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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 March 2026 has been entered.
Specification
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that a single reference does not teach “a regulator and driver which regulates the branch current at a threshold by controlling the second switch current conducted by the second switch of the power switch when the power is on”. Applicant is technically correct in this statement. No single reference in the 103 rejection teaches that. However, the courts have advised against arguing against references in the individual (See MPEP 2145 (IV)). As such this argument does not appear to be persuasive. Especially when Knoedgen states “In particular, the controller may be configured to determine the duration of the on-period based on a pre-determined peak current. By way of example, the power converter switch may be kept in on-state until the auxiliary signal reaches the pre-determined peak current, thereby providing the duration of the on-period” in ¶16. Unfortunately, it appears the 103 rejections must be sustained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 13, 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jie (CN 103023298) in view of Balakrishnan (US 5282107) and Knoedgen (US 20150244248). Examiner Note: This reference was provided on the applicant’s IDS, but a machine translation was previously provided.
As to claim 1, Jie discloses A first controller (Fig. 3, item 300) for a power converter (Fig. 3), the first controller comprising: a driver (309, PWM) configured to provide a drive signal to turn ON and turn OFF a power switch (302, 303) to control energy delivery between an input and an output of the power converter, wherein the power switch includes a first switch and a second switch coupled in a cascode configuration, and wherein the first switch (302) is a normally-on device and the second switch is a normally-off device (303); a supply terminal coupled to a bypass capacitor (107) that provides operating power to the first controller, wherein the bypass capacitor has a bypass voltage (Vin); a branch switch (312) coupled to a node between the first switch and the second switch; and a branch control (307, 308, 310, 311) configured to receive a regulation signal representative of a comparison (307) of the bypass voltage to a bypass reference (Vref), wherein the branch current is at least a first portion of the drain current conducted by the first switch, and a regulator (300) configured to
Though he does teach much of the invention he does not specifically teach current sensing and non-zero and when the power switch is on.
Balakrishnan teaches A first controller (78) for a power converter (Fig. 4), the first controller comprising: a driver (output 86) configured to provide a drive signal to turn ON and turn OFF a power switch (88, 86) to control energy delivery between an input and an output of the power converter, wherein the power switch includes a first switch and a second switch coupled in a cascode configuration, and wherein the first switch (86) is a normally-on device and the second switch is a normally-off device (88); wherein the branch current is at least a first portion of the drain current conducted by the first switch, and a regulator (82, 85) configured to
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 of Jie to use the current protection method of Balakrishnan to prevent overheating.
Knoedgen teaches wherein the regulator and driver are configured to regulate the branch current to not exceed at hreshold by controlling a switch current conducted by the switch, wherein the switch current is non-zero (¶10 “transistor may be operated in a linear mode, such that the supply voltage transistor exhibits a current limiting and adjustable on-resistance. Alternatively or in addition, the supply voltage transistor may be arranged in series with a current limiting resistor or some other current limiting components in order to limit the current”) and when the power switch is turned on (¶16 “In particular, the controller may be configured to determine the duration of the on-period based on a pre-determined peak current. By way of example, the power converter switch may be kept in on-state until the auxiliary signal reaches the pre-determined peak current, thereby providing the duration of the on-period”)
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 of above to use adjustable resistance of Knoedgen to provide more current control.
As to claim 2, Jie in view of Balakrishnan and Knoedgen teaches wherein the driver is configured to turn ON and turn OFF the second switch to control the turn ON and turn OFF the power switch (Fig. 3, PWM).
As to claim 3, Jie in view of Balakrishnan and Knoedgen teaches wherein the first switch is a normally-on device and the second switch is a normally-off device (Jie Fig. 3 and Balakrishnan Fig. 4).
As to claim 4, Jie in view of Balakrishnan and Knoedgen teaches wherein a gate of the first switch is coupled to a source of the second switch (both references show this).
As to claim 5, Jie in view of Balakrishnan and Knoedgen teaches a comparator coupled to the terminal and configured to output to the branch control a regulation signal representative of the comparison of the voltage at the terminal with the reference (Balakrishnan, Fig. 4).
As to claim 6, Jie in view of Balakrishnan and Knoedgen teaches wherein the branch control is configured to turn ON the branch switch in response to a determination to turn ON the power switch (the controller turns on the flyback switch).
