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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig 2: a reference number for the feedback signal connected from 240 to 250 should be added to the drawings and specification to differentiate the input signal received by 250, and the output signal generated by 250.
Fig 2: needs a reference number for the feedback signal connected from 250 to 210 should be added to the drawings and specification to differentiate the input signal received by 250, and the output signal generated by 250.
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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 1: the limitation "wherein the detection circuitry detects whether the second device is on or off”. Fig 2 shows that the feedback circuitry 250 receives a gate signal from the first device 242. 250 also receives a signal from hybrid power switch 240, which could indicate that either one, or both of 242 or 244, are on or off, but could not definitively determine that only 244 is on.
Claim 17: the limitation "generating a first logic signal in response to a feedback signal and further in response to a[n input] signal received from one or more [programmable] switches”. Fig 2 shows that when the programmable switches are both in the position pictured, the top logic output is generated based only on the input signal. Both 222A and 224A get their inputs from 202. Therefore, in at least that case, the first logic signal is in response only to the input signal 202.
Claim 18: the limitation “comparing a voltage at a gate of the wide bandgap device to a threshold voltage that turns on the wide bandgap device to determine whether the wide bandgap device is turned off." Fig 2 only shows the gate signal of the silicon switch 242 being compared to another voltage using comparator 256. The gate signal of 244 is connected directly to 232B, with no other connections to it shown.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
All instances of "feedback signal" need to be corrected to differentiate between the feedback signal received by 250 from 240, and the other feedback signal that is generated by 250 and sent to 210. A separate naming convention and separate reference numbers should be used to differentiate each signal.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, 17 & 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 & Claim 11: “ratio of the first device to the second device” should be replaced with language that clearly specifies that the ratio is relation to the area occupied by each of the devices. Otherwise, the ratio could be related to a 1:1 ratio of the number of WBG devices to the number of silicon devices, or based on a voltage, current, etc. of those devices. For example, “ratio of area occupied by the first device to area occupied by the second device”.
Claim 1: "a driver circuitry" should be replaced with "the driver circuitry".
Claim 11: "receives a feedback signal" is not clear because the feedback circuitry also “generates a feedback signal”. The signals being received and generated by the feedback circuitry require distinct names. For example, "receives a hybrid power switch circuitry feedback signal".
Claim 17, line 2: "a signal" should be replaced with "an input signal".
Claim 17, line 2: "received signal" should be replaced with "received input signal".
Claim 17, line 5: "one or more switches" should be replaced with "one or more programmable switches".
Claim 17, line 7: "one or more switches" should be replaced with "one or more programmable switches".
Claim 20, line 1: "one or more switches" should be replaced with "one or more programmable switches".
Claim 20, line 2: “ratio of the silicon device to the wide bandgap device” should be replaced with language that clearly specifies that the ratio is relation to the area occupied by each of the devices. Otherwise, the ratio could be related to voltage, current, etc. For example, “the ratio of area occupied by the silicon device to area occupied by the wide bandgap device”.
Claim 21, line 3: "the signal" should be replaced with "the first signal".
Claim 21, line 3: "switches" should be replaced with "programming switches".
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 17: the limitation “generating a first logic signal in response to a feedback signal and further in response to a signal received from one or more [programmable] switches” is not clear or consistent with drawings as described above. It is also unclear due to the multiple instances of the generic use of “signal”, which could refer to the input signal 202, or one of the multiple outputs of 210, or one of the outputs of 250. Each signal should have a distinct name for clarity. Additionally, when the programmable switches are both in the position pictured in Fig 2, the top logic output is generated based only on the input signal. Both 222A and 224A get their inputs from 202. Therefore, in at least that case, the first logic signal is in response only to the input signal 202. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean generating a first logic signal in response to a feedback signal or in response to a signal received from one or more [programmable] switches.
Regarding Claim 17: the limitation “a signal received from one or more [programmable] switches” is not clear due to the multiple instances of the generic use of “signal”. It is not clear whether this refers to the input signal 202, or one of the multiple outputs of 210, or one of the outputs of 250. Each signal should have a distinct name for clarity. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean a first signal on the output of the one or more [programming] switches.
