DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 16 June 2026.
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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 1 and 16, Applicant argues that in Xi (US 2020/0295661), the signal SUMP (Figs. 2-3) does not correspond to the claimed “error signal” because SUMP “is not the error amplifier output itself; it is a separately synthesized summed node generated from both VCTRL and VREF’.” Remarks at pp. 19-20. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
According to MPEP 2111, the claimed limitations are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Applicant’s specification. In this case, claim 1 recites, “obtain an error signal based on an error between the voltage value of the first voltage and a voltage value of a reference voltage”. Notably, the claim does not specifically limit the error signal to being a direct output of an error amplifier; indeed, the claim does not even recite an error amplifier per se, instead only using functional language to describe how the error signal is obtained.
In Xi, as Applicant points out, the identified signal SUMP is generated as the sum of VCTRL and VREF’, where VCTRL is the output of error amplifier 202 and represents the difference or error between the first voltage VFB and the reference voltage VREF. Xi at [0039]-[0040]. Therefore, the signal SUMP in Xi clearly meets the claim language defining the “error signal”, because SUMP is obtained “based on an error between the voltage value of the first voltage and a voltage value of a reference voltage”.
Applicant also argues that in Xi, the signal SUMN (Figs. 2-3) does not correspond to the claimed “slope compensation signal”, because SUMN is not produced in the specific manner as described in Applicant’s specification. Remarks at p. 20. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated above, per MPEP 2111, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and 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).
In this case, claim 1 recites, “generate a slope compensation signal based on the voltage value of the first voltage”. As Applicant admits, Xi generates the cited signal SUMN by adding ramp voltage VRAMP and first voltage VFB. The resulting signal SUMN, being based on VRAMP, is used to provide slope compensation, as it is understood to persons of ordinary skill in the art, thereby improving the performance of the power converter to achieve stable operations and fast transient responses. Xi at [0076].
Therefore, the signal SUMN in Xi clearly meets the claim language defining the “slope compensation signal”, because SUMN performs a function that is understood to be that of slope compensation as it is known to those of ordinary skill, and also is generated “based on the voltage value of the first voltage”.
The rejections of independent claims 1 and 16 has been maintained.
Finally, regarding the rejection of independent claim 20, Applicant traverses the Office’s reliance on common sense and on Official notice of the fact that electronic devices including “mobile phones, tablet PCs, digital cameras [and/or] MP3 players” are known to use batteries as power and voltage supply sources. Remarks at p. 23. Applicant requests documentary support for this reliance.
According to MPEP 2144.03, “Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence may be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art, are ‘capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute.’ In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970) (citing In re Knapp Monarch Co., 296 F.2d 230, 132 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1961)).” While Examiner respectfully asserts that the fact of mobile phones and similar portable electronic devices using batteries as sources of electric power meets this standard, nonetheless Applicant’s traversal and request for documentary support is noted.
However, MPEP 2144.03, subsection C. states (emphasis added), “To adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal. See 37 CFR 1.111(b). See also Chevenard, 139 F.2d at 713, 60 USPQ at 241.”
In Applicant’s response, see Remarks at p. 23, Applicant does not appear to point out specific errors in the examiner’s taking official notice, nor does Applicant point out why the use of batteries in mobile phones and similar portable electronic devices was not common knowledge. Rather, Applicant argues that the particular inclusion of a battery is neither expressly-stated in Xi nor an inherent feature of Xi’s disclosure. For example, Applicant states, “Xi does not identify VIN as a battery, does not disclose a battery as a component of the electronic device, and does not disclose the claimed power converter being connected to that battery to convert the battery output voltage for a load. And, in fact, VIN may be something other that voltage from a battery.” Id.
Such an assertion, for one, does not present any error in the examiner’s reliance on common knowledge or official notice, nor attempt to point out why the relied-upon fact was not commonly known. In addition, it is considered immaterial to the issues at hand, because the rejection of claim 20 is made under 35 USC 103 and examiner has admitted that Xi does not expressly disclose a battery. Instead, the rejection relied on the widely-known fact that mobile phones and other portable electronic devices (which are expressly a part of Xi’s disclosure) commonly use batteries as power sources as part of the rationale to conclude that the use of a battery to power Xi’s device would have been obvious in order to enable the desired portability thereof.
