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 .
Claims 1-13 and 26-31 are pending in this application. Claims 15–25 are cancelled. Claim 14 is withdrawn. Claims 26-31 are new.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/16/26.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 014/19/24 and 12/31/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 03/26/24.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Pars [0062] line 1 – processing unit 120 not in fig. 4 as mentioned
Par [0079] line 3 and 5 – power supply circuit 110 not in fig. 4 as mentioned
Par [0140] line 2 and 3 – resistor R11 not in fig. 10 as mentioned (R20 is shown)
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. 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.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract line 2 – “pow-er” should be replaced with “power”
Abstract line 4 – “sup-ply” should be replaced with “supply”
Abstract line 5 – “supply ,” should be replaced with “supply,”
Par [140] line 2 and 3 – “R11” should be replaced with “R20” as shown in fig. 10
Par [0175] line 2 – “V_REF” should be replaced with “HVCTRL_REF” as shown in fig. 16
Par [0222] line 1 – “FIG. 1” should be replaced with “FIG. 18”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 27-28 are objected to.
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 27-28 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 27 lines 2-11 – “C1-C4” appear to be capacitors C3 and C6-C8 of first rectifier and filter circuit 122 of FIG. 4. Corrective action is necessary.
Claim 27 lines 13-22 – “C5-C8” appear to be capacitors C2 and C9-C11 of second rectifier and filter circuit 123 of FIG. 4. Corrective action is necessary.
Claim 28 lines 3 and 6-7 – “C3, C4, C7, C8” corrective action is necessary to correlate to capacitors referenced in FIG. 4 as stated above.
Claim 27 “used to provide” should be replaced with “configured to provide”
Claim 28 “used to output” should be replaced with “configured to output”
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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The terms “Forward voltage”, “forward power supply” and “backward voltage” in claim 1 are used by the claim to mean “forward" or "backward" direction ,” while the accepted meaning is “"positive" voltage/power supply and "negative" voltage.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 1, 7, 1-11, 13, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: an apparatus is claimed, however the claims have method features.
Claim 1, “power supply circuit provides a first power supply” should be replaced with “power supply circuit is configured to provide a first power supply”. Similar correction is required for “processing unit provides”, “processing end provides” of claim 1 and 13, “filter circuit provides” in claim 7, “first comparator (U5) outputs” and “second comparator (U6) outputs”, “second comparator (U6) outputs” of claim 10, “processing unit controls” of claim 11, “the first sampling voltage and the second sampling voltage are transmitted”, “processor transmits” of claim 29, “processor compares”, “processor outputs” of claim 30, “comparison circuit outputs” of claim 31 and any other instance of method operations within the apparatus claims.
Claims 2-12 and 26-31 are rejected for their dependency on rejected claims 1 and 13.
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.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being by Neumayr et al. (US 20170373608 A1), hereinafter Neumayr .
Regarding claim 1, Neumayr discloses an apparatus for supplying power (fig 10 and 17, Vin, circuits 2, 3, 42, 5), comprising a power supply circuit (fig 10/17, Vin 11, 12) and a processing unit (fig 10/17, circuits 2, 3, 42, 5, 6), wherein the power supply circuit is connected with an electric energy input end of the processing unit, and the power supply circuit provides a first power supply for the processing unit (fig 10/17, Vin 11, 12 see input connection from power supply Vin 11 and 12 to circuit 2); and a positive voltage output end of the processing unit provides a positive power supply (fig 10/17, power supply 52), and a negative voltage output end of the processing end provides a negative power supply (fig 10/17, voltage V5), wherein the processing unit includes a resonant circuit (fig 10/17, resonant circuits in 42 and explained in par [0074]), a first switching frequency of the processing unit includes a resonant frequency of the resonant circuit (fig 10/17, switching frequency f2; par [0075] “switching frequency f2 of the chopper circuit 2 equals the resonant frequency of the individual series resonant circuits”), and the resonant frequency is outside an effective frequency range of a load of the apparatus for supplying power (par [0039] explains that the output voltage v.sub.OUT is the result of low-pass filtering the selector output voltage v5, wherein the low-pass filter may be implemented such that its cutoff frequency is below the switching frequency of the selector circuit 5, but higher than a maximum frequency of the output voltage v.sub.OUT; this is considered to be outside of frequency range for the load; claim 12 “wherein the filter circuit is configured to have a waveform of a voltage at the output defined by a load”).
