DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a response to the nonprovisional application filed on 13 June 2024.
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 .
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.
(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 1, 2, 4, 5; 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Giuliano. (US 8860396 B2; hereinafter "Giuliano") .
In re claim 1, Giuliano discloses an apparatus (Figs. 31 - 36) comprising: a first converter circuit (16A) with a first output terminal (11B) and a second output terminal (the second terminal, opposite of 11B, that Capacitor 9B is connected to); a second converter circuit (12A) with a first input terminal and a second input terminal and a third output terminal, wherein a first connection connects the first output terminal to the first input terminal, and wherein a second connection connects the second output terminal to the second input terminal; and a direct current (DC) decoupling component (9B) that is connected between the first connection and the second connection, wherein the DC decoupling component DC decouples a signal between the first connection and the second connection (Col 13 Lines 8: decoupling capacitors 9A or 9B are present).
In re claim 2, Giuliano discloses the apparatus (Figs. 31 and 32), wherein the DC decoupling component is a capacitor (9B).
In re claim 4, Giuliano discloses the apparatus wherein the first converter is a buck/boost converter circuit (16A as shown in Fig 33 and further explained in Col 13 Line 60: regulating circuit 16A is a synchronous four switch buck-boost converter).
In re claim 5, Giuliano discloses the apparatus, wherein the second converter is a charge pump converter circuit (12A in Figs. 31 and 32).
In re claim 12, Giuliano discloses an apparatus (Figs. 31 and 32) comprising: a buck/boost converter (Col 6, Lines 31-32: regulating circuit 16A (e.g. a buck, a boost, or a buck/boost converter)); a charge pump converter (12A and 12B), wherein the buck/boost converter and the charge pump converter are cascaded with one another (shown in Figs. 31 and 32); and a capacitor (9B), wherein a first terminal of the capacitor is connected to a first output of a first cascaded converter circuit (11B) and a second terminal of the capacitor is connected to a second output of the first cascaded converter circuit (second terminal of 9B that is opposite of 11B), and wherein the first output of the first cascaded converter circuit is a first input to a second cascaded converter circuit and wherein the second output of the first cascaded converter circuit is a second input to the second cascaded converter circuit.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giuliano. (US 8860396 B2; hereinafter "Giuliano") and in view of Sagasta et al. (US 11581821 B2; hereinafter “Sagasta”).
In re claim 3, Giuliano discloses an apparatus (see claim 1 rejection, above) wherein the DC decoupling component is a capacitor.
Giuliano does not disclose an apparatus wherein the DC decoupling component is a switch.
Whereas, Sagasta discloses an apparatus (Fig. 2A) of two converter circuits and wherein a DC decoupling component is a switch (Col 13 Line 56-60: In one example, by coupling/decoupling the switching legs between the first and second DC outputs 220, 222 while VP and VN are providing V0, switching losses of the DC/AC inverter 206 can be reduced.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have combined the apparatus of Giuliano by using a switch as a decoupling component, as taught by Sagasta, to have better control of the apparatus.
Claims 6-11; 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giuliano. (US 8860396 B2; hereinafter "Giuliano") and in view of Williams. (US 7786712 B2; hereinafter “Williams”).
In re claim 6, Giuliano discloses an apparatus (see rejections above) wherein a current is outputted by the first and second output terminals, and a voltage is outputted from the third terminal.
Giuliano does not disclose an apparatus wherein the second converter circuit is configured to output a feedback signal from the third output terminal; the feedback signal is configured to regulate a current output from the first output terminal and the second output terminal; and the current is generated from the first converter circuit.
Whereas Williams discloses an apparatus (Fig. 14A) wherein a second converter circuit (408) is configured to output a feedback signal (VFB) from a second output terminal (nVy); a feedback signal (VFB) is configured to regulate a current output from a first output (Vy); and the current is generated from a first converter circuit (401 and further explained in Col 41 Lines 8-13: Feedback control occurs by controlling the pulse width and inductor current such that whenever the V.sub.FBin input is less than V.sub.ref, the converter reacts by increasing pulse-width and switch on-time, increasing average inductor current, and driving V.sub.out to a higher voltage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus, as taught by Giuliano, wherein: the second converter circuit is configured to output a feedback signal from the third output terminal; the feedback signal is configured to regulate a current output from the first output terminal and the second output terminal; and the current is generated from the first converter circuit, as taught by Williams, to better regulate the current output.
