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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants argues that claims 1-2, 4-16 are allowable. However, after reviewing the claims, they are rejected under 112(b) because indefinite. Applicant argues that claims 17-20 are allowable. But in review of non-final office action dated on 10/2/2025 from previous examiner ( Afework Demisse), claims 17-20 was not examined. And Claims 17-20 are examined in this office action.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: converting unit configured to convert, current sensing unit configured to sense, voltage sensing unit configured to sense in claim 1.
Converting unit has been interpreted under 112(f) as including one or more switches based on [0037] of the specification.
Current sensing unit has been interpreted under 112(f) as comprises a transformer, a resistor and a diode based on [0065] of specification.
Voltage sensing unit has been interpretated under 112(f) as comprises a resistor based on [0065] and Fig. 9 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 13, 15, 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, line 4, “the magnitude of an output voltage” should be – the magnitude of the output voltage—
Claim 15, line 2-3, “an output voltage” should be—the output voltage—
Claim 17, line 9, “which the state of the output unit a first state” should be – which the state of the output unit in a first state—
Claim 17, line 10, “a second time in which the state of the output unit a second state” should be – which the state of the output unit in a second state--
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1, line 12-13, recites “the control unit sums the first sensing value and the second sensing value and compares the same to a reference value to switch off the switch,”
claim 10, line 13, recite the limitation “the control unit sums the output voltage of the output-side circuit unit and the input current of the switching unit to a reference value and compares the same to a reference value.” It is unclear what is the same means without any explanation in the claim or specification. For examination purpose, the limitation is interpretate as “compares the sum to a reference value.
Claims 2, 5-9, 11-16 are rejected for the same reason because they depend on claim 1 or claim 10.
Claim 13 recites the limitations that “wherein an amount of time that the first upper switch and the second lower switch remain ON simultaneously of an amount of time that the first lower switch and the second upper switch remain ON simultaneously increases inversely with the magnitude of an output voltage of the output-side circuit unit.” It is unclear that “an amount of time that the first upper switch and the second lower switch remain ON simultaneously of an amount of time that the first lower switch and the second upper switch remain ON simultaneously” means. For exemption purpose, the claim is interpretated as “an amount of time that the first upper switch and the second lower switch remain ON simultaneously, or an amount of time that the first lower switch and the second upper switch remain ON simultaneously, increases inversely with the magnitude of an output voltage of the output-side circuit unit” based on para [0044] of the specification.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the state of the output unit a first state comprising a remaining state of a load current.” It is unclear what does the remaining state of a load current meaning without any explanation about the remaining state in the specification. For examination purpose, the limitation is interpretated as “the state of the output unit a first state comprising a state that is different from a varying state of a load current.”
Claims 18-20 are rejected for the same reason because they depend on claim 17.
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.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kimura (US20140198538A1) in view of Hua (US5999433A)
With regard to claim 17, Kimura teaches a converter comprising:
a switching unit comprising a plurality of upper switches (Q1, Q2, Fig. 12) and a plurality of lower switches(Q3, A4, Fig. 12);
an output unit ( out connected to load Fig. 12)configured to output a voltage output from the switching unit;
a sensor ( 13b, Fig. 12, also, see [0207] there could be a 13c to measure the I out )configured to sense a state of the output unit; and
a control unit (19, 17, 16, 14, Fig. 12) configured to control a duty of the switching unit according to the state of the output unit sensed by the sensor (see 15 generates duty cyle control for Q1-Q4 based on feedback from 13b, 13c, Fig. 12 and [0172])
Kimura does not specifically teach wherein the control unit controls the duty of the switching unit as a first time in which the state of the output unit a first state comprising a remaining state of a load current or as a second time in which the state of the output unit a second state comprising a varying state of a load current
However, Hua teaches wherein the control unit controls the duty of the switching unit as a first time in which the state of the output unit a first state comprising a remaining state of a load current ( a steady-state duty cycle as 35% where there is no load current variation, col 5, line 10-20 ), or as a second time in which the state of the output unit a second state comprising a varying state of a load current ( duty cycle vary from 20% to 50% in order to accommodate the load current variation, col 5, line 10-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to modify the Kimura, to configure the control unit to control the duty of the switching unit as a first time in which the state of the output unit a first state comprising a remaining state of a load current or as a second time in which the state of the output unit a second state comprising a varying state of a load current, as taught by Hua, in order to accommodate the load current variation, col 5, line 10-20.
With regard to claim 18, the combination of Kimura and Hua teaches all the limitations of claim 17, Hua further teaches the first time is shorter than the second time (duty cycle vary from 20% to 50% as the second time instead of 35% as the first-time col 5, line 10-20).
With regard to claim 19, the combination of Kimura and Hua teaches all the limitations of claim 17, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first time and the second time are variable times.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to adjust the first time and second time to be variable times since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, the first time and the second time can be adjusted to a desire value to accommodate the load current variation as Hua disclosed. And the current application does not disclose any criticality of the first and second time being variable or fixed as seen in para [0081] of current application.
With regard to claim 20, the combination of Kimura and Hua teaches all the limitations of claim 17, Kimura further teaches the sensor senses a current flowing a load (, see [0207] there could be a 13c to measure the I out)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ohtake (US 20150256088 A1) teaches about duty cycle at 50% during the predetermined start period and varies based on the heavy load or light load.
Hua (US20060007714A1) teaches a control circuit adapted to receive a current sense signal reflecting the output current and a feedback signal reflecting the output voltage, the control circuit including a first over-current protection circuit adapted to shut off operation of the switched mode power converter if a sum of the current sense signal and the feedback signal exceed a first predetermined limit
Kalvanaranman (US 9,379,621 B1) teaches about a digital slope peak mode controlled converter.
Ishii (US 8421424 B2) teaches the input voltage compensating circuit is configured to generate the compensation signal that is proportional to a sum of the output voltage of the converter part and the input voltage and that is inversely proportional to the input voltage
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINPING SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-1284. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
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.
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872