Regarding Claim 17: the limitation “the signal received from the one or more [programmable] switches” is not clear due to the multiple instances of the generic use of “signal”. It is not clear whether this refers to the input signal 202, or one of the multiple outputs of 210, or one of the outputs of 250. Each signal should have a distinct name for clarity. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean a first signal on the output of the one or more [programming] switches.
Regarding Claim 18-21, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 17 above because they inherit the same deficiencies.
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.
Claims 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase (US 20180138904 A1), in view of Mulligan (US 20120206123 A1), and further in view of Takao (US 20130062626 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Nagase teaches receiving a[n input] signal (DRIVING SIGNAL, Fig 1) to turn on a hybrid power switch circuitry (20/30, Fig 1) when the received [input] signal is asserted (DRIVING SIGNAL turns on 20/30, Fig 1); generating a first logic signal (output of 11, Fig 1); generating a second logic signal (output of 13, Fig 1) in response to the feedback signal (ON-ENABLED, Fig 1); driving a silicon device (20/30, Fig 1) based on the first logic signal (output of 11, Fig 1); driving a device based on the second logic signal (output of 13, Fig 1) and generating the feedback signal based on whether the silicon device or the wide bandgap device is on or off (ON-ENABLED is based on whether 20 is on or off, Fig 1).
Nagase does not teach a generating a first logic signal in response to a feedback signal and further in response to a [first] signal received from one or more [programmable] switches, generating a second logic signal in response to the [first] signal received from the one or more [programmable] switches; driving a wide bandgap device.
Mulligan teaches a conventional gate driver (see Fig 5) including generating a first logic signal (in a first copy of Takao's circuit, the output of 540, Fig 5) in response to a feedback signal and further in response to a [first] signal received from one or more [programmable] switches (in a first copy of Takao's circuit, 540 generates an output in response to the signal from 510, Fig 5); generating a second logic signal (in a second copy of Takao's circuit 540 is coupled to 510, Fig 5) in response to the feedback signal and further in response to the [first] signal received from the one or more [programmable] switches (in a second copy of Takao's circuit, 540 generates an output in response to the signal from 510, Fig 5); driving a silicon device based on the first logic signal (in a first copy of Takao's circuit, the output of 540, Fig 5); driving a device (502, Fig 5) based on the second logic signal (in a second copy of Takao's circuit 540 is coupled to 510, Fig 5).
Mulligan does not teach driving a wide bandgap device.
Takao teaches a conventional power semiconductor device (see Fig 10) including driving a silicon device (Si-IGBT 2, Fig 10); driving a wide bandgap device (wide bandgap semiconductor switching device 1, Fig 10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the gate driver in Nagase, as taught by Mulligan, as it provides the advantage of reducing static bias current, improving speed and reliability of the power converter ([0012] of Mulligan).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the wide bandgap semiconductor device in Nagase, as taught by Takao, as it provides the advantage of having smaller chip area ([0025] of Takao).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 & 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the Claim Objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Nagase (US 20180138904 A1) teaches an apparatus (1, Fig 1) comprising:
one or more programmable switches (switches inside of 11 & 13, Fig 1) that after programming turn on a first device (20, Fig 1) and a second device (30, Fig 1) within a hybrid power switch circuitry (20, 30, Fig 1) and further when a received signal (DRIVING SIGNAL, Fig 1) to turn on the hybrid power switch circuitry is asserted (DRIVING SIGNAL turns on 20/30, Fig 1), wherein the first device is a device with a first type (20 is an IGBT, Fig 1) and wherein the second device is a device with a second type (30 is a MOSFET, Fig 1); a driver circuitry (11 & 13, Fig 1), wherein the logic signal is generated based on a detection signal (ON-ENABLED, Fig 1) received from a detection circuitry (12, Fig 1); the hybrid power switch circuitry that includes the first device and the second device (20, 30, Fig 1), and the detection circuitry that receives a feedback signal associated with the hybrid power switch circuitry (12 receives output of 11, which is the gate signal to 20 in the hybrid power switch, Fig 1), wherein the detection circuitry detects whether the first device is on or off (12 receives the gate signal to 20, Fig 1).
