DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the claim is indefinite because the correspondence between the statement “when declaring that a status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxOK” and the other elements of the limitation “the power supply device provides a vendor defined message to the power reception device via the configuration channel pin to request the power reception device to enter a low power mode, and in the low power mode, the power supply device controls the pull-up circuit to stop providing a current to the configuration channel pin when declaring that a status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxOK”, is ambiguous. As drafted, there’s uncertainty whether the “when declaring that a status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxOK” relates to and further narrows the provided “a vendor defined message”, or whether the “when declaring that a status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxOK” is merely a statement of what the action “the power supply device controls the pull-up circuit to stop providing a current to the configuration channel pin” implies.
As to claim 2, the claim is indefinite because the correspondence between the statement “ when declaring that the status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxNG” and the limitations of the parent claim, is ambiguous. As drafted, there’s uncertainty whether the “when declaring that a status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxOK” relates to and further narrows the provided “a vendor defined message”, or whether the “when declaring that the status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxOK” is merely a statement of what the action “wherein the power supply device controls the pull-up circuit to provide a preset current” implies.
As to claim 4, the claim is indefinite because the correspondence between the statements “when declaring that the status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxOK” and “when declaring that the status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxNG” and the limitations of the parent claim 1, is ambiguous. As drafted, there’s uncertainty whether the statements “when declaring that the status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxOK” and “when declaring that the status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxNG” relate to and further narrows the provided “a vendor defined message”, or whether the “when declaring that the status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxOK” is merely a statement of what the action “the power supply device controls the pull-up circuit to provide a first preset current” implies and the “when declaring that the status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxNG” is merely a statement of what the action “controls the pull-up circuit to provide a second preset current” implies
As to claim 9, the claim is indefinite because the correspondence between the statement “when declaring that the status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxOK” and the limitations of the parent claim, is ambiguous. As drafted, there’s uncertainty whether the “when declaring that the status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxOK” relates to and further narrows the provided “a vendor defined message”, or whether the “when declaring that the status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxOK” is merely a statement of what the action “wherein the power supply device controls the switch circuit to turn off” implies.
As to claim 10, the claim is indefinite because the correspondence between the statement “when declaring that the status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxNG” and the limitations of the parent claim, is ambiguous. As drafted, there’s uncertainty whether the “when declaring that the status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxNG” relates to and further narrows the provided “a vendor defined message”, or whether the “when declaring that the status of the pull-up circuit is SinkTxNG” is merely a statement of what the action “wherein the power supply device controls the switch circuit to turn on and adjusts the resistance value of the resistor circuit” implies.
Claims 3 and 5-8 are rejected due to dependence on the rejected claims above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and includes:
The US Pub. No. 2025/0086137 of Itakura et al. teaches a USB Type-C connector pull-up and pull-down resistor and configuration channel pin architecture and power supply management.
The US Pub. No. 2023/0327561 of Chan et al. teaches a power delivery system including a power delivery source device and power delivery sing device and a USB Type-C connector pull-up and pull-down resistor and configuration channel pin architecture.
The US Pub. No. 2017/0277251 of Gong et al. teaches an adaptive power supply circuit and system compatible with the USB Type-C specification.
The US Pub. No. 2018/0074574 of Camiolo et al. teaches a method and system for managing the power supply voltage of a USB Type-C device.
The examiner has cited particular column, line, and/or paragraph numbers in the references as 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 the 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 its entirety as potentially teaching of 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.
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
Applicants seeking an interview with the examiner, including WebEx Video Conferencing, are encouraged to fill out the online Automated Interview Request (AIR) form (http://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html). See MPEP §502.03, §713.01(11) and Interview Practice for additional details.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T OBERLY whose telephone number is (571)272-6991. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 800am-430pm (MT).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dr. Henry Tsai can be reached on (571) 272-4176. 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 Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center 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.
/ERIC T OBERLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184