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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“transforming unit” and “control unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The claimed “transforming unit” has been construed as comprising a step-up converter and a step-down converter, as disclosed in FIG. 2 and [0011] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 1 recites limitation “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the structure of the recited “control unit” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, claims 1-6 are rejected for lack of written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites limitation “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to sufficiently disclose the corresponding structure for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure to the function. The lack of sufficient structure description of the limitations makes the metes and bounds of the apparatus claims unclear. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-6 depend on claim 1 and have thus inherited the same deficiency. Therefore, claims 2-6 are rejected for the same reason. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation of “control unit” in the claims has been construed as “controller”.
Claim 6 recites limitations “the input voltage be higher than the first threshold value” and “the input voltage be higher than the second threshold value” which lack sufficient antecedent bases. For continuing examination purpose, the limitations have been construed as “the input voltage be higher than [[the]] a first threshold value” and “the input voltage be higher than [[the]] a second threshold value”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20210124701 A1, hereinafter as “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches:
A power supply system comprising:
a power supply configured to supply power to a load through a supply path (FIG. 12 and [0147, 0162]: power supply from a host system is configured to supply power to memory loads 1030/1040 through a supply path via 1022, 1050 and switch 1090);
a transforming unit (unit 1080 in FIG. 12) configured to transform a voltage corresponding to an input voltage from the power supply and charge a storage unit (capacitor bank 1086 in FIG. 12), and transform a charge voltage of the storage unit and output an output voltage to the load (FIG. 12 and [0160, 0161]); and
a control unit (controller 1062 in FIG. 12) configured to control an output state of the transforming unit,
wherein the control unit controls the output state of the transforming unit such that the transforming unit is able to output the output voltage to the load when the input voltage satisfies a preparation condition ([0154, 0162]: second power supply 1080 provides power to the load when input voltage is below or above a certain threshold value, i.e., a preparation condition), and
the supply path is interrupted when the input voltage satisfies an interruption condition after the preparation condition is satisfied (the limitation “an interruption condition” is recited at high level of generality without any more details. In its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation is construed as the same as the “preparation condition. Lee teaches in [0154, 0162] that when input voltage is below or above a certain threshold value, i.e., an interruption condition, the supply path from the first power supply/(system power) is interrupted).
Lee teaches specifically (underlines are added by Examiner for emphasis):
PNG
media_image1.png
516
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0147] In certain preferred embodiments, the memory system 1010 is in electrical communication with the host system. In other embodiments, the memory system 1010 may communicate with a host system using some other type of communication, such as, for example, optical communication. Examples of host systems include, but are not limited to, blade servers, 1U servers, personal computers (PCs), and other applications in which space is constrained or limited. The memory system 1010 can be in communication with a disk controller of a computer system, for example. The PCB 1020 can comprise an interface 1022 that is configured to be in electrical communication with the host system (not shown). For example, the interface 1022 can comprise a plurality of edge connections which fit into a corresponding slot connector of the host system. The interface 1022 of certain embodiments provides a conduit for power voltage as well as data, address, and control signals between the memory system 1010 and the host system. For example, the interface 1022 can comprise a standard 240-pin DDR2 edge connector.
[0154] Certain embodiments described herein utilize the non-volatile memory subsystem 1040 as a flash “mirror” to provide backup of the volatile memory subsystem 1030 in the event of certain system conditions. For example, the non-volatile memory subsystem 1040 may backup the volatile memory subsystem 1030 in the event of a trigger condition, such as, for example, a power failure or power reduction or a request from the host system. In one embodiment, the nonvolatile memory subsystem 1040 holds intermediate data results in a noisy system environment when the host computer system is engaged in a long computation. In certain embodiments, a backup may be performed on a regular basis. For example, in one embodiment, the backup may occur every millisecond in response to a trigger condition. In certain embodiments, the trigger condition occurs when the memory system 1010 detects that the system voltage is below a certain threshold voltage. For example, in one embodiment, the threshold voltage is 1010 percent below a specified operating voltage. In certain embodiments, a trigger condition occurs when the voltage goes above a certain threshold value, such as, for example, 1010 percent above a specified operating voltage. In some embodiments, a trigger condition occurs when the voltage goes below a threshold or above another threshold. In various embodiments, a backup and/or restore operation may occur in reboot and/or non-reboot trigger conditions.
[0160] In certain embodiments, the second power supply 1080 does not comprise a battery. Because a battery is not used, the second power supply 1080 of certain embodiments may be relatively easy to maintain, does not generally need to be replaced, and is relatively environmentally friendly. In certain embodiments, as schematically illustrated by FIGS. 12-14, the second power supply 1080 comprises a step-up transformer 1082, a step-down transformer 1084, and a capacitor bank 1086 comprising one or more capacitors (e.g., double-layer capacitors). In one example embodiment, capacitors may take about three to four minutes to charge and about two minutes to discharge. In other embodiments, the one or more capacitors may take a longer time or a shorter time to charge and/or discharge. For example, in certain embodiments, the second power supply 1080 is configured to power the volatile memory subsystem 1030 for less than thirty minutes. In certain embodiments, the second power supply 1080 may comprise a battery. For example, in certain embodiments, the second power supply 1080 comprises a battery and one or more capacitors and is configured to power the volatile memory subsystem 1030 for no more than thirty minutes.