Nagase does not teach a selected ratio of [area occupied by] the first device to [area occupied by] the second device, a logic circuitry coupled to the one or more programmable switches that generates a logic signal, wherein the logic signal is generated based on a signal received from the one or more programmable switches, the driver circuitry coupled to the logic circuitry, wherein the driver circuitry generates a driving signal to the detection circuitry based on the logic signal; wherein the hybrid power switch circuitry receives the driving signal that controls a timing of turning the first device and the second device on and off.
Prior art Takao (US 20130062626 A1), Mulligan (US 20120206123 A1), Jacobson (US 9030054 B2), and Akitake (JP 2009142070 A) are considered to be the closest prior art.
Takao teaches a selected ratio ("an ratio between the wide bandgap semiconductor switching device and the Si-IGBT to be approximately set to 1:2 to 1:4.", [0032]) of [area occupied by] the first device (Si-IGBT 2, Fig 10) to [area occupied by] the second device (wide bandgap semiconductor switching device 1, Fig 10), wherein the first device (Si-IGBT 2, Fig 10) is a device with a first type and wherein the second device is a device with a second type (wide bandgap semiconductor switching device 1, Fig 10).
Mulligan teaches one or more programmable switches (509 & 510 are turned on and off by the controller, Fig 5), a logic circuitry coupled to the one or more programmable switches (540 is coupled to 510, Fig 5) that generates a logic signal (output of 540, Fig 5) to turn a driver circuitry on or off (536-537 are turned on/off by 540, Fig 5), wherein the logic signal is generated based on a signal received from the one or more programmable switches (540 generates output based on received signal from 510, Fig 5), the driver circuitry coupled to the logic circuitry (536-537 are coupled to 540, Fig 5), wherein the hybrid power switch circuitry receives the driving signal that controls a timing of turning the first device and the second device on and off (output of 536-7 is the driving signal that controls the timing of turning on/off of each of the devices, Fig 5).
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the driver circuitry generates a driving signal to the hybrid power switch circuitry and the detection circuitry based on the logic signal” and “wherein the detection circuitry generates the detection signal to the logic circuitry.”
Claims 2-10 are indicated as allowable, as they depend on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, Nagase (US 20180138904 A1) teaches an apparatus (1, Fig 1) comprising: one or more programmable switches (switches inside of 11 & 13, Fig 1), a hybrid power switch circuitry (20 & 30, Fig 1), received signal to turn on the hybrid power switch circuitry is asserted (DRIVING SIGNAL turns on 20/30, Fig 1); a first logic circuit (11, Fig 1), wherein the first logic circuit generates a first logic signal (output of 11, Fig 1), a second logic circuit (13, Fig 1), wherein the second logic circuit generates a second logic signal (output of 13, Fig 1), a feedback circuitry (12, Fig 1) that receives a [hybrid power switch circuitry] feedback signal associated with the hybrid power switch circuitry (12 receives signal connected to the gate of 20 of the hybrid switch, Fig 1), wherein the feedback circuitry generates a feedback signal (ON-ENABLED, Fig 1) based on an on/off status of the silicon device or the wide bandgap device (12 receives the gate signal to 20, Fig 1), wherein the feedback circuitry sends the feedback signal to the second logic circuit (12 sends feedback signal to 13, Fig 1), wherein the second logic circuit generates the second logic signal based on the feedback signal (13 receives ON-ENABLED from 12, Fig 1) and further based on the signal received from the one or more programmable switches (switches inside of 13, Fig 1).
Nagase does not teach a wide bandgap device and a silicon device within a hybrid power switch circuitry (20 & 30, Fig 1) based on a selected ratio ("an ratio between the wide bandgap semiconductor switching device and the Si-IGBT to be approximately set to 1:2 to 1:4.", [0032])
Prior art Takao (US 20130062626 A1), Mulligan (US 20120206123 A1), Jacobson (US 9030054 B2), and Akitake (JP 2009142070 A) are considered to be the closest prior art.
