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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 6-9. 10-13, 15-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 line 2, “each current limiting device” should be –a current limiting device of the plurality of current limiting device--. Similar correction is required in claim 1.
Claim 10 lines 4-5, “each current limiting device” should be –the current limiting device--. Similar correction is required in claims 11-13, 15-18. Similar correction is required in claim 1-3, 6-9.
Claim 12 line 4, “each undervoltage lockout value” should be -- each respective undervoltage lockout value--. Similar correction is required in claim 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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.
Claims 10-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Strutt (US 20230324871 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Strutt teaches a current limiting system (abstract, the current is limited) comprising a plurality of current limiting devices (e.g. 38a-c, figs.2-3) electrically coupled in series ([0048], The circuit elements 38a, 38b, 38c, in series with one another) to form a protected forward power path (i.e. current path 50, figs.2-3) where a current limiting device of the plurality of current limiting devices is configured to individually limit magnitude of an electric current flowing through the protected forward power path to a respective current limit value of the current limiting device ([0050], the current Is flowing in the current path 50 will be limited to the respective threshold value), wherein the current limiting device is further configured to control its respective current limit value such that:
the respective current limit value of the current limiting device is a respective constant current value ([0050], the current Is flowing in the current path 50 will be limited to the respective threshold value) when a magnitude of a respective supply voltage of the current limiting device is above a first voltage threshold value (it is necessarily true that MOSFETs turn on above a threshold voltage value), the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device being a voltage between (i) a voltage of the protected forward power path at a respective positive supply terminal of the current limiting device (e.g. source terminal of MOSFETs, figs.2-3) and (ii) a voltage of a respective negative power terminal of the current limiting device (e.g. gate of MOSFETs connected to negative terminal of supply V2, figs.2-3) and; and
the respective current limit value of the current limiting device is less than the respective constant current value of the current limiting device when the magnitude of the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device is below the first voltage threshold value ([0050], actuate the corresponding switching element as a function of a threshold value of the current Is flowing in the current path 50).
Regarding claim 11, Strutt teaches the current limiting system of claim 10, wherein the current limiting device is further configured to control its respective current limit value such that its respective current limit value is less than the respective constant current value of the current limiting device, when the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device is at a second voltage threshold value that is lower than the first voltage threshold value ([0047], The actively-controlled or controllable switching element 38a, 38b, and 38c can be realized, for example, as semiconductor switching elements) (it is necessarily true that switching involves different threshold voltages).
Regarding claim 12, Strutt teaches the current limiting system of claim 11, wherein the current limiting device is further configured to shut down when the magnitude of the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device is below a respective undervoltage lockout value of the current limiting device (it is necessarily true that MOSFET will turn off below a threshold voltage value), each respective undervoltage lockout value being lower than the first voltage threshold value and the second voltage threshold value (e.g. turn off voltage of MOSFET can be lesser than switching voltages of MOSFET, figs.2-3).
Regarding claim 13, Strutt teaches the current limiting system of claim 10, wherein the respective supply voltage of each current limiting device is different from the respective supply voltage of each other current limiting device, when the electric current is flowing through the protected forward power path (e.g. as Is flows through path 50, there is a small voltage drop across each MOSFET, figs.2-3).
Regarding claim 14, Strutt teaches the current limiting system of claim 10, wherein: the protected forward power path electrically couples a positive node of an electric power supply to a protected interface (e.g. positive of power supply V2/ V4 is connected to interface voltage regulator 36 via path 50, figs.2-3); a return power path electrically couples a negative node of the electric power supply to the protected interface (e.g. negative of power supply V2/V4 is connected to interface voltage regulator 36 via ground, figs.2-3); and the protected interface is configured to provide an interface for powering a load from the electric power supply via the protected forward power path and the return power path ([0049], the stroke is realized as a load via the voltage regulator 36).
Regarding claim 15, Strutt teaches the current limiting system of claim 10, wherein each current limiting device is further configured to control its respective current limit value ([0050], alternatively, the threshold values are at least in some cases different) such that the respective current limit value of the current limiting device decreases with decreasing magnitude of the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device when the magnitude of the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device is below the first voltage threshold value ([0056], the current rises up to >50 mA, and, at the semiconductor limitation, to 40 mA).
