or discharging of the battery.
16. The power converter of claim 14, wherein the charger transistor is configured to be coupled between the first dc-dc converter and the second dc-dc converter (via common connection 218, FIG2).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alves et al. US 2018/0301986 in view of Landesfeind et al. (Land) US 2024/0339684 and Narayanan et al. (Nara) US 2021/0213833.
Alves teaches wherein the converter is a boost or charge pump but fails to teach:
6. (Original) The power converter of claim 4, further comprising: a boost converter or a charge pump converter coupled between the battery and the output node.
Nara teaches a power converter battery charger comprising a first converter (ie 60 and/or 62) futher comprising a boost converter of charge pump (See 64, FIG3, @ [0019]).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the boost converter as taught by Nara into the system of Alves with the motivation that cascading converters achieves a higher total voltage conversion ration for better efficiency and stability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 15 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CAVALLARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8541. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-18:30.
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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571)272-7492. 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.
/DANIEL CAVALLARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
