DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 3 April 2026.
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
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.
Election/Restriction
Acknowledgement of applicant’s decision to elect inventions II & III is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 13 June 2023.
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 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.
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 10-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (US 20220103074) in view of Krueger (US 20180091046).
As to claim 10, Cai discloses a controller for a multiphase switching converter, comprising: a comparison circuit configured to provide a comparison signal (204) based on an output voltage (104) of the multiphase switching converter and a reference signal (105); and a programmable circuit (101) configured to provide a plurality of pulse width modulation signals to control a plurality of switching circuits (102, 103) of the multiphase switching converter, wherein the programmable circuit is configured to turn on the plurality of switching circuits in sequence based on the comparison signal (Fig. 11), and configured to turn off the plurality of switching circuits respectively based on an initial ON-time period (Fig. 3, 323) and a time interval between turning on two successive switching circuits (Fig. 11, shows the phase interleaving, which reads on the claim language);
Cai does not disclose wherein in response to the time interval being shorter than a regulation period, an ON- time period of at least one of the plurality of switching circuits is regulated based on the time interval; and wherein in response to the time interval being longer than the regulation period, the ON- time period of at least one of the plurality of switching circuits is controlled to be equal to the initial ON-time period.
Krueger teaches wherein in response to the time interval being shorter than a regulation period, an ON- time period of at least one of the plurality of switching circuits is regulated based on the time interval (Fig. 17, 203); and wherein in response to the time interval being longer than the regulation period, the ON- time period of at least one of the plurality of switching circuits is controlled to be equal to the initial ON-time period (Fig. 17, 202).
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 on time comparaisons as disclosed in Krueger to prevent unwanted current oscillations.
As to claim 11, Cai in view of Krueger teaches wherein in response to the time interval being shorter than the regulation period, the ON-time period of at least one of the plurality of switching circuits decreases when the time interval increases, and increases when the time interval decreases (the period can only decrease, increase or remain equal when it is controlled by the error signal. It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
As to claim 12, Cai in view of Krueger teaches wherein the regulation period is determined by a preset switching period of the plurality of switching circuits (Fig. 11, startup).
As to claim 13, Cai in view of Krueger teaches further comprising: an interface circuit, configured to receive user settings via a communication bus to set the preset switching period of the plurality of switching circuits, and a number of the plurality of switching circuits (this is whatever device sets the initial period in Fig. 11).
As to claim 14, wherein the programmable circuit is configured to control the initial ON-time period based on a preset switching period of the plurality of switching circuits (Fig. 11, Fig. 3).
As to claim 15, Cai in view of Krueger teaches wherein in response to the time interval being shorter than the regulation period, an ON-time period of at least one of the plurality of switching circuits is equal to the initial ON- time period adding a modulation period (this is obvious from a finite number of possibilities as explained above).
As to claim 16, Cai in view of Krueger teaches wherein the modulation period is increases when the time interval decreases, and controlled decreases when the time interval increases (this is obvious from a finite number of possibilities as explained above. This is also a function of the error signal)..
As to claims 17-19, these are method claims corresponding to claims 10-12 above and are obvious for similar reasons.
As to claim 20, Cao in view of Krueger teaches a multiphase switching converter, comprising: a plurality of switching circuits configured to provide an output voltage; and a controller configured to provide a plurality of pulse width modulation signals to turn on the plurality of switching circuits based on the output voltage and a reference signal, and to turn off the plurality of switching circuits respectively based on an initial ON-time period and a time interval between turning on two successive switching circuits; wherein in response to the time interval being shorter than a regulation period, an ON- time period of at least one of the plurality of switching circuits is adjusted (this is similar to claim 10 above, but with fewer limitaitons the main difference being a converter rather than a controller in the preamble. Cai teaches a multiphase converter in Fig. 1, and as such the combination and reasons to combine are similar)
As to claims 21, Cao in view of Krueger teaches wherein in response to the time interval being shorter than the regulation period, the ON-time period of at least one of the plurality of switching circuits decreases when the time interval increases, and increases when the time interval decreases (see claim 11 above).
As to claim 22, Cao in view of Krueger teaches wherein the controller comprises: an interface circuit, configured to receive user settings via a communication bus to set a preset switching period of the plurality of switching circuits (see claim 13 above).
As to claim 23, Cao in view of Krueger teaches wherein the regulation period is determined by the preset switching period of the plurality of switching circuits (see claim 14 above).
As to claim 24, Cao in view of Kreuger teaches wherein in response to the time interval being shorter than the regulation period, the ON-time period of at least one of the plurality of switching circuits is controlled to be equal to the initial ON-time period adding a modulation period (see claim 11 above).
As to claim 25, wherein the modulation period increases when the time interval decreases, and decreases when the time interval increases. (see finite explained in claim 11 above).
As to claim 26, Cao in view of Kreuger teaches wherein in response to the time interval being longer than the regulation period, the ON-time period of at least one of the plurality of switching circuits is controlled to be equal to the initial ON-time period (see claim 10 above).
As to claim 27, Cao in view of Kreuger teaches wherein the controller comprises: a comparison circuit configured to provide a comparison signal via comparing a feedback signal and the reference signal, wherein the feedback signal indicates the output voltage (see claim 10 above, also Fig. 2 shows the error signal in Cao).
As to claim 28, Cao in view of Kreuger teaches wherein the regulation period is shorter than a preset switching period of the plurality of switching circuits divided by n, where n is a number of the plurality of switching circuits (Fig. 11 shows a standard period interleaving which reads on the claim).
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached on 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 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
Prosecution Insights