DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 25 April 2024.
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 .
Specification
Though not required since applicant has already listed the filing numbers and dates of the copending applications, it is ordinary and customary to include publication dates and numbers if they are available.
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in European Union on 14 January 2022.
Drawings
Fig. 11 is objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Applicant persistently uses the language “based on whether the current at the inductor is higher than a/the predetermined maximum current” in claims 1 ,2 ,4, 14-18. However, this does not appear to be readily supported by the specification since it appears that the current never exceeds the limit value. As such, while it is understood what is meant, this must be corrected since this is technically not taught by the specification. Examiner suggests changing the language to “based on whether the current at the inductor reaches a/the predetermined maximum current”
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, 12, 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As to claim 3 applicant claims Toff=Vbat/(Ftarget*Vbst). However, given that ftarget = 1/(Ton+Toff), and D=Ton/(Ton+Toff), Vbat is the input voltage (Vin) and Vbst is the output voltage (Vout) this appears to simplify to:
Toff= Vin / [(1/ Ton+ Toff)*Vout]
Toff*(1/Ton+Toff)*Vout=Vin
Toff* (1/Ton+Toff)= Vin/Out
Toff/(Ton+Toff) = Vin/Vout
1-D = Vin/Vout
(1-D)*Vout= Vin or Vout = Vin/(1-D), which is an ideal voltage transfer function for a boost converter. As such, it is not clear how this further limits the claim. It is unclear which portion of the specification applicant is pointing to or how this would change from another boost converter. As such, there may also be 112(d) issues. It is unclear both how this further refines the claim and which portion of the specification seeks protection from this claim.
As to claims 4, 15 and 18, applicant needs to revise the wording a bit. While the CC-CV profile of battery charging is known, the way applicant words “a second voltage operation mode based on whether a current at the inductor is higher than the predetermined maximum current” reads as though when the current exceeds a threshold, it changes to constant voltage mode wherein one of ordinary skill would expect a constant voltage charge to decrease the current as shown in Figures 1T-1V and 8A. For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed applicant claimed a CC-CV profile similar to figure 1T-!V, where the system changes to a CV profile once the target voltage is hit and begins to decrease the current..
Claim 12 also requires some revision. While the units correctly add amperes to amperes, applicant can theoretically draw more current than the theoretical maximum of the battery which may lead to 112(a) issues. While it is understood that applicant meant to claim an average current similar to Fig. 9C, the wording requires adjustment. It is also noted the independent claim appears to refer back to a static limit rather than the dynamic one suggested in Fig. 9C. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed Ibatt max refers to a coil average current.
The claims have 7 objections and 5 112(b) rejections The claims have not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible issues of form. Applicant should thoroughly check any amendment to ensure compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and formal requirements.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: switching means, comparison means, and off-time signal generation means in claim 1, since it appears that there are sufficient acts recited to overcome a neccesary 112(f) rejection.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Krabbenborg (US 20190131871 ).
As to claim 1, Krabbenborg discloses (see image below) a control circuit for a boost converter circuit, the control circuit comprising: switching means configured to switch the boost converter to perform cycles wherein each cycle comprises an energy charging state in which an inductor stores energy provided by an input voltage VBAT and an energy discharging state in which the inductor provides energy to an output of the boost converter; comparison means configured to decide whether a current at the inductor is higher than a predetermined maximum current; and off-time signal generation means configured to generate an off-time signal based on whether the current at the inductor is higher than the predetermined maximum current, wherein the off-time signal determines a duration TOFF of the energy discharging state of a next switching event and wherein the switching means is configured to switch the boost converter based on the generated off-time signal (its determined by the frequency and the latch 218).
As to claim 2, Krabbenborg discloses wherein the off-time signal generation means generates the off-time signal if the current at the inductor is higher than the predetermined maximum current (it disables the switch as soon as the threshold is reached, see Figs. 3/4).