As to claim 7, Jie in view of Balakrishnan and Knoedgen teaches wherein the branch control is configured to turn ON the branch switch during at least a portion of the time in which the power switch is determined to be ON (it will be turned on as long as the current or voltage does not overshoot thresholds, as taught by the combination).
As to claim 10, Jie in view of Balakrishnan and Knoedgen teaches wherein the branch control is configured to turn OFF the branch switch in response to the voltage at the terminal reaching the reference or the drain current reaching a current limit (Balakrishnan, Fig. 4).
As to claim 13, Jie in view of Balakrishnan and Knoedgen teaches wherein the driver is configured to turn ON the second switch such that the second switch current is substantially the drain current after the turn OFF of the branch switch (Fig. 3/ Fig. 4).
As to claim 15, Jie in view of Balakrishnan and Knoedgen teaches wherein the shunt regulator is configured to provide a shunt output voltage to the driver (332), wherein the driver determines a gate voltage of the second switch in response to the shunt output voltage (UFB), and wherein the second current (Uz) conducted by the second switch is responsive to the gate voltage of the second switch.
As to claim 16, Jie in view of Balakrishnan and Knoedgen teaches a main control configured to receive a request signal representative of turning on the power switch, wherein the main control determines if the power switch should be ON or OFF; wherein the branch control is coupled to the main control, wherein the branch switch is configured to to turn ON the branch switch if the bypass voltage is below the bypass reference and the main control determines to turn ON the power switch, in response to the comparison of the voltage at the terminal and the reference and determination to turn on the power switch (this is primarily taught by Jie, items 307, and the feedback loop).
As to claim 17, Jie in view of Balakrishnan and Knoedgen teaches wherein the branch control is configured to turn OFF the branch switch in response to the voltage at the terminal reaching the reference or in response to a determination to turn OFF the power switch (Balakrishnan Fig. 4).
As to claim 18, Jie in view of Balakrishnan and Knoedgen teaches wherein the main control is configured to receive a current sense signal representative of the drain current and configured to determine to turn OFF the power switch in response to the drain current reaching a current limit (Fig. 4).
As to claim 19, Jie in view of Balakrishnan and Knoedgen teaches wherein the driver is configured to turn ON the second switch in response to the determination by the main control to turn ON the power switch and the branch switch being OFF (Jie, Fig. 3 powers the bias first).
As to claim 20, Jie in view of Balakrishnan and Knoedgen teaches wherein the controller is configured to be coupled to a communication link to receive the request signal (Feedback).
As to claim 21, Jie in view of Balakrisnan and Knoedgen teaches wherein the second portion of the drain current is a remaining portion of the drain current (Fig.. 3, Fig. 4).
Claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jie (CN 103023298) in view of Balakrishnan (US 5282107), Knoedgen (US 20150244248) and Kuang (US 2013077353).
As to claim 8, Jie in view of Balakrishnan and Knoedgen does not teach wherein the branch control is configured to turn ON the branch switch for a fixed period of time.
Kuang teaches teaches wherein the branch control is configured to turn ON the branch switch for a fixed period of time (KaungFig. 5, t3-t4).
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 of Jie to use the startup method as disclosed in Kuang to decrease starting time.
As to claim 9, Jie in view of Balakrishnan, Knoedgen and Kuang teaches wherein the driver is configured to turn ON the second switch such that the second switch current is substantially the drain current after the fixed period of time (Balakrishnan, Fig. 4).
As to claim 11, Jie in view of Balakrishnan and Kuang, Knoedgen and Kuang teaches wherein the branch switch is turned on for a fixed number of consecutive switching cycles (Kuang, t4-t5).
As to claim 12, Jie in view of Balakrishnan, Knoedgen and Kuang teaches wherein the driver is configured to turn ON the second switch if the branch switch is OFF and the drain current is less than the current limit (Kuang, Fig. 5, t8+).
As to claim 14, Jie in view of Balakrishnan, Knoedgen and Kuang teaches wherein the driver turns ON the second switch prior to the branch control turning ON the branch switch if the power converter is operating in continuous conduction mode (Kuang, T7+).
As to claims 22-28, these all teach various limitations that have been taught in the previous claims, and are obvious for similar reasons.
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached on 571-270-1628. 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