DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 3/13/2024.
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 1 and 9-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the operation” lacks proper antecedent basis. Regarding claim 9, the limitations “the frequency” and “the number” lacks proper antecedent basis. Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the power supply” lacks proper antecedent basis. Regarding claim 11, the limitations “the other side” and “the power supply” lacks proper antecedent basis. Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the voltage detector” lacks proper antecedent basis. Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the charge switch” and “the capacitor fill threshold” lacks proper antecedent basis. Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the current ” lacks proper antecedent basis. Regarding clam 15, the limitation “the current” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-15 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. Regarding claim 11, it’s not clear as to if the limitation “the capacitor” is the same or different from the limitation “the storage capacitor” mentioned in claim 1. Furthermore, the limitation “the capacitor” lacks proper antecedent basis. Dependent claims 12-15 inherits the deficiencies of dependent claim 11 and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b). Further regarding claim 12, it’s not clear as to if the limitation “the switch” is the same or different from the limitation “the charge switch” mentioned in claim 12. Furthermore, the limitation “the switch” lacks proper antecedent basis.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 11-15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jensen et al. (US 2019/0372564). Regarding claim 1, Jensen et al. discloses (see fig. 6-7) a drive circuit (415, 430, 455, 470) for a load (460), the circuit comprising: a switch (455); a storage capacitor (430) coupled to the switch on one side (connection to 455) and configured to supply power to the switch (430 discharge to 455), the switch configured to alternately connect and disconnect the storage capacitor to the load (operation of 455); and a control circuit (470) coupled to the switch (output from 470 to control operation of 455), configured to control the operation of the switch to provide a drive cycle to the load (operation of 470 controlling the on/off operation of 455), the drive cycle having a series of pulses (on/off pulses). Regarding claim 4, Jensen et al. discloses (see fig. 6-7) the control circuit (470) comprises a request port configured to receive a pulse request signal (input receiving output from 465), wherein the control circuit initiates a drive cycle in response to receiving the pulse request signal (470 operation based on output from 465). Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Jensen et al. discloses (see fig. 6-7) a pre-charge circuit (415/435, controller 470, 605, 610) coupled to a power supply (405) on one side and to the capacitor on the other side (415/435 connection between 405 and 430) configured to charge the capacitor with power from the power supply (operation of pre-charge circuit 415/435). Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Jensen et al. discloses (see fig. 6-7) the voltage detector (465) is coupled to the pre-charge circuit (connection to controller 470), wherein the pre-charge circuit comprises a charge switch (415) between the storage capacitor and the power supply (415 is located between 405 and 430), and wherein the pre-charge circuit is configured to connect the switch to charge the storage capacitor when the detected voltage is below a capacitor fill threshold (see fig. 7 boxes 705-720). Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Jensen et al. discloses (see fig. 6-7) that the pre-charge circuit (415/435, controller 470, 605, 610) is configured to disconnect the charge switch to stop charging the storage capacitor when the detected voltage is above the capacitor fill threshold (see fig. 5 box 720). Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Jensen et al. discloses (see fig. 6-7) the pre-charge circuit (415/435, controller 470, 605, 610) comprises a resistor (605) coupled at one end to the storage capacitor (connection to same ground as 430) and coupled to a power supply at an opposite end (connection to 405 through 415/435) configured to limit the current from the power supply to the storage capacitor (operation of 605). Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Jensen et al. discloses (see fig. 6-7) that the pre-charge circuit comprises a DC (Direct Current) - DC converter (415/435, 420, controller 470, 605, 610, 450) or a current-limited continuous-time voltage regulator configured to control the current to the storage capacitor. Regarding claims 18 and 20, Jensen et al. discloses (see fig. 6-7) a method comprising: receiving a drive cycle request at a control circuit (470 receiving indication that the energy in inductor 435 added to the energy in 430 equals the desired energy level. See paragraph 0062); connecting a storage capacitor to a load through a switch between the storage capacitor and the load in response to the drive cycle request (closing 455 to connect 430 to 460, once the energy level is met. See paragraph 0063), the storage capacitor being coupled to the control circuit (connection to 470 through 465), the control circuit operating the switch in a drive cycle having a series of pulses to provide power to the load (470 on/off pulses); and enabling a pre-charge circuit (415/435, controller 470) to provide current to the storage capacitor during the drive cycle (415/435, controller 470) pre-charging 430 during the charging phase of the cycle).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 8, 10, 16-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen et al. (US 2019/0372564) in view of Noguchi et al. (US Patent 10033372). Regarding claim 2, Jensen et al. does not disclose that the control circuit further comprises a stop port configured to receive a stop signal from the load, the control circuit to cause the switch to disconnect the storage capacitor from the load in response to the stop signal. Noguchi et al. discloses (see fig. ) that a control circuit (33) further comprises a stop port (input to 33a) configured to receive a stop signal from a load (signal indicating that the load is not fully activated), the control circuit to cause a switch (SW1) to disconnect a storage capacitor (C1) from the load in response to the stop signal (operation of 33 turning SW! off). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the circuit of Jensen et al. to include the features of Noguchi et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 3, Jensen et al. does not disclose that the load has an intended range of motion and wherein the stop signal is received upon the load reaching the intended range of motion. Noguchi et al. discloses (see fig. ) that the load has an intended range of motion (load being either fully activated or not fully activated) and wherein the stop signal is received upon the load reaching the intended range of motion (load sending signal indicating that it’s not fully activated). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the circuit of Jensen et al. to include the features of Noguchi et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 5, Jensen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for each pulse of the series of pulses being a voltage greater than a minimum effective voltage of the load. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to have each pulse of the series of pulses comprise a voltage greater than a minimum effective voltage of the load, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the circuit of Jensen et al. to include the features of having each pulse of the series of pulses comprise a voltage greater than a minimum effective voltage of the load, because it provides for a reduction in component/operation variances, which can increase operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 8, Jensen et al. does not disclose that the control circuit comprises a logic circuit to start a pulse when a storage capacitor voltage exceeds a threshold, a pulse request is received, and no stop signal is received. Noguchi et al. discloses (see fig. 9) that a control circuit comprises a logic circuit (33a) to start a pulse (output from 33a to control SW1) when a storage capacitor voltage exceeds a threshold (output from 22a), a pulse request is received (input to 33a), and no stop signal is received (signal not indicating that load is fully activated). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the circuit of Jensen et al. to include the features of Noguchi et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 10, Jensen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the power supply comprising a battery having one or more cells. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the power supply comprise a battery having one or more cells, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the circuit of Jensen et al. to include the features of having the power supply comprise a battery having one or more cells, because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a reduction in component variance, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 16, Jensen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the load comprising a shape memory alloy wire coupled to a workpiece. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the load comprise a shape memory alloy wire coupled to a workpiece, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the circuit of Jensen et al. to include the features of having the load comprise a shape memory alloy wire coupled to a workpiece, because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a reduction in component variance, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 17, Jensen et al. does not disclose that the load comprises a plurality of loads, the drive circuit further comprising a multiplexing switch coupled to the control circuit to connect the storage capacitor to different ones of the loads in response to the control circuit. Noguchi et al. discloses (see fig. 12) that a the load comprises a plurality of loads (14/16), a drive circuit further comprising a multiplexing switch (SWx1/SWx2) coupled to a control circuit (52) to connect a storage capacitor (Cx) to different ones of the loads in response to the control circuit (operation of 52 connecting Cx to loads 14/16 by controlling SWx1 and SWx2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the circuit of Jensen et al. to include the features of Noguchi et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 19, Jensen et al. discloses (see fig. 6-7) detecting a voltage at the storage capacitor (465), wherein enabling the pre-charge circuit comprises enabling the pre-charge circuit to provide current to the storage capacitor in response to detecting a voltage that is below a capacitor fill threshold and disabling the pre-charge circuit to stop providing current to the storage capacitor in response to detecting a voltage that is above the capacitor fill threshold (see fig. 7 boxes 705-720). Jensen et al. does not disclose that operating the switch comprises disconnecting the storage capacitor from the load in response to detecting a voltage that is below a low voltage drive threshold and reconnecting the storage capacitor to the load in response to detecting a voltage that is above a high voltage drive threshold. Noguchi et al. discloses (see fig. 9) that operating a switch (operation of SWx) comprises disconnecting a storage capacitor (Cx) from a load (!4) in response to detecting a voltage that is below a low voltage drive threshold (operation of 22) and reconnecting the storage capacitor (Cx) to the load (14) in response to detecting a voltage that is above a high voltage drive threshold (operation of 22). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the circuit of Jensen et al. to include the features of Noguchi et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen et al. (US 2019/0372564) in view of Wei et al. (US Patent 9401637). Regarding claim 9, Jensen et al. does not disclose that the control circuit comprises a time reference and logic to determine a duration of a pulse, the frequency of the pulses within a drive cycle and the number of pulses within a drive cycle. Wei et al. discloses (see fig. 4) that a control circuit (64) comprises a time reference (clock input to 64) and logic (64 is a logic circuit) to determine a duration of a pulse, the frequency of the pulses within a drive cycle and the number of pulses within a drive cycle (PWM/PFM operation of 64). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the circuit of Jensen et al. to include the features of Wei et al. because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lesso et al. (US 2025/0192585) discloses an apparatus and methods for transferring charge. Shterzer (US 2025/0158602) discloses a pulse forming network with a storage capacitor and load. Zhou et al. (US 2023/0219436) discloses a direct current converter controlling method and vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A GBLENDE whose telephone number is (571)270-5472. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-272-1838. 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.
/JEFFREY A GBLENDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838