Takao teaches a wide bandgap device (wide bandgap semiconductor switching device 1, Fig 10) and a silicon device (Si-IGBT 2, Fig 10) within a hybrid power switch circuitry (1 & 2, Fig 10) a selected ratio ("an ratio between the wide bandgap semiconductor switching device and the Si-IGBT to be approximately set to 1:2 to 1:4.", [0032]), receive the second logic signal and in response thereto drive the wide bandgap device of the hybrid power switch circuitry (wide bandgap semiconductor switching device 1, Fig 10).
Mulligan teaches one or more programmable switches (509 & 510 are turned on and off by the controller, Fig 5), one or more programmable switches (in a first copy of Takao's circuit 540 is coupled to 510, Fig 5), wherein the first logic circuit generates a first logic signal (in a first copy of Takao's circuit, the output of 540, Fig 5); a first driving circuit coupled to the first logic circuit (in a first copy of Takao's circuit 536-537 are coupled to 540, Fig 5) to receive the first logic signal (in a first copy of Takao's circuit 536-537 are turned on/off by 540, Fig 5), a second logic circuit coupled to the one or more programmable switches (in a second copy of Takao's circuit 540 is coupled to 510, Fig 5), wherein the second logic circuit generates a second logic signal (in a second copy of Takao's circuit 540 is coupled to 510, Fig 5); a second driving circuit coupled to the second logic circuit (in a second copy of Takao's circuit 536-537 are coupled to 540, Fig 5), wherein the first logic circuit generates the first logic signal based on a signal received from the one or more programmable switches (in a first copy of Takao's circuit 540 generates output based on received signal from 510, Fig 5), wherein the second logic circuit generates the second logic signal based on the signal received from the one or more programmable switches (switches inside of 13, Fig 1) (in a second copy of Takao's circuit 540 is coupled to 510, Fig 5).
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the feedback circuitry sends the feedback signal to the first logic circuit” or “wherein the first logic circuit generates the first logic signal based on the feedback signal”.
Claim 12-16 are indicated as allowable, as they depend on Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Nagase, Mulligan, and Takao teaches all of the limitations of Claim 17, and further teaches comparing a voltage (535 compares a voltage from the output of the power switch 502, Fig 5 of Mulligan).
The combination of Nagase, Mulligan, and Takao does not teach wherein generating the feedback signal comprises comparing a voltage at a gate of the silicon device to a threshold voltage that turns on the silicon device to determine whether the silicon device is turned off or comparing a voltage at a gate of the wide bandgap device to a threshold voltage that turns on the wide bandgap device to determine whether the wide bandgap device is turned off.
Prior art Takao (US 20130062626 A1), Mulligan (US 20120206123 A1), Jacobson (US 9030054 B2), and Akitake (JP 2009142070 A) are considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein generating the feedback signal comprises comparing a voltage at a gate of the silicon device to a threshold voltage that turns on the silicon device to determine whether the silicon device is turned off or comparing a voltage at a gate of the wide bandgap device to a threshold voltage that turns on the wide bandgap device to determine whether the wide bandgap device is turned off.”
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Nagase, Mulligan, and Takao teaches all of the limitations of Claim 17, and further teaches further comprising controlling a timing of turning the wide bandgap device and silicon device on and off (each copy of Takao's circuit has an output of 536-7 is the driving signal that controls the timing of turning on/off of one of the devices, Fig 5) based on the [first] signal received to turn the hybrid power switch circuitry on or off.
The combination of Nagase, Mulligan, and Takao does not teach controlling a timing of turning the wide bandgap device and silicon device on and off based on a positioning of the one or more [programming] switches.
Prior art Takao (US 20130062626 A1), Mulligan (US 20120206123 A1), Jacobson (US 9030054 B2), and Akitake (JP 2009142070 A) are considered to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “controlling a timing of turning the wide bandgap device and silicon device on and off based on a positioning of the one or more [programming] switches.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C CAULK whose telephone number is (571)270-0623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30, every other Fri off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Crystal Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-1682. 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.
/J.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2838 /CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838