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 .
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.
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 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, 7-10, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0137688 to Wang et al. (“Wang”), US Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0356924 to Donnig et al. (“Donnig”), and knowledge commonly known in the art, as evidenced by US Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0316270 to Radic et al. (“Radic”).
In reference to Claim 1, Wang discloses a multi-port power delivery system (See Figure 1 Number 100 and Paragraph 22) for allocating a system power for delivering power to a plurality of external sink devices (See Paragraph 24), comprising: a first power converter (See Figure 1 Number 130_1 and Paragraph 22) coupled between a first connection port connected to a first external sink device (See Figure 1 Number 140_1 and Paragraphs 22 and 24) and the system power (See Paragraphs 22 and 25); a second power converter (See Figure 1 Number 130_2 and Paragraph 22) coupled between a second connection port connected to a second external sink device (See Figure 1 Number 140_2 and Paragraphs 22 and 24) and the system power (See Paragraphs 22 and 25); and a controller coupled to the first power converter, the second power converter, the first connection port and the second connection port (See Figure 1 Number 110 and Paragraphs 23 and 26-29), the controller configured to perform following features: (a) negotiate a first power requirement of the first connection port and a second power requirement of the second connection port, and determine a first power budget of the first connection port and a second power budget of the second connection port (See Paragraphs 3, 26, and 28), wherein the controller is further configured to: (a1) classify the first power requirement as a first type based on a first voltage requirement in the first power requirement (See Paragraphs 37-43); (a2) classify the second power requirement as a second type based on a second voltage requirement in the second power requirement (See Paragraphs 37-43); and (a3) determine the first power budget and the second power budget based on the first type and the second type using stored information (See Paragraphs 37-43); (b) calculate a first actual power of the first connection port and a second actual power of the second connection port (See Paragraph 29); and (c) periodically monitor the difference between the first actual power and the first power budget and the difference between the second actual power and the second power budget while the first external sink device remains connected to the first connection port and the second external sink device remains connected to the second connection port, and adjust the first power budget and the second power budget accordingly (See Paragraphs 28-33), wherein the controller is further configured to: (c1) detect whether the first actual power is less than a first threshold and the second actual power is greater than a second threshold (See Paragraphs 29, 34-35, and 38-42); and (c2) in response to determining that the first actual power is less than a first threshold and the second actual power is greater than a second threshold, negotiate the power requirement with the first connection port and the second connection port to reduce the first power budget and increase the second power budget (See Paragraphs 29, 34-35, and 38-42). However, Wang is silent as to how the information used for determining the first and second power budgets is stored, and does not explicitly disclose the use of a lookup table. Official Notice is taken that the use of lookup tables is well known in the art, as evidenced by Radic (See Paragraphs 69-70). Wang further does not explicitly disclose calculating a first average power of the first connection port and a second average power of the second connection port and using the first and second average powers for negotiating the power requirements. Donnig discloses a multi-port power delivery system (See Figure 1 Number 100 and Paragraphs 37 and 44) for allocating a system power for delivering power to a plurality of external sink devices (See Figure 1 Numbers 10a-10n and Paragraph 44), comprising: a first power converter (See Figure 1 Number 3b and Paragraphs 43-45) coupled between a first connection port (See Figure 1 Number 2a and Paragraph 44) connected to a first external sink device (See Figure 1 Number 10a and Paragraph 44) and the system power (See Figure 1 Numbers 5 and 20 and Paragraph 38); the first power converter coupled between a second connection port (See Figure 1 Number 2b and Paragraph 44) connected to a second external sink device (See Figure 1 Number 10b and Paragraph 44) and the system power; and a controller coupled to the first power converter, the first connection port, and the second connection port (See Figure 1 Number 7 and Paragraphs 46-52), the controller configured to perform following features: (a) negotiate a first power requirement of the first connection port and a second power requirement of the second connection port, and determine a first power budget of the first connection port and a second power budget of the second connection port (See Paragraphs 44-45 and 49); (b) calculate a first instantaneous average power of the first connection port and a second instantaneous average power of the second connection port (See Paragraphs 54 and 57); and (c) periodically monitor the difference between the first instantaneous (actual) average power and a first power budget and the difference between the second instantaneous (actual) average power and a second power budget, while the first external sink device remains connected to the first connection port and the second external sink device remains connected to the second connection port, and adjust the first power budget and the second power budget accordingly (See Paragraphs 50, 52, and 54), wherein the controller is further configured to: (c1) detect whether the first actual power is less than a first threshold and the second actual power is greater than a second threshold (See Paragraphs 50-55); and (c2) in response to determining that the first actual power is less than a first threshold and the second actual power is greater than a second threshold, negotiate the power requirement with the first connection port and the second connection port to reduce the first power budget and increase the second power budget (See Paragraphs 50-55)..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to construct the device of Wang using the instantaneous (actual) average power determination of Donnig and using a well-known lookup table to store the information for determining the power budgets, resulting in the invention of Claim 1, because the simple substitution of the instantaneous (actual) average power determinations of Donnig in place of the actual power determinations of Wang would have yielded the predictable result of disregarding peaks or drops in the power consumption of the external sink devices that arise temporarily and transiently (See Paragraph 54 of Donnig); and because Wang is silent as to how the information for determining the power budgets is stored, and the simple substitution of a well-known lookup table to store the information used for determining the power budgets of Wang and Donnig would have yielded the predictable result of providing hardware efficiency because lookup tables can be compactly implemented because silicon area and/or memory space are negligible, and lookup tables are inherently low power, have low propagation times, and can work with very fast operating frequency (See Paragraph 69 of Radic).