As to claim 3, , Krabbenborg discloses where wherein the off-time signal determines the duration TOFF of the energy discharging state based on the input voltage VBAT, a switching frequency fTARGET at which the boost converter performs cycles and an output voltage VBST at the output of the boost converter such that: Toff= Vbat/(Ftarget*Vbst) (see 112 above).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 16, Krabbenorg teaches A boost converter circuit comprising: a control circuit; and an input terminal configured to receive the input voltage VBAT, wherein the control circuit comprises: switching means configured to switch the boost converter to perform cycles wherein each cycle comprises an energy charging state in which an inductor stores energy provided by an input voltage VBAT and an energy discharging state in which the inductor provides energy to an output of the boost converter; comparison means configured to decide whether a current at the inductor is higher than a predetermined maximum current; and off-time signal generation means configured to generate an off-time signal based on whether the current at the inductor is higher than the predetermined maximum current, wherein the off-time signal determines a duration TOFF of the energy discharging state of a next switching event and wherein the switching means is configured to switch the boost converter based on the generated off-time signal (this is similar to claim 1 with the excpetion of the claimed input voltage which is taught by Vbat).
As to claim 17, this is a method claim similar to an above apparatus claim and is anticipated per MPEP 2112.02.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by King (US 20190089245).
As to claim 1, King discloses (see image below) a control circuit for a boost converter circuit, the control circuit comprising: switching means configured to switch the boost converter to perform cycles wherein each cycle comprises an energy charging state in which an inductor stores energy provided by an input voltage VBAT and an energy discharging state in which the inductor provides energy to an output of the boost converter; comparison means configured to decide whether a current at the inductor is higher than a predetermined maximum current; and off-time signal generation means configured to generate an off-time signal based on whether the current at the inductor is higher than the predetermined maximum current, wherein the off-time signal determines a duration TOFF of the energy discharging state of a next switching event and wherein the switching means is configured to switch the boost converter based on the generated off-time signal (See Figs. 4, Phase B for off time).
PNG
media_image2.png
478
829
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, King discloses wherein the off-time signal generation means generates the off-time signal if the current at the inductor is higher than the predetermined maximum current (it disables the switch as soon as the threshold is reached, see Figs. 4).
As to claim 3, , King discloses where wherein the off-time signal determines the duration TOFF of the energy discharging state based on the input voltage VBAT, a switching frequency fTARGET at which the boost converter performs cycles and an output voltage VBST at the output of the boost converter such that: Toff= Vbat/(Ftarget*Vbst) (see 112 above).
As to claim 12, King discloses wherein the predetermined maximum current is; Ibatmax + (1-V/bat/Vbst)*(Vbat/(2LbstFbst)) wherein IBAT,MAX is a maximum current for a battery connected at the input of the boost converter circuit, VBST is the output voltage, VBAT is the input voltage, fBST is the switching frequency and LBST is the inductance value of the inductor (this appears to control peak current with respect to the average current which is taught by King items 37, 38, and 44).
As to claim 16, King teaches A boost converter circuit comprising: a control circuit; and an input terminal configured to receive the input voltage VBAT, wherein the control circuit comprises: switching means configured to switch the boost converter to perform cycles wherein each cycle comprises an energy charging state in which an inductor stores energy provided by an input voltage VBAT and an energy discharging state in which the inductor provides energy to an output of the boost converter; comparison means configured to decide whether a current at the inductor is higher than a predetermined maximum current; and off-time signal generation means configured to generate an off-time signal based on whether the current at the inductor is higher than the predetermined maximum current, wherein the off-time signal determines a duration TOFF of the energy discharging state of a next switching event and wherein the switching means is configured to switch the boost converter based on the generated off-time signal (this is similar to claim 1 with the excpetion of the claimed input voltage which is taught by Vbat).
As to claim 17, this is a method claim similar to an above apparatus claim and is anticipated per MPEP 2112.02.
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 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.
Claims 4, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 20190089245)in view of Bao (US 20100066311).
As to claim 4, King does not disclose wherein the switching means are configured to switch the boost converter between a first current operation mode and a second voltage operation mode based on whether a current at the inductor is higher than the predetermined maximum current, wherein the first current operation mode is used when the current at the inductor is higher than the predetermined maximum current and the second voltage operation mode is used when the current at the inductor is not higher than the predetermined maximum current.
Bao teaches wherein the switching means are configured to switch the boost converter between a first current operation mode and a second voltage operation mode based on whether a current at the inductor is higher than the predetermined maximum current, wherein the first current operation mode is used when the current at the inductor is higher than the predetermined maximum current and the second voltage operation mode is used when the current at the inductor is not higher than the predetermined maximum current (Fig. 2 showing transistion between CC and CV modes).
