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 Objections
Claims 4, 6, 11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, lines 3-4, “the DC-DC converter modules” in “one of a plurality of the DC-DC converter modules” lacks antecedent basis and should be ‘one of a plurality of DC-DC converter modules’
Likewise in claims 11 and 17.
In claim 6, “to which the DC-DC converter module is operated” should be ‘to which DC-DC converter module is operated’.
Likewise for claim 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
In the response filed 1/20/2026, Applicant addressed most, but not all, of the claim objections made in the first office action dated 9/18/2025. The claim objections that were not addressed have been restated above.
Applicant’s amendments dated 5/11/2026 have addressed the indefiniteness type rejections of claims 4, 11 and 17.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the secondary reference Nazarian fails to cure the deficiencies of McJimsey, since Nazarian fails to disclose an MPPT profile. However, Examiner believes McJimsey discloses an MPPT profile and relies on Nazarian for teaching the storing of profiles.
Applicant argues Nazarian is not analogous art. In response to Applicant's argument that Nazarian is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the teaching of storing multiple profiles by Nazarian is pertinent to the particular problem of storing profiles with which the inventor was concerned.
Applicant argues the rejection relies upon improper hindsight reasoning. In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant states the office action presents no factually supported reasoning as to why one would turn to Nazarian in order to permit a host to select the MPPT profile in order to configure the controller for the energy harvesting module. Examiner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have to turned to Nazarian for the teaching of the benefit of storing multiple profiles. Examiner maintains the primary reference McJimsey teaches the claimed MPPT profile and the secondary reference Nazarian teaches storing multiple profiles and it would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement storing multiple MPPT profiles. The rejection of claim 1 has been maintained below
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) 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McJimsey (US 2014/0103892) in view of Nazarian (US 6,757,481).
With respect to claim 1, McJimsey discloses an electrical power energy converter unit for converting Direct Current to Direct Current (DC-DC), the converter comprising: a DC-DC converter module (Fig. 11 1136,1126,1134), arranged to convert a low-power (Fig. 5 303) direct current input signal (Fig. 11 Vin) received from an energy harvesting module (Fig. 11 1104), into a direct current output signal (Fig. 11 Vout) for powering a load (Fig. 11 1106); a controller module (Fig. 11 1105,1113-1121), operably coupled to and arranged to control the DC-DC converter module, and arranged to convert the direct current input signal to the direct current output signal according to a Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) profile (Fig. 11 1105 stores configuration code representing the profile for 1113), wherein the controller module comprises a memory (paragraph 109) for storing the MPPT profile; a sensor module (Fig. 11 1111) operably coupled to the controller module and the direct current output of the DC-DC converter module, and arranged to measure the direct current output (Fig. 11 Vout) to the load; and to operate (Fig. 7 704) the DC-DC converter module according to (Fig. 7 702) the selected MPPT profile. McJimsey discloses storing the configuration code for an MPPT profile, but remains silent as to a communication interface to receive a command signal to select the MPPT profile.
Nazarian discloses the controller module (Fig. 2 98) comprises a memory (Fig. 2 97) for storing the profile (Fig. 1 22) and at least one further profile (Fig. 1 20); and a communication interface (Fig. 2 76,38,86), operably coupled to the controller module, arranged to interface with a micro-controller (Fig. 2 36) external from the electrical power energy converter unit (Fig. 2 26) to receive a command signal (column 7, lines 59-60) thereof, wherein the command signal defines which profile and at least one further profile is selected (Fig. 1 25) for the controller module to operate the converter module (Fig. 2 103) according to the selected profile. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the controller module comprises a memory for storing the MPPT profile and at least one further MPPT profile; and a communication interface, operably coupled to the controller module, arranged to interface with a micro-controller external from the electrical power energy converter unit to receive a command signal thereof, wherein the command signal defines which of the MPPT profile and at least one further MPPT profile is selected for the controller module to operate the DC-DC converter module according to the selected MPPT profile, in order to permit a host to select the MPPT profile in order to configure the controller for the energy harvesting module.
With respect to claim 3, McJimsey in view of Nazarian make obvious the electrical power energy converter unit according to claim 1, wherein the controller module comprises an MPPT state machine (Fig. 11 1113) to operate the selected MPPT profile.
With respect to claim 5, McJimsey in view of Nazarian make obvious the electrical power energy converter unit according to claim 1, wherein the MPPT profiles are arranged to change the operating of the DC-DC converter module by changing one or more of: a switching frequency of the DC-DC converter module; a conversion ratio of the DC-DC converter module (Fig. 8 adjust for Vin, which sets Vout/Vin); a number of parallel operating power switches comprised in the DC-DC converter module; a resistor value of a resistor (Fig. 8 R1) comprised in the sensor module; an MPPT interval; an overcurrent value; and an undercurrent value.
With respect to claim 7, McJimsey in view of Nazarian make obvious the electrical power energy converter unit according to claim 1, wherein the controller module is arranged to output to the micro-controller connected to the controller module one or more of: a switching frequency of the DC-DC converter module; a conversion ratio (Fig. 8 adjust for Vin, which sets Vout/Vin)of the DC-DC converter module; a number of parallel operating power switches comprised in the DC-DC converter module; a resistor value of a resistor (Fig. 8 R1) comprised in the sensor module; an MPPT interval; an overcurrent value; and an undercurrent value.
With respect to claim 9, McJimsey in view of Nazarian make obvious the electrical power energy converter unit according to claim 1, wherein the controller module is arranged to operate the DC-DC converter according to the MPPT profile in which MPPT is bypassed (paragraph 56; no MPPT during bypass).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McJimsey (US 2014/0103892) in view of Nazarian (US 6,757,481) and further in view of Kohno (2013/0041511).
With respect to claim 8, McJimsey in view of Nazarian make obvious the electrical power energy converter unit according to claim 1 as set forth above, and remain silent as to converting the sensed analog signals to digital and which values to send to the communication interface. It was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sense values with an analog to digital converter.
Kohno discloses converting the analog signals to digital with analog to digital converters (Fig. 1a ADC1,ADC2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement an Analogue to Digital Converter (ADC) operably coupled to the controller module and the sensor module for readout of the sensor module by the controller module and outputting the readout to a micro-controller connected to the controller module, in order to convert the sensed signal to digital values for digital processing and to relay the values for end use by the user.
Withdrawn Rejections
Upon further consideration, the rejections of claims 4 and 6 have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 10-18 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. See the action dated 2/9/26 for the reasons for indicating allowable subject matter for claim 2.
With respect to claim 4, the prior art does not disclose or suggest, in combination with the limitations of the base claim, primarily, wherein the memory of the controller module comprises a plurality of MPPT profiles to operate one of a plurality of DC-DC converter modules, and wherein each of the MPPT profiles provides an application specific operation of the electrical power energy converter unit.
With respect to claim 6, the prior art does not disclose or suggest, in combination with the limitations of the base claim, primarily, wherein the controller module is arranged to dynamically adapt the MPPT profile according to which DC-DC converter module is operated, and wherein the controller module is arranged to receive one or more of: a switching frequency of the DC-DC converter module; a conversion ratio of the DC-DC converter module; a number of parallel operating power switches comprised in the DC-DC converter module; a resistor value of a resistor comprised in the sensor module; an MPPT interval; an overcurrent value; and an undercurrent value.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of the respective claims are believed to render the aforementioned indicated claim and any dependent claims thereof patentable over the art of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY RAYMOND BEHM whose telephone number is (571)272-8929. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Thienvu Tran can be reached at 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 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.
/HARRY R BEHM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights