DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden on the examiner to examine all claims. This is not found persuasive because there is always a serious burden on an examiner to search for three independent and distinct inventions scattered in three different and distinct search areas. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 11/13/2023, 8/22/2024, 1/13/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first control signals" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant only positively claimed a first control signal (singular) not signals (plural).
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first switch bridge arm" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which bridge arm of which circuit board is the applicant referring to?
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the inductor core" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which inductor core of which circuit board is the applicant referring to?
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first iron core" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which iron core of which circuit board is the applicant referring to?
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first secondary-side trace" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which first secondary-side trace of which circuit board is the applicant referring to?
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first transformer" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which first transformer of which circuit board is the applicant referring to?
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first primary-side circuits" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant only positively claimed a first primary-side circuit (singular) not circuits (plural).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first power input terminals" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant only positively claimed a first power input terminal (singular) not input terminals (plural).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first power output terminals" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant only positively claimed a first power output terminal (singular) not output terminals (plural).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which first side of which circuit board is the applicant referring to?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which second side of which circuit board is the applicant referring to?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the positive input terminal" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which positive input terminal of which circuit board is the applicant referring to?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the negative input terminal" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which negative input terminal of which circuit board is the applicant referring to?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the other" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Who is the other??
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the bus capacitor" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which bus capacitor of which circuit board is the applicant referring to?
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first power output terminal" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which first power output terminal of which circuit board is the applicant referring to?
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first circuit board" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which first circuit board is the applicant referring to?
Ad nauseum. These types of errors just keep occurring in every dependent claim. Claims 6-15 all have the same construction errors and antecedent basis errors. find and correct all the remaining errors.
Given the number and nature of errors in the claims, the applicant would be well advised to thoroughly review each and every claim in order to find any and all remaining errors and to ensure proper antecedent basis and proper compliance with U.S. standards of claim construction.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20190059179) in view of Uematsu et al. (US 20210351709).
Liu et al. disclose a direct-current (DC) conversion module comprising: a first main circuit board (e.g. 400) comprising a first plug port (fig. 8; receiving pins 510) and a second plug port (fig. 8; receiving pins 510), and two first circuit boards (500) respectively plugged into the first plug port and the second plug port (see fig. 8), and each first circuit board comprising: a first switch bridge arm (SP1/SP3, SP2/SP4), and a first controller (not shown) coupled to the first switch bridge arm, and configured to provide a first control signal (SP1/SP3 gate signal, SP2/SP4 gate signal) to control the first switch bridge arm, and the two first circuit boards are coupled to each other through the first plug port and the second plug port to form an interleaved DC conversion module.
However, Liu et al. do not disclose whether there is a phase difference between the first control signal of each two first circuit boards of 180 degrees.
Uematsu et al. teach converters that include a number N of main circuits connected in parallel and the N converter controller circuits are configured to respectively control the N main circuits. The N converter controller circuits generates signals having a phase difference of 360/N° from each other. Moreover, controlling oscillators operating with a phase shift of 180° as compared with the controlling oscillator of the other board produce signals with a shift of N/2. This also causes a shift of N/2 between gate signals. Therefore, the timing of the drive time interval in the main circuit 100A is shifted by N/2. This generates a phase difference of 180° between the ripples of the output voltages of the two main circuits 100 and 100A. Since these ripples cancel each other out in a combined output voltage Vo, the error caused by the ripples is reduced, and it is possible to perform more accurate control.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify in order to have the ripples cancel each other out in a combined output voltage, and so that the error caused by the ripples is reduced, and make it is possible to perform more accurate control as taught by Uematsu et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest, inter alia, each first circuit board further comprises: a first primary-side circuit comprising [each of] the first switch bridge arm, an inductor trace and an inductor core, and the inductor core [of each circuit board is] sleeved on the inductor trace [of each circuit board respectively] to serve as a resonant inductor, a first secondary-side circuit, and a first transformer comprising a first primary-side trace, a first secondary-side trace, and a first iron core, and the first iron core sleeved on the first primary-side trace and the first secondary-side trace to serve as the first transformer, wherein the first primary-side circuits of the first circuit boards are a half-bridge structure, the inductor traces of the first circuit boards and the first primary-side traces form a series-connected structure through the first main circuit board, and the first primary-side circuits of the first circuit boards form a parallel-connected structure through the first main circuit board.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220361353 Lohan et al. disclose a low profile power module package; US 20210050142 Zhang et al. disclose a power module and device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY L LAXTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2079. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 am-4 pm.
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 571-270-1682. 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.
/GARY L LAXTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 2/25/2026