Regarding claim 19, the method is objected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, the method is objected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 15.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strutt (US 20230324871 A1), and further in view of Wohlfarth (US 20170110876 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Strutt teaches a current limiting system (abstract, the current is limited) comprising a plurality of current limiting devices (e.g. 38a-c, figs.2-3) electrically coupled in series ([0048], The circuit elements 38a, 38b, 38c, in series with one another) to form a protected power path (i.e. current path 50, figs.2-3) where a current limiting device of the plurality of current limiting devices is configured to individually limit magnitude of an electric current flowing through the protected power path to a respective current limit value of the current limiting device ([0050], the current Is flowing in the current path 50 will be limited to the respective threshold value), wherein the current limiting device is further configured to control its respective current limit value such that:
the respective current limit value of the current limiting device is a respective constant current value ([0050], the current Is flowing in the current path 50 will be limited to the respective threshold value) when a magnitude of a respective supply voltage of the current limiting device is above a first voltage threshold value (it is necessarily true that MOSFETs turn on above a threshold voltage value), the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device being a voltage between (i) a voltage of a respective positive power terminal of the current limiting device (e.g. source terminal of MOSFETs, figs.2-3) and (ii) a voltage of the protected return power path at a respective negative supply terminal of the current limiting device (e.g. gate of MOSFETs connected to negative terminal of supply V2, figs.2-3); and
the respective current limit value of the current limiting device is less than the respective constant current value of the current limiting device when the magnitude of the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device is below the first voltage threshold value ([0050], actuate the corresponding switching element as a function of a threshold value of the current Is flowing in the current path 50).
Strutt does not teach, the protected power path is a protected return power path.
Wohlfarth teaches in a similar field of endeavor of current limiter, a protected power path (abstract, an inrush limiting stage) is a protected return power path (e.g. path of inrush current limiter stage 410 is on the return path voltage source 402, figs.4-5).
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 protected return power path in Strutt, as taught by Wohlfarth, as it provides the advantage of protecting the power supply from load faults.
Regarding claim 2, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 11.
Regarding claim 3, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 12.
Regarding claim 4, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 13.
Regarding claim 5, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 14.
Regarding claim 6, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 16, Strutt teaches the current limiting system of claim 10.
Strutt does not teach, wherein the current limiting device is further configured to control its respective current limit value such that the respective current limit value of the current limiting device is a linear function of the magnitude of the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device when the magnitude of the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device is below the first voltage threshold value.
Prior art Wada (US 3529210 A), Swarr (US 20230318875 A1), Abesingha (US 20230163676 A1), Wohlfahrt (US 20170110876 A1) and Regev (US 20050088899 A1) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the current limiting device is further configured to control its respective current limit value such that the respective current limit value of the current limiting device is a linear function of the magnitude of the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device when the magnitude of the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device is below the first voltage threshold value.”
Regarding claim 17, Strutt teaches the current limiting system of claim 10.
Strutt does not teach, wherein the current limiting device is further configured to control its respective current limit value such that the respective current limit value of the current limiting device is a piecewise linear function of the respective magnitude of the supply voltage of the current limiting device when the magnitude of the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device is below the first voltage threshold value.
Prior art Wada (US 3529210 A), Swarr (US 20230318875 A1), Abesingha (US 20230163676 A1), Wohlfahrt (US 20170110876 A1) and Regev (US 20050088899 A1) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the current limiting device is further configured to control its respective current limit value such that the respective current limit value of the current limiting device is a piecewise linear function of the respective magnitude of the supply voltage of the current limiting device when the magnitude of the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device is below the first voltage threshold value.”
Regarding claim 18, Strutt teaches the current limiting system of claim 10.
Strutt does not teach, wherein the current limiting device is further configured to control its respective current limit value such that the respective current limit value of the current limiting device is a monotonic non-linear function of the magnitude of the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device when the magnitude of the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device is below the first voltage threshold value.
Prior art Wada (US 3529210 A), Swarr (US 20230318875 A1), Abesingha (US 20230163676 A1), Wohlfahrt (US 20170110876 A1) and Regev (US 20050088899 A1) have been found to be the closest prior art.
However, none of the prior art, taken singly or in combination, teach “wherein the current limiting device is further configured to control its respective current limit value such that the respective current limit value of the current limiting device is a monotonic non-linear function of the magnitude of the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device when the magnitude of the respective supply voltage of the current limiting device is below the first voltage threshold value.”
Regarding claim 7, it is indicated as allowable for the same reasons as stated above for claim 16.
Regarding claim 8, it is indicated as allowable for the same reasons as stated above for claim 17.
Regarding claim 9, it is indicated as allowable for the same reasons as stated above for claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SREEYA SREEVATSA whose telephone number is (571)272-8304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thienvu V Tran can be reached at (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 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.
/SREEYA SREEVATSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 01/30/2026