Therefore, due to Applicant’s inadequate traversal of the Office’s reliance on common knowledge or official notice, the examiner’s statement that the use of batteries in mobile phones and other portable electronic devices like those taught in Xi is taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03, subsection C and see Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420.
The rejection of independent claim 20 has been maintained.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xi et al. (US 2020/0295661; “Xi”)1.
In re claims 1 and 16, Xi discloses a power converter (Figs. 2 and 3) and the corresponding method of its operation2 comprising:
a first conversion circuit (Fig. 2); and
a control apparatus (Fig. 3) connected to the first conversion circuit, wherein the control apparatus is configured to:
detect an output voltage of the first conversion circuit to obtain a voltage value of a first voltage (Fig. 3: feedback circuit comprising RB1, RB2 detects output voltage VO and obtains first voltage VFB);
generate a slope compensation signal based on the voltage value of the first voltage (Fig. 3: first voltage VFB is provided through amplifier Gm2 to summer 210, which generates slope compensation signal SUMN);
obtain an error signal based on an error between the voltage value of the first voltage and a voltage value of a reference voltage (Fig. 3: error amplifier 202 generates signal VCTRL based on difference between first voltage VFB and reference voltage VREF; VCTRL is provided through Gm3 to summer 220, to generate error signal SUMP);
compare the slope compensation signal with the error signal to obtain a comparison signal (Fig. 3: comparator 206 compares slope compensation signal SUMN with error signal SUMP to generate comparison signal output from 206); and
generate a drive signal of the first conversion circuit based on the comparison signal (Fig. 3: control circuits 208, 216, 218 generate drive signals Q1G, Q2G based on comparison signal from 206, to switch the transistors Q1, Q2 in the first conversion circuit as shown in Fig. 2).
In re claim 2, Xi discloses wherein the control apparatus (Fig. 3) comprises:
a detection circuit (RB1, RB2);
an amplification circuit (202, Gm3, Gm4, 220);
a slope compensation circuit (212, Gm1, Gm2, 210);
a comparison circuit (206); and
a signal generation circuit (208, 216, 218),
wherein an input end of the detection circuit is connected to an output end of the first conversion circuit (upper terminal of RB1 receives output voltage VO from the conversion circuit as shown in Fig. 2), an output end of the detection circuit is connected to the slope compensation circuit and the amplification circuit (first voltage VFB from the detection circuit is received by slope compensation circuit at Gm2 and by amplifier circuit at 202),
wherein the detection circuit is configured to:
detect the output voltage of the first conversion circuit to obtain the voltage value of the first voltage (see [0040]); and
output the voltage value of the first voltage to the slope compensation circuit and the amplification circuit (as shown in Fig. 3),
wherein the amplification circuit is connected to the comparison circuit (as shown in Fig. 3), and the amplification circuit is configured to:
amplify the error between the voltage value of the first voltage and the voltage value of the reference voltage to obtain the error signal (VCTRL; see [0039], [0049]), and output the error signal to the comparison circuit (as shown in Fig. 3);
wherein the slope compensation circuit is connected to the comparison circuit (as shown in Fig. 3), and the slope compensation circuit is configured to:
generate the slope compensation signal based on the voltage value of the first voltage (Fig. 3: slope compensation circuit receives first voltage VFB and generates slope compensation signal SUMN based thereon);
wherein the comparison circuit is connected to the signal generation circuit (as shown in Fig. 3), and the comparison circuit is configured to:
compare the slope compensation signal with the error signal to obtain the comparison signal (Fig. 3: comparator 206 compares SUMN with SUMP to generate its output signal); and
output the comparison signal to the signal generation circuit (as shown in Fig. 3), and
wherein the signal generation circuit is configured to:
generate the drive signal (Q1G, Q2G) of the first conversion circuit based on the comparison signal (Fig. 3: signal generation circuit receives the comparison signal from comparator 206 to generate drive signal Q1G, Q2G).
