DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 13 December 2023.
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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to for the following informalities:
Though not required since the EU filing appears to have the earliest filing date, it is ordinary and customary to include the filing number and dates and publication dates (if available) of related applications filed in different offices.
The abstract is not in proper format. The abstract should be no longer than 150 words and should not have legal language (eg. comprising). See MPEP 608.01(b).
The title is not descriptive. Examiner suggests emphasizing the avoided cross regulation.
Paragraph 6 appears to be a run-on sentence and is not proper grammar. Applicant is cordially reminded that they are only limited to one sentence in the claims.
The 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the European Union on 15 December 2022.
Drawings
Figure 2 is objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels.
Figure 4 is objected to because in addition to the unlabeled rectangular boxes, the signals shown should be vo1-vo4 on the output of the ADC converter, since the freewheeling current appears to be directly fed to the average time generator.
Lastly, applicant makes claims about sensing the inductor current. If applicant is closing switch 3 at the same time as the freewheeling current switch, one would expect the current sensed value to short out. Though the specification suggests that the SFW and S3 both close at different time intervals during the freewheeling period, it would greatly help one of ordinary skill have a timing diagram of the gate or base signals for one or two cycles in steady state to buck-boost operation to clarify this.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As to claim 1, applicant claims “based on a sum of the set of currents suppliable to the plurality of loads”. In and of itself, this language is definite, however it is very unclear which portion of the specification this refers to. Applicant appears to be sensing the freewheeling current via Rfw, though no individual current control per load is shown. As such, it is unclear where the sum is being generated. As near as can be determined, applicants control system consists of an ADC, a PID, a multiplexer, a constant gain, an average time generator, and a logic circuit, none of which suggest adding currents. It is unclear if applicant meant either the freewheeling current, which is suggested by Figs. 1, 2 and 4 or the total current which may be suggested by Fig. 3. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed applicant mean the freewheeling current.
Claim 17 has issues to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2-16 depend directly or indirectly from a rejected claim and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) , or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph for the reasons set above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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. (The claims have been condensed.)
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.
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 of this title, 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 1, 2, 5, 6, 17 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 20040201281) in view of Eirea (US 20210281173).
As to claim 1, Ma discloses (Fig. 6D, see image below) Single-inductor multiple-output (SIMO) DC-DC converter (1), comprising: - an electrical DC voltage source switchable connected to an input node (n,) through an input switch;- a plurality of loads each being switchable connected to an output node through one output switch of a plurality of output switches, wherein the electrical DC voltage source and the loads are external to the SIMO DC-DC converter; - an inductor connected to the input node and the output node and being configured to buffer energy; - a control structure arranged to operate in consecutive cycles (Fig. 2) and being configured to generate control signals for the input switch and the output switches, wherein the inductor being energized and de-energized in one cycle of operation for supplying the plurality of loads with a set of currents (it is energized multiple times, with the cycle consisting of each load charge and discharge phase), wherein the control structure being configured to section the cycle of operation into a plurality of consecutive time segments with a duration, wherein in one time segment the inductor being energized (charging portion of phase 1/phase 2), wherein the duration of the one time segment-(s) being determined by the control structure (Fig. 5a-5C, ¶30 specifying current settings)
Though strongly implied, he does not explicitly teach feedback, or more specifically prior to a start of the cycle of operation.
Eirea teaches Single-inductor multiple-output (SIMO) DC-DC converter (Fig. 1), comprising: - an electrical DC voltage source switchable connected to an input node (n,) through an input switch;- a plurality of loads each being switchable connected to an output node through one output switch of a plurality of output switches, wherein the electrical DC voltage source and the loads are external to the SIMO DC-DC converter; - an inductor connected to the input node and the output node and being configured to buffer energy; - a control structure arranged to operate in consecutive cycles (Fig. 6) and being configured to generate control signals for the input switch and the output switches, wherein the inductor being energized and de-energized in one cycle of operation for supplying the plurality of loads with a set of currents (it is energized multiple times, with the cycle consisting of each load charge and discharge phase), wherein the control structure being configured to section the cycle of operation into a plurality of consecutive time segments with a duration, wherein in one time segment the inductor being energized, wherein the duration of the one time segment-(620) being determined by the control structure (680) prior to a start of the cycle of operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use peak current control as disclosed in Eirea to prevent overheating.
As to claim 2, Ma in view of Eiria teaches wherein the SIMO DC-DC converter (1) being configured as buck-boost converter.
As to claim 5, Ma in view of Eria teaches wherein the control structure being configured to operate the inductor in discontinuous or continuous conduction mode (Ma, Fig. 5C), dependent on the sum of the set of currents suppliable to the plurality of loads, and wherein the consecutive cycles of operation having a predetermined duration.
As to claim 6, Ma in view of Eria teaches wherein the control structure being configured to operate the inductor (L) in discontinuous or continuous conduction mode, dependent on the sum of the set of currents-(Ia- suppliable to the plurality of loads), and wherein the consecutive cycles of operation having a predetermined duration (Ma, Fig. 5A-C).
As to claim 17, this appears to be a method claim corresponding to claim 1 and is obvious for similar reasons.
PNG
media_image1.png
825
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 3, 4, 8, 9 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 20040201281) in view of Eirea (US 20210281173) and Liang (US 202101195333).
As to claim 3, Ma in view of Eirea teaches measuring an inductor current.
They do not teach a resistor switchable connected in parallel to the inductor (L) through an inductor switch for measuring current.
Liang teaches a resistor switchable connected (Fig. 2, Rsense/116) in parallel to the inductor (106) through an inductor switch (102) for measuring current.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use the CSR sensor to have a linear current sensor.
As to claim 4, Ma in view of Eirea and Liang teaches a first voltage sensor configured to determine a voltage (Vcsense) across the resistor (Rsesnse), and a plurality of second voltage sensors, each being configured to determine one load voltage (Ma and Eira both measure output output voltages) of a plurality of load voltages.
As to claim 8, Ma in view of Eirea and Liang teaches wherein the control structure comprises a digital controller adapted to receive the load voltages from the second voltage sensors (Eirea, state machine).
As to claim 9, Ma in view of Eirea and Liang do not explicitly teach wherein the digital controller (13) comprises a plurality of PI compensators (5), wherein each PI compensator (5) being configured to compensate a deviation between a load voltage (V-V4) and a corresponding load voltage setpoint. This however is for two reasons. First, Eirea explicitly teaches an analog low pass filter which acts as an integrator. Analog and digital controllers are both old and well known in the art, and therefore not patentable (See MPEP 2144.03 and US 5045774 Col. 3, lines 64-67; US 5138250 Claim 6; US 5574635, Col. 5 lines 41-45). The advantages of each are known. Digital control elements are generally easier to synchronize, whereas analog components are generally less bandwidth do not lose data when signals are digitized. The advantages and disadvantages of each are well known to ordinary skill, and therefore choosing one over the other is not patentable. Second, PID controllers are also extremely well known in the art and not patentable (MPEP 2144.03 and US 20120139509 Claim 7; US 20110178189 Claim 6; US 20220181974).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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:
As to claim 10, the prior art fails to disclose: “wherein the digital controller being configured to determine the duration of the said one time segment for energizing the inductor (L) by implementing the following equation Tu= SQRT(c/a) with a=VDC/2Li, and C=Ireq*Tcycle wherein VDC denotes a voltage of the electrical DC voltage source (Vi),Li denotes an inductance of the inductor (L), Ireq denotes the sum of currents suppliable to the plurality of loads (R-R, R,tu, denotes the duration of the said one time segment, and Tcycie denotes a predetermined duration of the cycle of operation.” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
As to claim 13, the prior art fails to disclose: “wherein the control structure comprises an analog circuit with a first capacitor, wherein a voltage of the first capacitor being directly proportional to a current conducted by the inductor in the said one time segment” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
Please note: while objected or allowed claims have been indicated, only the presented claims have been examined for compliance with form and 35 USC 112 consideration. As a reminder, claims that are dependent upon objected claims still require examination for form and 35 USC 112 issues even if they overcome 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections. Similarly, amendments incorporating allowable subject matter into independent claims requires reconsideration for dependent claim form and any possible 35 USC 112 issues that arise through amendments even if the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are overcome. As such, applicant is advised that while examiner can enter previously allowed claims or previously objected claims rewritten into independent form after final rejection, any other claims may not be entered.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular column, paragraph, 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1375. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM,Monday through Thursday, 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, Thienvu Tran can be reached on 571-270-1276. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/PETER M NOVAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2839