In re claim 7, Giuliano discloses an apparatus (see rejections above) wherein the current generated from the first converter circuit outputs to the second converter circuit.
Giuliano does not disclose an apparatus wherein the current generated from the first converter circuit regulates a voltage output by the second converter circuit.
Whereas Williams discloses an apparatus (Fig. 14A wherein the current generated from the first converter circuit (401) regulates a voltage output by the second converter circuit (408). (Further explained in Col 41 Lines 8-13: Feedback control occurs by controlling the pulse width and inductor current such that whenever the V.sub.FBin input is less than V.sub.ref, the converter reacts by increasing pulse-width and switch on-time, increasing average inductor current, and driving V.sub.out to a higher voltage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus, as taught by Giuliano, wherein the current generated from the first converter circuit regulates a voltage output by the second converter circuit, as taught by Williams, to better regulate a voltage output.
In re claim 8, Giuliano discloses an apparatus (see rejections above), wherein the first converter circuit and the second converter circuit include multiple phases (Col 2 Lines 60-66: the regulating circuit is connected between the input terminal of the converter and an input port of the switching network, and either the switching network is a multi-phase switching network, the switching network and the regulating circuit are bidirectional, or the regulator circuit is multi-phase.).
Giuliano does not disclose an apparatus, wherein a first phase of the first converter circuit and the second converter circuit operates independently from a second phase of the first converter circuit and the second converter circuit.
Whereas Williams discloses an apparatus (Figs. 27A), wherein a first phase of the first converter circuit (790A) and the second converter circuit (790B) operates independently of the first converter circuit and the second converter circuit (Col 39 Lines 1-5: The MOSFETs 796-799 within charge pump post-converter 790B may be switched synchronously to the pre-regulator clock at the frequency.PHI. or at some higher multiple of the clock frequency, i.e. m.PHI., or alternatively at a frequency independent of the clock frequency.PHI.).
Williams further discloses an apparatus (Fig. 28C) wherein the first converter circuit and the second converter circuit include multiple phases (Col 40 Lines 14-15: FIG. 28C illustrates an equivalent circuit 875 of converter 840 in the next phase).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have modified the multi-phase apparatus, as taught by Giuliano, wherein a first phase of the first converter circuit and the second converter circuit operates independently from the first converter circuit and the second converter circuit, as taught by Williams, to have better control of the apparatus.
In re claim 9, Giuliano discloses a multi-phases apparatus, wherein an apparatus (Fig.35) operates in a buck mode (Col 14 Lines 38-39: the switching network 200 is a two-phase fractional step-down series-parallel SC converter) and wherein an apparatus (Fig. 36) operates in a boost mode (Col 14 Lines 28-29: the switching network 200 is a two-phase step-up series-parallel SC converter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have modified apparatus, as taught by Giuliano and Williams, wherein the first phase operates in a buck mode and wherein the second phase operates in a boost mode to have better efficiency.
In re claim 10, Giuliano discloses a multi-phase apparatus (see above rejection), wherein the apparatus operates in a buck mode (Col 14 Lines 38-39: the switching network 200 is a two-phase fractional step-down series-parallel SC converter).
Giuliano does not disclose an apparatus, wherein the first and the second phase each operate in a buck mode independent of one another.
Whereas Williams discloses an apparatus (see rejections above), wherein the first and second phase operated independent of one another (Col 39 Lines 1-5: The MOSFETs 796-799 within charge pump post-converter 790B may be switched synchronously to the pre-regulator clock at the frequency.PHI. or at some higher multiple of the clock frequency, i.e. m.PHI., or alternatively at a frequency independent of the clock frequency.PHI.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have modified the multi-phase apparatus that operates in buck mode, as taught by Giuliano, wherein the first and the second phase each operate independent of one another, as taught by Williams, to have better control and efficiency of the apparatus.
In re claim 11, Giuliano discloses a multi-phase apparatus (see rejections above), wherein the apparatus operates in a boost mode (Col 14 Lines 28-29: the switching network 200 is a two-phase step-up series-parallel SC converter).
Giuliano does not disclose an apparatus, wherein the first and the second phase each operate in a boost mode independent of one another.