[0161] In certain embodiments, the capacitor bank 1086 of the second power supply 1080 is charged by the first power supply while the memory system 1010 is in the first state. As a result, the second power supply 1080 is fully charged when the memory system 1010 enters the second state. The memory system 1010 and the second power supply 1080 may be located on the same printed circuit board 1020. In other embodiments, the second power supply 1080 may not be on the same printed circuit board 1020 and may be tethered to the printed circuit board 1020, for example.
[0162] When operating in the first state, in certain embodiments, the step-up transformer 1082 keeps the capacitor bank 1086 charged at a peak value. In certain embodiments, the step-down transformer 1084 acts as a voltage regulator to ensure that regulated voltages are supplied to the memory elements (e.g., 1.8V to the volatile DRAM elements 1032 and 3.0V to the non-volatile flash memory elements 1042) when operating in the second state (e.g., during power down). In certain embodiments, as schematically illustrated by FIGS. 12-14, the memory module 1010 further comprises a switch 1090 (e.g., FET switch) that switches power provided to the controller 1062, the volatile memory subsystem 1030, and the non-volatile memory subsystem 1040, between the power from the second power supply 1080 and the power from the first power supply (e.g., system power) received via the interface 1022. For example, the switch 1090 may switch from the first power supply to the second power supply 1080 when the voltage monitor 1050 detects a low voltage condition. The switch 1090 of certain embodiments advantageously ensures that the volatile memory elements 1032 and non-volatile memory elements 1042 are powered long enough for the data to be transferred from the volatile memory elements 1032 and stored in the non-volatile memory elements 1042. In certain embodiments, after the data transfer is complete, the switch 1090 then switches back to the first power supply and the controller 1062 transmits a signal to the at least one circuit 1052 to operatively decouple the controller 1062 from the volatile memory subsystem 1030, such that the memory system 1010 reenters the first state.
Regarding claim 5, Lee teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Lee further teaches:
the transforming unit includes a step-up converter (1082 in FIG. 12) configured to step up a voltage corresponding to the input voltage and charge the storage unit ([0160, 1062]), and a step-down converter (1082 in FIG. 12) configured to step down the charge voltage of the storage unit and output the output voltage to the load ([0160, 1062]),
the step-up converter and the step-down converter are configured such that one of the step-up converter and the step-down converter operates, and
the control unit controls the output state of the transforming unit such that the step-down converter operates when the input voltage satisfies the preparation condition ([0154, 0162]).
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.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Deboy (US 20160342182 A1, hereinafter as “Deboy”).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Lee further teaches:
the preparation condition is a condition that the input voltage be lower than a first threshold value ([0154]).
Lee teach(es) all the limitations except the interruption condition is a condition that the input voltage be lower than a second threshold value, and the second threshold value is lower than the first threshold value.
However, Deboy teaches in an analogous art:
powering a load from both a first power supply and a second power supply when the input voltage of the first power supply is lower than a first threshold value ([0080]: “when the determined input voltage of the power supply is less than a first threshold voltage and is not less than a second threshold voltage, the method may also include providing the load power to the load at the same time from both the power supply and the interim power source”);
interrupting the power path from the first power supply to the load and powering the load from the second power supply when the input voltage of the first power supply is lower than a second threshold value ([0081]: “when the determined input voltage is less than a second threshold voltage, turning off the power supply”);
wherein the second threshold value is lower than the first threshold value ([0081]: “The method may also be implemented such that the first threshold voltage is 80% of a predetermined nominal input voltage, the second threshold voltage is 40% of the predetermined nominal input voltage”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee based on the teaching of Deboy, to make the power supply system wherein the preparation condition is a condition that the input voltage be lower than a first threshold value, the interruption condition is a condition that the input voltage be lower than a second threshold value, and the second threshold value is lower than the first threshold value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to make power supply to “remains functional during short interruptions”, as Deboy suggests in [0029].
Regarding claim 6, Lee teach(es) all the limitations except the preparation condition is a condition that the input voltage be higher than a first threshold value, the interruption condition is a condition that the input voltage be higher than a second threshold value, and the second threshold value is higher than the first threshold value.
However, Deboy teaches in an analogous art:
powering a load from both a first power supply and a second power supply when the input voltage of the first power supply is deviating more than a first threshold value ([0080]: “when the determined input voltage of the power supply is less than a first threshold voltage and is not less than a second threshold voltage, the method may also include providing the load power to the load at the same time from both the power supply and the interim power source”);
interrupting the power path from the first power supply to the load and powering the load from the second power supply when the input voltage of the first power supply is deviating more than a second threshold value ([0081]: “when the determined input voltage is less than a second threshold voltage, turning off the power supply”);
wherein the second threshold value is larger than the first threshold value ([0081]: “The method may also be implemented such that the first threshold voltage is 80% of a predetermined nominal input voltage, the second threshold voltage is 40% of the predetermined nominal input voltage”).
Since input voltage deviation can be wither higher or lower than the nominal value, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee based on the teaching of Deboy, to make the power supply system wherein the preparation condition is a condition that the input voltage be higher than a first threshold value, the interruption condition is a condition that the input voltage be higher than a second threshold value, and the second threshold value is higher than the first threshold value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to make power supply to “remains functional during short interruptions”, as Deboy suggests in [0029].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 and 4 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, and if amended to overcome the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections set forth in the Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. 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.
/CHARLES CAI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115