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.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumayr et al. (US 20170373608 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bowman et al (US 4685041 A) hereinafter Bowman.
Regarding claim 2, Neumayr discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the resonant frequency being outside the effective frequency range of the load includes: the resonant frequency being outside the effective frequency range of the load.
Neumayr fails to disclose an nth harmonic frequency range of the effective frequency range of the load; and/or an nth harmonic of the resonant frequency being outside the effective frequency range of the load and the nth harmonic frequency range of the effective frequency range of the load.
Bowman discloses a resonant rectifier circuit where the voltage waveform applied into the output filter is devoid of the fundamental converter switching frequency and all odd numbered harmonics of this frequency. Bowman discloses wherein the resonant frequency being outside the effective frequency range of the load includes: the resonant frequency being outside the effective frequency range of the load and an nth harmonic frequency range of the effective frequency range of the load (col 9 lines 43-48 describes the voltage waveform applied into the output filter and load is devoid of the fundamental converter switching frequency and all odd numbered harmonics of this frequency); and/or an nth harmonic of the resonant frequency being outside the effective frequency range of the load and the nth harmonic frequency range.
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 teachings of Neumayr and incorporate the resonant frequency being different than the frequency range of the load as taught by Bowman. The advantage of this design is to eliminate interference of frequency spectrum between the components.
Regarding claim 3, Neumayr and Bowman disclose the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the resonant circuit includes a resonant capacitor bank and an inductor (Neumayr fig 10, capacitors 41n, 42n and 43n in circuits 42 and 41, inductors 31.sub.1, 31.sub.2, 31.sub.n, and 61), the resonant capacitor bank includes one or more resonant capacitors (Neumayr fig 10 shows a plurality of resonant capacitors), and the resonant capacitor bank is connected in series with the inductor (Neumayr fig 10 shows series connection of capacitors and inductors).
Regarding claim 4, Neumayr and Bowman disclose the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the resonant capacitor bank includes a first resonant capacitor subset (Neumayr fig 18, subset 431 and 432) and a second resonant capacitor subset (Neumayr fig 18, subset 431-, 432-, 43n-), one end of the first resonant capacitor subset is connected with one end of the second resonant capacitor subset (Neumayr fig 18, one end of top capacitors 431 and 432 connected to one end of bottom capacitors 431- and 432- ), another end of the first resonant capacitor subset is configured to receive a biasing voltage (Neumayr fig 18, V41), and another end of the second resonant capacitor subset is grounded (Neumayr fig 18, referenced to 0V between V+ and V-).
Regarding claim 5, Neumayr and Bowman disclose the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the first resonant capacitor subset and the second resonant capacitor subset are symmetrically arranged with a connection end of the first resonant capacitor subset and the second resonant capacitor subset as a center (Neumayr fig 18, see symmetry between capacitor subsets 431 and 432 and 431-, 432-, 43n- connecting in the center).
Regarding claim 6, Neumayr and Bowman disclose the apparatus of claim 5, wherein a difference in capacitance between the first resonant capacitor subset and the second resonant capacitor subset is less than or equal to 5% of either capacitance of the first resonant capacitor subset or the second resonant capacitor subset (Neumayr fig 19 example is similar to the instant application’s simplified resonant circuit of fig 6 with equivalent capacitors as the capacitor subsets; par [0097] “The capacitive voltage divider includes two capacitors 24+, 24−, which, according to one example, have the same capacitance”; with the same capacitance, the difference would be zero which is less than 5%).
Regarding claim 7, Neumayr and Bowman disclose the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processing unit further includes a rectifier and filter circuit (Neumayr fig 10/17, rectifier circuit 4 and output filter circuit 6), an input end of the rectifier and filter circuit is connected with an output end of the resonant circuit (Neumayr par[0074] “Each of these resonant circuits is associated with one tap 32.sub.i and includes the tap capacitor 41.sub.i connected to the respective tap 32.sub.i, a leakage inductance 33.sub.i”; see fig 10, output of resonance circuits 3 is the input to rectifier circuits 4), the rectifier and filter circuit is symmetrically arranged with the resonance circuit as a center (Neumayr fig 17 shows an embodiment of the circuit with resonant circuit configured symmetrically in the center), a first output end of the rectifier and filter circuit provides the positive power supply, and a second output end of the rectifier and filter circuit provides the negative power supply (Neumayr par [0096] “In the modification shown in FIG. 18 positive and negative DC link voltages are available, so that a selector circuit 5 (not shown in FIG. 18) can synthesize an output voltage having positive or negative levels.”).
Regarding claim 8, Neumayr and Bowman disclose the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the resonant circuit further includes a switch and a driver (U1) (Neumayr fig 10/17, S21.sub.H and S21.sub.L and driver 25), an electric energy input end of the driver (U1) is connected with the power supply circuit (Neumayr fig 10 Vin 11, 12), the driver (U1) is configured to receive a drive signal and control the switch (implicit of a driver), the switch is connected with the power supply circuit (Neumayr fig 10/17, S21.sub.H and S21.sub.L connected to Vin 11, 12), and the switch is configured to receive the first power supply (Neumayr fig 10/17, Vin); and a difference between a frequency of the drive signal and the resonant frequency is within a preset range (Neumayr par [0042] “each of these frequencies f2 and f4 is selected from between several kilohertz (kHz) and several megahertz (MHz), in particular between 10 kHz and 1 MHz.”).
Regarding claim 9, Neumayr and Bowman disclose the apparatus of claim , the apparatus further includes a first feedback circuit (Bowman fig 3, feedback network from Vout to control signal 106) wherein the first feedback circuit is configured to receive and output the positive power supply, the negative power supply, and a reference voltage to a processor (MCU), so that the processor (MCU) transmits a first enable signal to the processing unit (120) (Bowman fig 3, feedback network control signal 103).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumayr et al. (US 20170373608 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vinciarelli (US 20030142513 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Vinciarelli discloses a medical device (par [0161] “examples of applications which will benefit from the density and efficiency advantages of the FPA may be identified in other markets for electronic products, including, in particular, consumer, medical”; examiner interprets that Factorized Power Architecture claimed can be used with a medical device), comprising: a detector (fig 9, switch controller 130; claim 114 “output switch controller adapted to detect”; if it detects it is a detector) and an apparatus for supplying power (abstract “power regulator providing controlled DC bus voltages distributed and converted to load voltages”).
The remaining features of claim 13 are outlined in the rejection above for claim 1 as being unpatentable over Neumayr.
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 teachings of Vinciarelli and incorporate apparatus for suppling power as taught by Neumayr. The advantage of this design is utilizing the power supply apparatus with a medical device such as an MRI or X-ray device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
Regarding claim 10, Neumayr and Bowman disclose the apparatus of claim 9.
Neumayr and Bowman fail to disclose the apparatus further includes a second feedback circuit, the second feedback circuit includes a first comparator (U5) and a second comparator (U6), wherein the first comparator (U5) outputs a first comparison result according to the forward power supply and the reference voltage, the second comparator (U6) outputs a second comparison result according to the negative power supply and the reference voltage; and the second feedback circuit transmits a second enable signal and a third enable signal to the processing unit according to the first comparison result and the second comparison result.
Neumayr and Bowman have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “a second feedback circuit, the second feedback circuit includes a first comparator (U5) and a second comparator (U6), wherein the first comparator (U5) outputs a first comparison result according to the forward power supply and the reference voltage, the second comparator (U6) outputs a second comparison result according to the negative power supply and the reference voltage; and the second feedback circuit transmits a second enable signal and a third enable signal to the processing unit according to the first comparison result and the second comparison result”.
Claims 11-12 and 29-31 would also be allowable for their dependency on allowable claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren A Shaw whose telephone number is (571)272-3074. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-5 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.
/LAUREN ASHLEY SHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838