In re claim 3, Xi discloses wherein the slope compensation circuit (Fig. 3: 212, Gm1, Gm2, 210) comprises:
a slope signal compensation module (Gm2, Gm1, 210); and
a control module (212),
wherein the slope signal compensation module is separately connected to the detection circuit and the control module (Fig. 3: slope signal compensation module is connected to detection circuit via Gm2 and is connected to control module 212 via Gm1), and the slope signal generation module is configured to:
generate the slope compensation signal (SUMN) based on the voltage value of the first voltage (Fig. 3: slope compensation signal SUMN is produced by summer 210 based in part on first voltage VFB received through Gm2), and
wherein the control module is connected to the comparison circuit and controls a working state of the slope signal compensation module based on the comparison signal (Fig. 3 and [0057]: the voltage V2 received by control module 212 is the switching node voltage from the common node between Q1/Q2 in Fig. 2; the switching node voltage is produced via the comparison and signal generation circuits through the switching of Q1/Q2 in a conventionally-understood manner).
In re claim 17, Xi discloses wherein the step of generating the slope compensation signal based on the voltage value of the first voltage comprises:
superposing the voltage value of the first voltage and a slope signal to obtain the slope compensation signal (Fig. 3: summer 210 superposes first voltage VFB through Gm2 with slope signal VRAMP from Gm1; see [0059]).
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xi.
In re claim 20, Xi discloses an electronic device (Figs. 2 and 3; see [0003]) comprising:
a load (see output capacitor Co in Fig. 2; a load is further implied in [0003]);
a power converter comprising:
a first conversion circuit (Fig. 2); and
a control apparatus (Fig. 3) connected to the first conversion circuit, wherein the control apparatus is configured to:
detect an output voltage of the first conversion circuit to obtain a voltage value of a first voltage (Fig. 3: feedback circuit comprising RB1, RB2 detects output voltage VO and obtains first voltage VFB);
generate a slope compensation signal based on the voltage value of the first voltage (Fig. 3: first voltage VFB is provided through amplifier Gm2 to summer 210, which generates slope compensation signal SUMN);
obtain an error signal based on an error between the voltage value of the first voltage and a voltage value of a reference voltage (Fig. 3: error amplifier 202 generates signal VCTRL based on difference between first voltage VFB and reference voltage VREF; VCTRL is provided through Gm3 to summer 220, to generate error signal SUMP);
compare the slope compensation signal with the error signal to obtain a comparison signal (Fig. 3: comparator 206 compares slope compensation signal SUMN with error signal SUMP to generate comparison signal output from 206); and
generate a drive signal of the first conversion circuit based on the comparison signal (Fig. 3: control circuits 208, 216, 218 generate drive signals Q1G, Q2G based on comparison signal from 206, to switch the transistors Q1, Q2 in the first conversion circuit as shown in Fig. 2);
wherein the power converter is configured to:
convert an output voltage of [the input source] (that is, input voltage Vin in Fig. 2) to obtain a target voltage (output voltage Vo in Fig. 2); and output the target voltage to the load (see Fig. 2).
Xi discloses all of the limitations of claim 20 except for a battery as the input source. However, Xi discloses at [0003], as the background premise for the disclosure, that the power converter is intended to be used for various electronic devices including, e.g., mobile phones. It was extremely well known, to both the ordinary artisan as well as to the ordinary layperson, that mobile phones use a battery as an input source in order to enable their mobility or portability.
Therefore it would have been an obvious matter of common sense to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a battery as input source for the power converter of Xi when used in an electronic device that is a mobile phone. The battery source enables such devices to be portable, in that they can be used without the need for connection to a fixed power source such as a utility grid.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-15 and 18-19 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.
The reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in the above claims were stated in the non-final Office action dated 17 March 2026.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FRED E FINCH III whose telephone number is (571)270-7883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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.
/FRED E FINCH III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
1 Reference already on record as cited by Applicant in the 02 December 2024 IDS.
2 The method claim 16 recites the same essential structural and functional limitations a as found in claim 1, such that the citations to Xi are equally applicable to both device and method, as claimed.
Prosecution Insights