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 above to use CC-CV charging as disclosed in Bao to charge mobile devices.
As to claim 18, this is a method claim similar to an above apparatus claim and is obvoius per MPEP 2112.02.
Claims 5, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 20190089245)in view of Yang (US 6768655).
As to claim 5, King teaches an off-time signal generation. He does not teach wherein the off-time signal generation means comprises a capacitor and a comparison circuit wherein the capacitor is configured to store a voltage VC,OFF, wherein the comparison circuit comprises a first input, a second input, wherein the comparison circuit is configured to receive a reference voltage VREF,OFF at the first input, to receive the voltage VC,OFF at the second input, and to generate the off-time signal by comparing the reference voltage VREF,OFF and the voltage VC,OFF.
Yang teaches wherein the off-time signal generation means comprises a capacitor and a comparison circuit wherein the capacitor is configured to store a voltage VC,OFF, wherein the comparison circuit comprises a first input, a second input, wherein the comparison circuit is configured to receive a reference voltage VREF,OFF at the first input, to receive the voltage VC,OFF at the second input, and to generate the off-time signal by comparing the reference voltage VREF,OFF and the voltage VC,OFF (Yang Fig 4 is regarded as similar to applicant’s Fig. 2B, item 104).
As to claim 19, this is a method claim similar to an above apparatus claim and is obvious per MPEP 2112.02.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US 20190089245 )in view of Luff (US 20190140542).
As to claim 13, King does not teach wherein the switching means are implemented as a state machine.
Luff teaches wherein the switching means are implemented as a state machine (Fig. 13).
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 above to use buck-boost topology as disclosed in Luff to increase or decrease the voltage.
As to claim 14, King in view of Luff teaches wherein the state machine comprises eight states and is configured to perform a transition from one of the eight states (Fig. 13) to another one of the eight states based on whether the current at the inductor is higher than the predetermined maximum current.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6-11, 20 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 6, the prior art fails to disclose: “further comprising on-time signal generation means comprising another capacitor and another comparison circuit wherein the another capacitor is configured to store another voltage VC,ON, wherein the another comparison circuit comprises a first input, a second input, wherein the another comparison circuit is configured to receive another reference voltage VREF,ON at the first input, to receive the another voltage VC,ON at the second input, and to generate an on-time signal by comparing the another reference voltage VREF,ON and the another voltage VC,ON.” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
As to claim 15, the prior art fails to disclose: “wherein the switching means switches the boost converter circuit between the first current operation mode wherein the off-time signal generation means determine the duration of the energy discharging state and the second voltage operation mode wherein the on-time signal generation means determine the duration of the energy charging state based on whether a current at the inductor is higher than the predetermined maximum current; and the switching means switches the boost converter circuit between the first current operation mode and the second voltage operation mode based on whether a current at the inductor is higher than the predetermined maximum current such that when the current at the inductor is higher than the predetermined maximum current the boost converter circuit works in the first current operation mode, and when the current at the inductor is not higher than the predetermined maximum current the boost converter circuit works in the second voltage operation mode.” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
As to claim 20, the prior art fails to disclose " further comprising on-time signal generation means comprising another capacitor and another comparison circuit wherein the another capacitor is configured to store another voltage VC,ON, wherein the another comparison circuit comprises a first input, a second input, wherein the another comparison circuit is configured to receive another reference voltage VREF,ON at the first input, to receive the another voltage VC,ON at the second input, and to generate an on-time signal by comparing the another reference voltage and the another voltage VC,ON.” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
Please note: while objected or allowed claims have been indicated, only the presented claims have been examined for compliance with form and 35 USC 112 consideration. As a reminder, claims that are dependent upon objected claims still require examination for form and 35 USC 112 issues even if they overcome 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections. Similarly, amendments incorporating allowable subject matter into independent claims requires reconsideration for dependent claim form and any possible 35 USC 112 issues that arise through amendments even if the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are overcome. As such, applicant is advised that while examiner can enter previously allowed claims or previously objected claims rewritten into independent form after final rejection, any other claims may not be entered.
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, Thienvu Tran can be reached on 571-270-1276. 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