In reference to Claim 2, Wang, Donnig, and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Wang further discloses that the multi-port power delivery system complies with a USB Power Delivery specification (See Paragraphs 3, 23, and 26). Donnig further discloses that the multi-port power delivery system complies with a USB Power Delivery specification (See Paragraphs 6, 20, 52, and 56).
In reference to Claim 3, Wang, Donnig, and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Wang further discloses that the first connection port and the second connection port are USB Type-C connection ports (See Paragraphs 23-24). Donnig further discloses that the first connection port and the second connection port are USB Type-C connection ports (See Paragraph 20 [USB 4.0 requires the use of Type-C connection ports]).
In reference to Claim 5, Wang, Donnig, and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Wang further discloses that the first power converter comprises a first current sensor for measuring a first current value of the first connection port (See Figure 1 and Paragraph 29); the second power converter comprises a second current sensor for measuring a second current value of the second connection port (See Figure 1 and Paragraph 29); and in the feature (b), the controller is further configured to: (b1) calculate the first actual power based on a first output voltage of the first power budget and the first current value (See Paragraph 29); and (b2) calculate the second actual power based on the second output voltage of the second power budget and the second current value (See Paragraph 29). Donnig further discloses that the first power converter comprises a first current sensor for measuring a first current value of the first connection port (See Figure 1 and Paragraph 54); the second power converter comprises a second current sensor for measuring a second current value of the second connection port (See Figure 1 and Paragraph 54); and in the feature (b), the controller is further configured to: (b1) calculate the first average power based on a first output voltage of the first power budget and the first current value (See Paragraph 54); and (b2) calculate the second average power based on the second output voltage of the second power budget and the second current value (See Paragraph 54).
In reference to Claim 7, Wang, Donnig, and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 6 above. Wang further discloses that the first threshold is smaller than the first power budget and the second threshold is smaller than the second power budget (See Paragraph 34). Donnig further discloses that the first threshold is smaller than the first power budget and the second threshold is smaller than the second power budget (See Paragraph 50).
Claim 8 recites limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 1 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 9 recites limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 2 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 10 recites limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 3 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
In reference to Claim 12, Wang, Donnig, and knowledge commonly known in the art disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 8 above. Wang further discloses that the step (b) further comprises the following steps: (b1) measuring, by a first current sensor, a first current value of the first connection port (See Figure 1 and Paragraph 29); (b2) measuring, by a second current sensor, a second current value of the second connection port (See Figure 1 and Paragraph 29); (b4) calculating, by the controller, the first actual power based on a first output voltage of the first power budget and the first current value (See Paragraph 29); and (b5) calculating, by the controller, the second actual power based on a second output voltage of the second power budget and the second actual current value (See Paragraph 29). Donnig further discloses that the step (b) further comprises the following steps: (b1) measuring, by a first current sensor, a first current value of the first connection port (See Figure 1 and Paragraph 54); (b2) measuring, by a second current sensor, a second current value of the second connection port (See Figure 1 and Paragraph 54); (b3) calculating, by the controller, a first average current value based on the first current value (See Paragraph 54), and a second average current value based on the second current value (See Paragraph 54); (b4) calculating, by the controller, the first instantaneous (actual) average power based on a first output voltage of the first power budget and the first average current value (See Paragraph 54); and (b5) calculating, by the controller, the second instantaneous (actual) average power based on a second output voltage of the second power budget and the second average current value (See Paragraph 54).
