DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to the arguments filed on 7/13/2026.
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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazucha et al. (US Patent 6838863) in view of Ferrel et al. (US Patent 9340114). Regarding claim 1, Hazucha et al. discloses (see fig. 3B) an HSC voltage conversion module comprising: an input voltage (Vin); a transformer (autotransformer with windings 52/56) without a primary winding (there is no primary winding with autotransformer comprising 52/56) and including secondary windings magnetically coupled by a magnetic core (52/56); first and second switch bridges (50 and 58) connected to the transformer and to the input voltage (connection of 50 and 58 to the autotransformer and Vin); and an output capacitor (60) that is connected to a single node of the transformer (60 connection to autotransformer) and provides an output voltage (output from 60). Hazucha et al. does not disclose an output voltage that is one quarter of the input voltage. Ferrel et al. (see fig. 2) discloses an output voltage that is one quarter of the input voltage (see column 6 lines 42-52 which states “The duty cycle of the on-and-off switching for connecting and disconnecting inductor 122 to and from power supply 116 defines the relationship between the input voltage from power supply 116 and the output voltage of buck converter 112. For instance, a duty cycle of 25% results in the output voltage being one quarter of the input voltage. As an example, if the input voltage were forty volts (40V) then the output voltage would be ten volts (10V)”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Ferrel et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 5, Hazucha et al. discloses (see fig. 3B) that the secondary windings of the transformer include first and second windings (52 and 56).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazucha et al. (US Patent 6838863) in view of Rizzolatti et al. (US Patent 11705810) and Ferrel et al. (US Patent 9340114). Regarding claim 2, Hazucha et al. does not disclose a first resonant circuit connected between the first switch bridge and the transformer; and a second resonant circuit connected between the second switch bridge and the transformer. Rizzolatti et al. discloses (see fig. 3) a first resonant circuit (Cres1) connected between a first switch bridge and a transformer (see connection of Cres1); and a second resonant circuit (Cres2) connected between a second switch bridge and the transformer (see connection of Cres2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Rizzolatti et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 3, Hazuha et al. does not disclose that the first resonant circuit includes a first resonant capacitor; the second resonant circuit includes a second resonant capacitor; and the first and the second resonant circuits rely on a leakage inductance of the transformer. Rizzolatti et al. discloses (see fig. 3) that the first resonant circuit includes a first resonant capacitor (Cres1); the second resonant circuit includes a second resonant capacitor (Cres2); and the first and the second resonant circuits rely on a leakage inductance of the transformer (operation of Cres1 and Cres2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Rizzolatti et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 4, Hazucha et al. does not disclose that each of the first and second switch bridges includes first, second, and third switches connected in series. Rizzolatti et al. discloses (see fig. 3) that each first and second switch bridges includes first, second, and third switches connected in series (see series connections of Q1-Q3 and Q4-Q6). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Rizzolatti et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 7, Hazucha et al. discloses (see fig. 3B) a converter comprising: an input terminal (Vin terminal) that receives an input voltage (Vin); a first switch bridge (50) connected in parallel across the input voltage (50 parallel connection to Vin terminal) a second switch bridge (58); an output capacitor (60); a transformer (52/56) including: a single winding that includes first and second secondary windings (52 and 56) that are physically connected to each other to define a secondary winding group (see connection of 52 and 56) and that are magnetically coupled by a magnetic core (see connection of 52 and 56); and a single tap connected to the output capacitor (60 connection to 52/56); and an output terminal (Vout terminal) connected to the first output capacitor (Vout terminal connection to 60). Hazucha et al. does not disclose that the first bridge includes: first, second, and third switches connected in series; a first node between the first and the second switches; and a third node between the second and third switches; the second bridge includes: fourth, fifth, and sixth switches connected in series; a second node between the fourth and the fifth switches; and a fourth node between the fifth and sixth switches; a first resonant circuit connected between the first node and a first end of the single winding; a second resonant circuit connected between the second node and a second end of the single winding opposite to the first end of the single winding; and the output terminal providing a first output voltage that is one quarter of the input voltage. Rizzolatti et al. discloses (see fig. 3) a first bridge includes: first (Q1), second (Q2), and third (Q3) switches connected in series (see series connection); a first node between the first and the second switches (node between Q1 and Q2); and a third node between the second and third switches (node between Q2 and Q3); the second bridge includes: fourth (Q4), fifth (Q5), and sixth (Q6) switches connected