DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 11/3/2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/3/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 21-25 and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US Patent 8054639) in view of Su et al. (US 2015/0062989), Freeman et al. (US 2015/0180355), Cho et al. (US 2008/0273314) and Krafcik (US Patent 5780975). Regarding claim 1, Hsu discloses (see fig. 2D, 2E) a power converter comprising: embedded circuitry (3a) that is in a printed circuit board (PCB) (see location of 3a). Hsu does not disclose that the embedded circuitry that is chip-embedded comprising: a driver configured to generate one or more driver signals; and one or more switches configured to be driven by the one or more driver signals; and an inductor external to the PCB and positioned over the PCB, wherein the embedded circuitry is electrically coupled to the inductor, and a footprint of the inductor at least partially overlaps a footprint of the embedded circuitry. Cho et al. discloses (see fig. 4) embedded circuitry (IC1 and 2) that is chip embedded into one or more layers of a PCB (see location of IC1 and 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of Cho et al. because it’s used as a means to reduce the size of a PCB, which can increase process efficiency. Freeman et al. discloses (see fig. 2, 3, and 15a) an embedded circuitry (see fig. 2) comprising: a driver (54) configured to generate one or more driver signals (output rom 54); and one or more switches configured to be driven by the one or more driver signals (54 driving 52). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of Freeman et al. because it’s used as a means to produce an energy efficient system, which can increase operational efficiencies. Su et al. disclose (see fig. 8) an inductor (inductor) positioned over the PCB (position of inductor overlapping PCB), wherein an embedded circuitry is electrically coupled to the inductor (via 84 connecting inductor to embedded circuitry), and wherein a footprint of the inductor at least partially overlaps a footprint of the embedded circuitry (a footprint of the inductor overlaps the embedded circuitry). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of Su et al. because it’s used as a means to increase versatility in providing power in different device, which can lead to increases in operational efficiencies. Krafcik discloses that an inductor can be external to a PCB (see column 2 lines 61-63, which states “The switching transistors, inductor, and capacitors are external devices coupled to the integrated circuit on a printed circuit board”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of Krafcik because it can provide isolation between elements, which can reduce unwanted interferences and thus allowing for favorable integration of function and increased efficiency. Regarding claim 2, Hsu does not disclose that one or more vias extend through the PCB to electrically couple the inductor to the embedded circuitry. Su et al. discloses (see fig. 8) that one or more vias (84) extend through the PCB to electrically couple the inductor to the embedded circuitry (via 84 connecting inductor to embedded circuitry). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of Su et al. because it’s used as a means to increase versatility in providing power in different device, which can lead to increases in operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 3, Hsu does not disclose that the embedded circuitry includes the driver. Freeman et al. discloses (see fig. 2, 3, and 15a) that an embedded circuitry (see fig. 12) includes a driver (54). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of Freeman et al. because it’s used as a means to produce an energy efficient system, which can increase operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 4, Hsu does not disclose that the embedded circuitry comprises a pulse width modulator (PWM) controller configured to generate one or more PWM signals, wherein the PWM controller is coupled to the driver, and wherein the driver is configured to generate the one or more driver signals based at least in part on the PWM signals. Freeman et al. discloses (see fig. 2, 3, and 15a) that the embedded circuitry comprises a pulse width modulator (PWM) controller (60) configured to generate one or more PWM signals (output from 60), wherein the PWM controller is coupled to the driver (connection to 54), and wherein the driver is configured to generate the one or more driver signals based at least in part on the PWM signals (operation of 54). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of Freeman et al. because it’s used as a means to produce an energy efficient system, which can increase operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 5, Hsu does not disclose that the one or more switches includes a first enhanced gallium nitride (eGaN) switch and a second eGaN switch. Freeman et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the one or more switches including a first enhanced gallium nitride (eGaN) switch and a second eGaN switch. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the one or more switches include a first enhanced gallium nitride (eGaN) switch and a second eGaN switch, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of Freeman et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a reduction in component variance, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 7, Hsu does not disclose an isolated topology that isolates a direct electrical connection between the input terminal and the output terminal of the power converter. Freeman et al. discloses (see fig. 2, 3, and 15a) an isolated topology (transformer in fig. 3) that isolates a direct electrical connection between the input terminal and the output terminal of the power converter (isolation operation of transformer). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of Freeman et al. because it’s used as a means to produce an energy efficient system, which can increase operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 8, Hsu does not disclose that one of the inductor and the embedded circuitry has a footprint entirely within a footprint of the other of the inductor and the embedded circuitry. Su et al. discloses (see fig. 8) that one of the inductor (inductor) and the embedded circuitry has a footprint entirely within a footprint of the other of the inductor and the embedded circuitry (a footprint of the inductor entirely overlaps the embedded circuitry). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of Su et al. because it’s used as a means to increase versatility in providing power in different device, which can lead to increases in operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 9, Hsu does not disclose a communication interface that is configured to receive a control signal for adjusting an output of the power converter. Freeman et al. discloses (see fig. 2, 3, and 15a) a communication interface (wireless communication interface) that is configured to receive a control signal for adjusting an output of the power converter (see paragraph 0196). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of Freeman et al. because it’s used as a means to produce an energy efficient system, which can increase operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 21, Hsu discloses (see fig. ) that the power converter is configured to handle a current amount (operation of converter). Hsu discloses the claimed invention except for the power converter having a footprint area that is between 1.0 mm2 and 10 mm2 per amperage of the current amount. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the power converter comprise a footprint area that is between 1.0 mm2 and 10 mm2 per amperage of the current amount, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim is discloses in the prior art, discovering the optimum workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of having the power converter comprise a footprint area that is between 1.0 mm2 and 10 mm2 per amperage of the current amount, because it provides for a reduction in component variance, which can increase operational efficiencies. Regarding claims 22-24, Hsu discloses the claimed invention except the footprint area of the power converter being less than 5 mm2, or less than 3 mm2, or less than 2 mm2 per amperage of the current amount. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the footprint area of the power converter be less than 5 mm2, or less than 3 mm2, or less than 2 mm2 per amperage of the current amount, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of having the footprint area of the power converter be less than 5 mm2, or less than 3 mm2, or less than 2 mm2 per amperage of the current amount, because it provides for a reduction in component variance, which can increase operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 25, Hsu does not disclose that the driver is configured to toggle the one or more switches at a frequency of at least 1 MHz. Freeman et al. discloses the claimed invention except the driver being configured to toggle the one or more switches at a frequency of at least 1 MHz. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the driver be configured to toggle the one or more switches at a frequency of at least 1 MHz, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of having the driver be configured to toggle the one or more switches at a frequency of at least 1 MHz, because it provides for a reduction in component variance, which can increase operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 30, Hsu discloses the claimed invention except for the power converter being a dc/dc buck converter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the power converter be a dc/dc buck converter, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of having the power converter be a dc/dc buck converter, because it provides for a reduction in component variance, which can increase operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 31, Hsu does not disclose that the inductor and the embedded circuitry are interconnected without wire bonds. Su et al. discloses (see fig. 8) that disclose that the inductor and the embedded circuitry are interconnected without wire bonds (via 84 connects the inductor to the embedded circuitry). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of Su et al. because it’s used as a means to increase versatility in providing power in different device, which can lead to increases in operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US Patent 8054639) in view of Su et al. (US 2015/0062989), Freeman et al. (US 2015/0180355), Cho et al. (US 2008/0273314), Krafcik (US Patent 5780975) and Romeo (US 2016/0294277). Regarding claim 6, Hsu does not disclose providing a ramp generator configured to generate a signal that emulates a current ripple through the inductor. Romeo discloses (see fig. 1) providing a ramp generator (103) configured to generate a signal that emulates a current ripple through an inductor (operation of 130. See claim 1). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of Romeo because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US Patent 8054639) in view of Su et al. (US 2015/0062989), Freeman et al. (US 2015/0180355), Cho et al. (US 2008/0273314), Krafcik (US Patent 5780975) and Fawal et al. (US Patent 5663634). Regarding claim 10, Hsu does not disclose that the power converter comprises an AC coupling capacitor. Fawal discloses (see fig. 1) that a power converter comprises an AC coupling capacitor (20). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Hsu to include the features of Fawal because it’s used to prevent component damages, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 and 26-29 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 11, the prior art fails to teach or disclose a method for using a power converter, the method comprising: providing the input voltage to embedded circuitry that is chip-embedded in a printed circuit board (PCB), wherein the embedded circuitry including one or more switches…charging and discharging an inductor that is electrically coupled to the embedded circuitry based on driving of the one or more switches, wherein the inductor is external to the PCB and positioned over the PCB, and wherein a footprint of the inductor at least partially overlaps a footprint of the embedded circuitry; providing an output voltage to an output terminal that is coupled to the inductor, the output configured to provide an output voltage that is different than the input voltage, wherein the output voltage is based, at least in part, on the one or more switches causing the inductor to charge and discharge, in combination with all the limitations set forth in claim 11. Regarding claim 26, the prior art fails to teach or disclose a power converter comprising: embedded circuitry comprising: a driver configured to generate one or more driver signals; and one or more switches configured to be driven by the one or more driver signals; an inductor external to the PCB and positioned over the PCB, wherein the embedded circuitry is electrically coupled to the inductor, and a footprint of the inductor at least partially overlaps a footprint of the embedded circuitry; and a capacitor external to the PCB, wherein the embedded circuitry is electrically coupled to the capacitor, and a footprint of the capacitor at least partially overlaps the footprint of the embedded circuitry, in combination with all the limitations set forth in claim 26. Regarding claim 28, the prior art fails to each or disclose a power converter comprising: embedded circuitry comprising: a driver configured to generate one or more driver signals; and one or more switches configured to be driven by the one or more driver signals; an inductor external to the PCB and positioned over the PCB, wherein the embedded circuitry is electrically coupled to the inductor, and a footprint of the inductor at least partially overlaps a footprint of the embedded circuitry; and two capacitors mounted external to the PCB next to the inductor, in combination with all the limitations set forth in claim 28.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A GBLENDE whose telephone number is (571)270-5472. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Monica Lewis can be reached on 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.
/JEFFREY A GBLENDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838