Whereas Williams discloses an apparatus (see above rejection), wherein the first and second phase operated independent of one another (Col 39 Lines 1-5: The MOSFETs 796-799 within charge pump post-converter 790B may be switched synchronously to the pre-regulator clock at the frequency.PHI. or at some higher multiple of the clock frequency, i.e. m.PHI., or alternatively at a frequency independent of the clock frequency.PHI.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have modified the multi-phase apparatus that operates in boost mode, as taught by Giuliano, wherein the first and the second phase each operate independent of one another, as taught by Williams, to have better control and efficiency of the apparatus.
In re claim 13, Giuliano discloses an apparatus (see rejections above), wherein there is a first and second converter circuit.
Giuliano does not disclose an apparatus, wherein: the second cascaded converter circuit is configured to output a feedback signal from an output of the cascaded converter circuits; the feedback is configured to regulate a current output from the first cascaded converter circuit; and the current is generated from the first cascaded converter circuit.
Whereas Williams discloses an apparatus (Fig. 14A), wherein: the second cascaded converter circuit (408) is configured to output a feedback signal (VFB) from an output of the cascaded converter circuits; the feedback is configured to regulate a current output (Vy) from the first cascaded converter circuit; and the current is generated from the first cascaded converter circuit (401 and further explained in Col 41 Lines 8-13: Feedback control occurs by controlling the pulse width and inductor current such that whenever the V.sub.FBin input is less than V.sub.ref, the converter reacts by increasing pulse-width and switch on-time, increasing average inductor current, and driving V.sub.out to a higher voltage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have modified an apparatus, as taught by Giuliano, wherein: the second cascaded converter circuit is configured to output a feedback signal from an output of the cascaded converter circuits; the feedback is configured to regulate a current output from the first cascaded converter circuit; and the current is generated from the first cascaded converter circuit, as taught by Williams to have better control and be more responsive.
In re claim 14, Giuliano discloses an apparatus (see rejections above) wherein the current generated from the first cascaded converter circuit is outputted to the second cascaded converter circuit.
Giuliano does not disclose an apparatus, wherein the current generated from the first cascaded converter circuit regulates a voltage output by the second cascaded converter circuit.
Whereas Williams discloses an apparatus (Fig. 14A wherein the current generated from the first cascaded converter circuit (401) regulates a voltage output by the second cascaded converter circuit (408). (Further explained in Col 41 Lines 8-13: Feedback control occurs by controlling the pulse width and inductor current such that whenever the V.sub.FBin input is less than V.sub.ref, the converter reacts by increasing pulse-width and switch on-time, increasing average inductor current, and driving V.sub.out to a higher voltage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus, as taught by Giuliano, wherein the current generated from the first cascaded converter circuit regulates a voltage output by the second cascaded converter circuit, as taught by Williams, to better regulate a voltage output.
In re claim 15, Giuliano discloses an apparatus (see rejections above), wherein the buck/boost converter includes multiple phases and wherein the charge pump converter includes multiple phases. (Col 2 Lines 60-66: the regulating circuit is connected between the input terminal of the converter and an input port of the switching network, and either the switching network is a multi-phase switching network, the switching network and the regulating circuit are bidirectional, or the regulator circuit is multi-phase.).
Giuliano does not disclose an apparatus, wherein a first phase of the buck/boost converter and the charge pump converter operates independently from a second phase of the buck/boost converter and the charge pump converter.
Whereas Williams discloses an apparatus (Figs. 27A), wherein a first phase of the first converter circuit (790A) and the second converter circuit (790B) operates independently of the first converter circuit and the second converter circuit (Col 39 Lines 1-5: The MOSFETs 796-799 within charge pump post-converter 790B may be switched synchronously to the pre-regulator clock at the frequency.PHI. or at some higher multiple of the clock frequency, i.e. m.PHI., or alternatively at a frequency independent of the clock frequency.PHI.).
Williams further discloses an apparatus (Fig. 28C) wherein the first converter circuit and the second converter circuit include multiple phases (Col 40 Lines 14-15: FIG. 28C illustrates an equivalent circuit 875 of converter 840 in the next phase).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have modified the multi-phase apparatus, as taught by Giuliano, wherein a first phase of the the buck/boost converter circuit and the charge pump converter circuit operates independently from the first converter circuit and the second converter circuit, as taught by Williams, to have better control of the apparatus.