Claim 14 recites limitations which are substantially equivalent to those of Claim 1 and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the term “periodically” requires that the monitoring process is a continuous and ongoing process during normal operation (See Page 6 Paragraph 3, Page 7 Paragraph 3, and Pages 8-9). In response, the Examiner notes that the term “periodically” does not mean continuous and ongoing. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “continuously” is at regular, somewhat regular, or irregular periods of time (See entry “periodically” at Dictionary.com). Thus, the monitoring process need not be continuous in order to occur “periodically”. Thus, both Wang and Donnig perform periodic monitoring, as Wang regularly checks for a change in power consumption to budget ratio for the first and second connected devices (See Paragraph 29), and Donnig irregularly checks for a change in the power consumption to budget ration for the first and second connected devices when a third connected device is added or removed.
Applicant has argued that Donnig’s power reserve management is triggered by consumer connection and disconnection, and does not occur when all devices remain connected (See Page 8). In response, the Examiner notes that, as indicated in the above rejections, Donnig was relied upon only to disclose the improvement of using average power in place of the current actual power of Wang when determining whether to renegotiate and reallocate power to the connected sink devices, and that utilizing such average powers in place of the current actual powers of Wang would yield the predictable result of disregarding peaks or drops in the power consumption of the external sink devices that arise temporarily and transiently (See Paragraph 54 of Donnig). As Wang performs the monitoring periodically, in the combination, the monitoring of average powers and power budgets occurs periodically. It is irrelevant to the combination as to when Donnig performs the monitoring and renegotiation, as such a feature is not relied upon in the combination. However, notwithstanding the above, it is noted that Donnig performs the monitoring and renegotiation at irregular intervals when a third device is added or removed from the system, which as indicated above, is “periodically” in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term.
Applicant has argued that the monitoring and renegotiation of Donnig, which occurs when a device is added or removed, does not disclose the claimed steady state scenario where no devices are added or removed (See Page 8 and Page 11 Paragraph 2). In response, the Examiner notes that, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claims do not require that no devices are added or removed, but rather only that the first and second external sink devices remain connected. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the first and second external sink devices of Donnig can remain connected when a third device is added or removed. In fact, the monitoring and renegotiation must occur while the first and second external sink devices remain connected, as a power requirement cannot be renegotiated with a device that has been removed or newly added. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant has argued that the claimed lookup table is used in a highly specific manner which is not disclosed by Radic (See Pages 9-10). In response, the Examiner notes that the claims do not recite a specific lookup table. Rather, the claims require only that a lookup table is used for determining the first and second power budgets based on the first and second types. As set forth in the above rejections, Wang discloses the use of stored information for determining the first and second power budgets based on the first and second types (See Paragraphs 37-43), but is silent as to how the information is stored. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art when presented with the disclosure of Wang would look to known storage methods for correlating information to make a determination. As indicated above, and as evidenced by Radic, the use of lookup tables is well known in the art for storing information for correlating information to make a determination (See Paragraphs 69-70), and the simple substitution of a well-known lookup table to store the information used for determining the power budgets of Wang and Donnig would have yielded the predictable result of providing hardware efficiency because lookup tables can be compactly implemented because silicon area and/or memory space are negligible, and lookup tables are inherently low power, have low propagation times, and can work with very fast operating frequency (See Paragraph 69 of Radic). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is further noted that, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the lookup table of Wang, which is used for a different purpose than that of the claims, was not specifically relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims. However, the presence of such a lookup table in Wang is further evidence that the use of lookup tables is well known in the art for or storing information for correlating information to make a determination, and one of ordinary skill in the art would certainly be aware of lookup tables for storing information when presented with the disclosure of Wang.
For the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, and in accordance with Applicant’s arguments (See Page 6 Paragraph 3, Paragraph spanning Pages 7-8, and Paragraph spanning Pages 12-13), the Examiner has interpreted the claims as requiring a detection that the first average power is less than the first threshold and the second average power is greater than the second threshold, and thus the renegotiation of the power requirements is required to be performed.
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 THOMAS J CLEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-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, Andrew Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/THOMAS J. CLEARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights