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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-13, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 23-27 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a compensation" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same compensation recited in claim 1 line 11?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a compensation" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same compensation recited in claim 1 line 11?
Claim 6 recites the limitation "apply compensation" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same compensation recited in claim 6 line 11?
Claims 7 and 9-13 inherit the same from claim 6.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the error signal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 recited two different error signals. It is unclear which error signal the applicant is referring to.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a compensation" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same compensation recited in claim 6 lines 11 or 17?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "apply compensation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same compensation recited in claim 1 line 11?
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the error signal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 recited two different error signals. It is unclear which error signal the applicant is referring to.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "a compensation" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same compensation recited in claim 6 line 11 or 17?
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the error signal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 recited two different error signals. It is unclear which error signal the applicant is referring to.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a compensation" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same compensation recited in claim 6 line 11 or 17?
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a compensation" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same compensation recited in claim 15 line 10?
Claim 18 recites the limitation "a compensation" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same compensation recited in claim 15 line 10?
Claim 20 recites the limitation "applying compensation" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same applied compensation recited in line 9?
Claims 21 and 23-27 inherit the same from claim 20.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the error signal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 recited two different error signals. It is unclear which error signal the applicant is referring to.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the error signal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 recited two different error signals. It is unclear which error signal the applicant is referring to.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the error signal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 recited two different error signals. It is unclear which error signal the applicant is referring to.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the error signal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 recited two different error signals. It is unclear which error signal the applicant is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Abdelhamid et al. (US 11962249).
Claims 1 and 15; Abdelhamid et al. disclose a system (and method) comprising: a multi-level power converter (110) comprising a plurality of switches (130, 146, 1452, 138, 140, 144, 148, 132 etc.), a power inductor (137) electrically coupled to the plurality of switches, and a flying capacitor (122) coupled to the plurality of switches, wherein the plurality of switches are controllable among a plurality of switch configurations (ON/OFF) in order to generate an output voltage (Vo) from an input voltage (Vin) received by the multi-level power converter (110); a flying capacitor voltage control loop (178, 156, 162, 164, 166, 168, etc.) configured to, based on an error signal (178) between a measurement of a flying capacitor voltage across terminals of the flying capacitor (VFC1) and a flying capacitor reference voltage (e.g. module 178 subtracts a measured flying capacitor voltage, VFC1, from a reference corresponding to balanced flying capacitor voltage), generate switch control signals for switching among the plurality of switch configurations in order to regulate the flying capacitor voltage (e.g. balance); and a compensator (160: 194, 192, 190, etc.) configured to apply compensation to the flying capacitor voltage control loop (e.g. Icond is based on Iobo and is an input to controller 156) based on an average of a measurement of an inductor current flowing through the power inductor (e.g. The flying capacitor current parameter, Iobs provides an estimate of the inductor average current generated by the multi-level power converter 110 for powering the load 118; col. 7 lines 54-56).
Claims 3 and 17; Abdelhamid et al. disclose the flying capacitor voltage control loop comprises a loop controller (156/162) configured to generate a control parameter based on the error signal (178) and generate the switch control signals based on the control parameter; and the compensator is configured to apply a compensation (e.g. Icond) to the control parameter based on the measurement of the inductor current (e.g. Iobo).
Claim 5; Abdelhamid et al. disclose the flying capacitor voltage control loop comprises a loop controller (156/162) configured to generate a control parameter based on the error signal (178) and generate the switch control signals based on the control parameter; and the compensator is configured to selectively (fig. 6; MUX 218) enable adaptation of the control parameter based on the measurement of the inductor current (e.g. Isign/Icond/Iodo).
