Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/650,985

POWER SAVING FOR ACCESS POINT

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 30, 2024
Examiner
REHMAN, MOHAMMED H
Art Unit
2176
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP
OA Round
2 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
595 granted / 715 resolved
+28.2% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
735
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
§103
56.0%
+16.0% vs TC avg
§102
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
§112
6.7%
-33.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 715 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION 1. The office acknowledges the receipt of the following and placed of record in the file: Amendment dated 3/3/2026. 2. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. 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. 3. Claim(s) 1-3, 11-13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells et al. (Wells”), U.S. 2012/0159216 and Lee Jung Han lee (“Lee”), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0176372. Regarding Claim 1, 11 and 20, Wells teaches a method comprising: obtaining, by an access point (AP), an environment temperature for the AP [Para: 0018(“controller 110 measures the current temperature of processor 140 at periodical intervals”)]; determining, by the AP and based on the environment temperature, a target working voltage for a front end module (FEM) in the AP [Para: 0018 (as “as it applies to multiple internal voltage requirements”) and 0020(“controller 110 further obtains voltage, frequency, and temperature parameters 125 of processor 140 … which were generated during manufacture and the testing of the processor”)]; determining, by the AP, that the target working voltage for the FEM is different from an actual working voltage for the FEM output by a voltage regulator in the AP [Para: 0019 (when determining whether there is need for “extra voltage is added” or “voltage need not be applied” based on temperature)]; controlling, by the AP and based on determining that the target working voltage is different from the actual working voltage [Para: 0018(“current temperature of the processor as it applies to … processor array voltage requirement” suggests that the target voltage requirement changes as the temperature changes and as it determines target voltage is different from current voltage when “voltage to be added to processor 140 by voltage regulator 130 dynamically based on current temperature” see para 0019)], the voltage regulator to output the target working voltage [Para: 0019(“voltage regulator 130 to adjust the voltage …”)]; and controlling, by the AP, the target working voltage from the voltage regulator to the FEM [Para: 0019(“voltage regulator 130 to adjust the voltage supplied to the processor”)]. Wells does not disclose expressly controlling via a feedback voltage based on determining that the target working voltage is different from actual working voltage and controlling the target working voltage based on the feedback voltage. In the same field of endeavor (e.g., controlling output voltage based on adjusting a feedback voltage from output voltage), Lee teaches controlling via a feedback voltage (VFB) based on determining that a target working voltage is different from an actual working voltage and controlling the target working voltage based on the feedback voltage [Para: 0006(“voltage divider configured to divide the output voltage to generate the feedback voltage … wherein the feedback voltage is changed according to the voltage division value so that the output voltage increases to a predetermined target level”), 0027 (“a voltage division value of the output voltage VOUT may be changed in response to the output of the controller 130 so that a level of the feedback voltage may be adjusted”), 0031, 0036 and Fig-1(as output of controller 130 (VFB) adjusted from feedback of output signal)]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Well’s teachings of controlling, by the AP and based on determining that the target working voltage is different from the actual working voltage with Lee’s teachings of controlling the target working voltage based on the feedback voltage would allow Wells to reach intended target “output voltage increases to a predetermined target level or higher during a first period and then sequentially decreases during a second period after the first period lapses” [Lee, para: 0006] which may be required high performance based load. Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Wells teaches wherein the determining the target working voltage for the FEM in the AP comprises: obtaining a mapping related to temperatures and working voltages [Para: 0020(“controller 110 further obtains voltage, frequency, and temperature parameters 125 of processor 140”)]; and determining, based on the mapping and the environment temperature, the target working voltage for the FEM [Para: 0020(“controller 110 utilizes a current temperature, one or more parameters of the processor 140, and a desired operating frequency, to determine a dynamic voltage adjustment”)]. Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Wells teaches wherein the mapping is a mapping between a plurality of temperature ranges and a plurality of working voltages, and the determining, based on the mapping and the environment temperature, the target working voltage for the FEM comprises: determining a temperature range of the plurality of temperature ranges including the environment temperature [Para: 0022(“controller 110 determines voltage adjustments based on cutoff temperature thresholds for voltage minimums” or different range of temperate for different voltages); and determining a working voltage of the plurality of working voltages corresponding to the temperature range as the target working voltage for the FEM [Para: 0022-0023, (see cold voltage curve and hot voltage curve for different temperatures) and Fig-1A-11B]. 4. Claim(s) 4-8, 10 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells and Lee (hereinafter, “Wells-Lee”) as applied above and Po-Chih Ku (“Ku”), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0126313. Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Wells-Lee teaches wherein the controlling the voltage regulator to output the target working voltage comprises: determining that target working voltage is different than a actual working voltage; and adjusting, based on determining that the target working voltage is different from the actual working voltage to control the voltage regulator to output the target working voltage as set forth above. Wells does not disclose expressly determining a feedback voltage provided to the voltage regulator; and adjusting, based on the feedback voltage to control the voltage regulator to output the target working voltage. In the same field of endeavor (e.g., regulator voltage circuit and voltage control method), Ku teaches determining a feedback voltage provided to the voltage regulator (“regulator circuit 13 may receive the voltage V(fb)”); and adjusting, based on the feedback voltage to control the voltage regulator to output the target working voltage [Para: 0019-0020(“regulator circuit 13 may receive the voltage V(fb). In particular, the regulator circuit 13 may control the driving circuit 11 to adjust the voltage V(out) according to the voltage V(fb)”) and [ Fig-7(703)]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wells-Lee’s teachings of determining a feedback adjusting, based on determining that the target working voltage is different from the actual working voltage to control the voltage regulator to output the target working voltage with Ku’s teachings of determining a feedback voltage provided at the voltage regulator and adjusting, based on the feedback voltage to control the voltage regulator to output the target working voltage for the purpose of effectively improving regulator performance and to keep output voltage stable in different load condition [Ku,0003]. Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Ku teaches wherein the adjusting the feedback voltage to control the voltage regulator to output the target working voltage comprises: reducing, based on determining that the target working voltage is higher than the actual working voltage, a feedback voltage provided to the voltage regulator [Para: 0023(when switch circuit disconnect) and 0024 (“In response to the compensating circuit 14 being disconnected from the output end of the regulator circuit 13 (i.e., the compensating circuit 14 being deactivated), the compensating circuit 14 stops compensating the output of the regulator circuit 13”)]; and controlling, based on the reduced feedback voltage, the voltage regulator to increase the actual working voltage to the target working voltage [Para: 0027(in heavy load condition “switch circuit 15 may activate the compensating circuit 14 in response to the input bypass-voltage meeting the critical condition”)]. Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Ku teaches wherein the adjusting the feedback voltage to control the voltage regulator to output the target working voltage further comprises: increasing, based on determining that the target working voltage is lower than the actual working voltage, the feedback voltage provided to the voltage regulator [Para: 0027(as in heavy load condition “switch circuit 15 may activate the compensating circuit 14 in response to the input bypass-voltage meeting the critical condition”)]; controlling, based on the increased feedback voltage, the voltage regulator to reduce the actual working voltage to the target working voltage [Para: 0023(as switch circuit disconnect) and 0024 (as “the compensating circuit 14 being disconnected from the output end of the regulator circuit 13 (i.e., the compensating circuit 14 being deactivated), the compensating circuit 14 stops compensating the output of the regulator circuit 13”)]. Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Ku teaches wherein the AP comprises a voltage detection unit, and the determining a feedback voltage provided to the voltage regulator comprises: detecting the feedback voltage provided to the voltage regulator with the voltage detection unit [Para: 0021(as signal V(d) is generated in regulator according to V(fb))]. Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Ku teaches wherein the AP further comprises a voltage output unit, and the method further comprises: connecting the voltage output unit to the voltage detection unit [Para: 0020(“regulator circuit 13 is coupled to the driving circuit 11 and the feedback circuit 12. The regulator circuit 13 may receive the voltage V(fb)” to generate V(d))]; and adjusting an output voltage of the voltage output unit to the detected feedback voltage [Para: 0020(“regulator circuit 13 may control the driving circuit 11 to adjust the voltage V(out) according to the voltage V(fb)”)]. Regarding Claim 10, Ku teaches wherein the adjusting the feedback voltage to control the voltage regulator to output the target working voltage comprises: control the voltage output unit to adjust the feedback voltage provided to the voltage regulator [Para: 0024(“conduct the compensating circuit 14” or “disconnect compensating circuit” to adjust the feedback V(fb))]. 5. Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells, Lee and Ku as applied above (herein after “WLK”) and Chauhan et al. (“Chauhan”), U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0413579. Regarding Claims 9 and 19, WLK teaches all limitations of claim 9 as described rejecting Claim 8 above. WLK does not disclose expressly wherein the voltage detection unit is an analog-to-digital converter, and the voltage output unit is a digital-to-analog converter. In the same field of endeavor (e.g., front-end module circuitry comprising voltage regulator having a feedback signal from output voltage), Chauhan teaches voltage regulator receiving a feedback signal from an output circuit [Para: 0056 and Fig-1(signal from baseband processing circuitry 108 to regulator 121)] Wherein the output circuit comprising a voltage detection unit (baseband processing circuitry) and the voltage detection unit is an analog-to-digital converter, and the voltage output unit is a digital-to-analog converter [Para: 0044 and Fig-3]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify WLK’s teachings of AP comprises a voltage detection unit and determining a feedback voltage to the regulator with Chauhan’s teachings of voltage detection unit is an analog-to-digital converter, and the voltage output unit is a digital-to-analog converter for the purpose of supporting flexibility to provide power supply features that is optimal for communication circuit. Response to Arguments 6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant's arguments filed on 3/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues regarding Claims 4 and 14 that Ku does not disclose “adjusting the feedback voltage to control the voltage regulator to output the target output voltage”. However, claim recites “determining a feedback voltage … adjusting, based on determining that the target working voltage is different from actual working voltage, the feedback voltage to control the voltage regulator to output the target output voltage” (emphasis added) where the limitation is interpreted as a target working voltage comprises determining a feedback voltage and based on determining that the target working voltage is different from actual working voltage, utilizing the feedback voltage to control/adjust voltage regulator to output the target working voltage (or output voltage). Ku teaches the argued feature as to the extent it is claimed as set forth above. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 MOHAMMED H REHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1412. The examiner can normally be reached 8.00 - 5.00. 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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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. /MOHAMMED H REHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 30, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 06, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 17, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 17, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 03, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602099
POWER-ON OPERATION EXECUTION METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12578782
POWER-ON CONTROL METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578774
MEMORY HIERARCHY POWER MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581026
Power Saving Method for High Definition Multimedia Interface
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572195
SYSTEM ON CHIP AND METHOD OF OPERATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+18.5%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 715 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month