In re claim 16, Giuliano discloses a multi-phases apparatus, wherein an apparatus (Fig.35) operates in a buck mode (Col 14 Lines 38-39: the switching network 200 is a two-phase fractional step-down series-parallel SC converter) and wherein an apparatus (Fig. 36) operates in a boost mode (Col 14 Lines 28-29: the switching network 200 is a two-phase step-up series-parallel SC converter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have modified apparatus, as taught by Giuliano and Williams, wherein the first phase operates in a buck mode and wherein the second phase operates in a boost mode to have better efficiency.
In re claim 17, Giuliano discloses a multi-phase apparatus (see above rejection), wherein the apparatus operates in a buck mode (Col 14 Lines 38-39: the switching network 200 is a two-phase fractional step-down series-parallel SC converter).
Giuliano does not disclose an apparatus, wherein the first and the second phase each operate in a buck mode independent of one another.
Whereas Williams discloses an apparatus (see rejections above), wherein the first and second phase operated independent of one another (Col 39 Lines 1-5: The MOSFETs 796-799 within charge pump post-converter 790B may be switched synchronously to the pre-regulator clock at the frequency.PHI. or at some higher multiple of the clock frequency, i.e. m.PHI., or alternatively at a frequency independent of the clock frequency.PHI.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have modified the multi-phase apparatus that operates in buck mode, as taught by Giuliano, wherein the first and the second phase each operate independent of one another, as taught by Williams, to have better control and efficiency of the apparatus.
In re claim 18, Giuliano discloses a multi-phase apparatus (see rejections above), wherein the apparatus operates in a boost mode (Col 14 Lines 28-29: the switching network 200 is a two-phase step-up series-parallel SC converter).
Giuliano does not disclose an apparatus, wherein the first and the second phase each operate in a boost mode independent of one another.
Whereas Williams discloses an apparatus (see above rejection), wherein the first and second phase operated independent of one another (Col 39 Lines 1-5: The MOSFETs 796-799 within charge pump post-converter 790B may be switched synchronously to the pre-regulator clock at the frequency.PHI. or at some higher multiple of the clock frequency, i.e. m.PHI., or alternatively at a frequency independent of the clock frequency.PHI.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have modified the multi-phase apparatus that operates in boost mode, as taught by Giuliano, wherein the first and the second phase each operate independent of one another, as taught by Williams, to have better control and efficiency of the apparatus.
In re claim 19, Giuliano discloses a multi-phase apparatus, discloses a multi-phase boost converter (16A in Fig. 29) and a buck/boost configuration (16A as shown in Fig 33 and further explained in Col 13 Line 60: regulating circuit 16A is a synchronous four switch buck-boost converter). Giuliano further discloses a complementary charge pump (12A and 12D shown in Fig 22) associated with multi-phases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date to further modify the modified apparatus, as taught by Giuliano and Williams, wherein each phase associated with the buck/boost converter has a complementary charge pump associated therewith to have better efficiency.
In re claim 20, Giuliano discloses an apparatus (Fig. 25-27), wherein a buck converter (16A) includes a first input terminal and a second input terminal, wherein the first input terminal receives a first voltage input and the second input terminal receives a second voltage input, and wherein the first and the second input terminals are selectable (Col 12 Lines 27-33: During the positive portion of the AC cycle (0 to .pi. radians) all switches labeled "7" are closed while all switches labeled "8" are opened as shown in FIG. 26. Similarly, during the negative portion of the AC cycle (.pi. to 2.pi. radians) all switches labeled "8" are closed while all switches labeled "7" are opened as shown in FIG. 27.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Giuliano. US 10381924 B2 Power Converters With Modular Stages, Giuliano et al. US 11664727 B2 Switched-capacitor Power Converters, Szczeszynski et al. US 9658635 B2 Charge Pump With Temporally-varying Adiabaticity, Giuliano. US 9143037 B2 Control Of Multi-phase Power Coverters With Capacitive Energy Transfer; Perreault et al. US 8212541 B2 Power Converter With Capacitive Energy Transfer And Fast Dynamic Response.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicolas A Chapa Mills whose telephone number is (571)272-3683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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 L 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.
/NICOLAS ALDEN CHAPA MILLS/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838