Claims 6 and 20; Abdelhamid et al. disclose a system comprising: a multi-level power converter (110) comprising a plurality of switches (130, 146, 142, 138, 140, 144, 148, 132), a power inductor (137) electrically coupled to the plurality of switches, and a flying capacitor (e.g. 122) coupled to the plurality of switches, wherein the plurality of switches are controllable among a plurality of switch configurations (ON/OFF) in order to generate an output voltage (Vo) from an input voltage (Vin) received by the multi-level power converter (110); a power inductor current control loop (160, 162, 168, 166, 164, etc.) configured to, based on an error signal (192) between a measurement of an inductor current flowing through the power inductor (Iobo) and a reference inductor current (iref), generate switch control signals for switching among the plurality of switch configurations in order to regulate the inductor current; and a compensator (182, 184, 186, 190) configured to apply compensation to the power inductor current control loop based on a measurement of a flying capacitor voltage across terminals of the flying capacitor (ΔVFC1); a flying capacitor voltage control loop configured to, based on a second error signal (178) between a measurement of the flying capacitor voltage (VFC1) and a flying capacitor reference voltage (at 178), generate the switch control signals for switching among the plurality of switch configurations in order to regulate the flying capacitor voltage (e.g. balance); and wherein the compensator is further configured to apply compensation to the flying capacitor voltage control loop (through Icond) based on a measurement of the inductor current (e.g. Iobo).
Claim 7; Abdelhamid et al. the power inductor current control loop comprises a loop controller configured to generate a control parameter based on the [first] error signal (192) and generate the switch control signals based on the control parameter; and the compensator is configured to apply a compensation to the control parameter based on the measurement of the flying capacitor voltage (e.g. ΔVFC1: from 182, 184, 186).
Claims 10 and 24; the compensator is configured to apply compensation to the flying capacitor voltage control loop based on an average (e.g. col. 7 lines 54-56) of the inductor current flowing through the power inductor.
Claims 11 and 25; the flying capacitor voltage control loop comprises a loop controller (156/162) configured to generate a control parameter based on the [second] error signal (178) and generate the switch control signals based on the control parameter; and the compensator is configured to apply a compensation (e.g. Icond) to the control parameter based on the measurement of the inductor current (e.g. Iobo).
Claims 13 and 27; the flying capacitor voltage control loop comprises a loop controller (156/162) configured to generate a control parameter based on the error signal (178) and generate the switch control signals based on the control parameter; and the compensator is configured to selectively (fig. 6; MUX 218) enable adaptation of the control parameter based on the measurement of the inductor current (e.g. Isign/Icond/Iodo).
Claims 14 and 28; Abdelhamid et al. disclose a system (and method) comprising: a multi-level power converter (110) comprising a plurality of switches (130, 146, 142, 138, 140, 144, 148, 132), a power inductor (137) electrically coupled to the plurality of switches (130, 146, 142, 138, 140, 144, 148, 132), and a flying capacitor (VFC1) coupled to the plurality of switches, wherein the plurality of switches (130, 146, 142, 138, 140, 144, 148, 132) are controllable among a plurality of switch configurations (ON/OFF) in order to generate an output voltage (Vo) from an input voltage (Vin) received by the multi-level power converter (110), the switch configurations comprising at least a first switch configuration and a second switch configuration; and a flying capacitor voltage control loop configured to, in order to regulate (e.g. balance) a flying capacitor voltage of the flying capacitor: sequentially and periodically apply the first switch configuration (ON/OFF) and the second switch configuration (OFF/ON), such that an inductor current of the power inductor (137) flows through the flying capacitor in a first direction during the first switch configuration and flows through the flying capacitor in a second direction during the second switch configuration; and dynamically modify relative durations (i.e. duty cycles) of the first switch configuration and the second switch configuration based on a measurement of an the inductor current (Iobo) flowing through the power inductor (137).
Claim 19; the flying capacitor voltage control loop comprises a loop controller (156/162) configured to generate a control parameter based on the error signal (178) and generate the switch control signals based on the control parameter; and the compensator is configured to selectively (fig. 6; MUX 218) enable adaptation of the control parameter based on the measurement of the inductor current (e.g. Isign/Icond/Iodo).
Claim 21; a loop controller configured to generate a control parameter based on the [first] error signal (192) and generate the switch control signals based on the control parameter; and the compensator is configured to apply a compensation to the control parameter based on the measurement of the flying capacitor voltage (e.g. ΔVFC1: from 182, 184, 186). Or, a loop controller configured to generate a control parameter based on the [second] error signal (178) and generate the switch control signals based on the control parameter; and the compensator is configured to apply a compensation (through Icond or Isign) to the control parameter based on the measurement of the flying capacitor voltage (e.g. VFC1 from 178 or ΔVFC1 from 182, etc.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 9, 12, 18, 23 and 26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY L LAXTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2079. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 am-4 pm.
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 571-270-1682. 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.
/GARY L LAXTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 9/17/2026
Prosecution Insights