in series (see series connection); a second node between the fourth and the fifth switches (node between Q4 and Q5); and a fourth node between the fifth and sixth switches (node between Q5 and Q6); a first resonant circuit (Cres1) connected between the first node and a first end of a single winding (see connection of Cres1); a second resonant circuit (Cres2) connected between the second node and a second end of the single winding opposite to the first end of the single winding (see connection of Cres2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Rizzolatti et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies. Ferrel et al. (see fig. 2) discloses an output terminal (output terminal connected to load) providing a first output voltage that is one quarter of the input voltage (see column 6 lines 42-52 which states “The duty cycle of the on-and-off switching for connecting and disconnecting inductor 122 to and from power supply 116 defines the relationship between the input voltage from power supply 116 and the output voltage of buck converter 112. For instance, a duty cycle of 25% results in the output voltage being one quarter of the input voltage. As an example, if the input voltage were forty volts (40V) then the output voltage would be ten volts (10V)”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Ferrel et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 8, Hazucha et al. does not disclose that the first resonant circuit includes a first resonant capacitor; the second resonant circuit includes a second resonant capacitor; and the first and the second resonant circuits rely on a leakage inductance of the transformer. Rizzolatti et al. discloses (see fig. 3) that the first resonant circuit includes a first resonant capacitor (Cres1); the second resonant circuit includes a second resonant capacitor (Cres2); and the first and the second resonant circuits rely on a leakage inductance of the transformer (operation of Cres1 and Cres2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Rizzolatti et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazucha et al. (US Patent 6838863) in view of Ferrel et al. (US Patent 9340114) and Mueller (US 2013/0336013). Regarding claim 6, Hazucha et al. does not disclose that the HSC voltage conversion module is bidirectional.. Mueller discloses (see fig. ) that a conversion module can be bidirectional (See paragraph 0028). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Mueller et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hazucha et al. (US Patent 6838863) in view of Rizzolatti et al. (US Patent 11705810), Ferrel et al. (US Patent 9340114) and Mueller (US 2013/0336013). Regarding claim 9, Hazucha et al. does not disclose that the converter is bidirectional such that power can flow from the input terminal to the output terminal and from the output terminal to the input terminal. Mueller discloses (see fig. ) that a converter can be bidirectional such that power can flow from the input terminal to the output terminal and from the output terminal to the input terminal (See paragraph 0028). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the module of Hazucha et al. to include the features of Mueller et al. because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully disagrees that Hazucha et al.'s module can be modified as suggested by the Examiner to provide a one quarter output as alleged by the Examiner. First, the Examiner has provided the same purported reason or motivation for modifying Hazucha et al. in each of the rejections of claims 1-9, even though these claims are directed to different features and the Examiner has relied on different secondary references. This repeated purported reason or motivation is improper because it is conclusory and lacks any factual or evidentiary support whatsoever. The Examiner is reminded that MPEP § 2141(111) explains: The [Supreme] Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "'[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness."' KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See also Adapt Pharma Operations Ltd. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 25 F.4th 1354, 1365, 2022 USPQ2d 144 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (stating that a determination of obviousness "requires 'identify[ing] a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does"' (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1395). The Examiner's purported conclusory reason or motivation would not have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hazucha et al.'s module in any manner, including modifying Hazucha et al.'s module to provide a one-quarter output voltage as recited in Applicant's claims 1 and 7”. The examiner does not agree with the applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1 and 7. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation for the combinations using the secondary references of Ferrel et al. and Rizzolatti et al. is that they provide for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies. Further regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that “on pages 3 and 4 of the Office Action, the Examiner alleged the Ferrel et al. teaches modifying the duty cycle of Ferrel et al.'s buck converter 112 to change the output voltage. As noted by the Examiner, Ferrel et al.'s col. 6, 11. 45-47 describes an example of using a 25% duty cycle to provide a one-quarter output voltage. But Hazucha et al. and Ferrel et al. are directed to different topologies. Hazucha et al.'s col. 4, II. 13-18 teaches that a one-half output voltage is achieved in Hazucha et al.'s module because the output voltage Vout is taken at the midpoint node between Hazucha et al.'s equal, magnetically-coupled first and second inductors 52 and 56. That is, Hazucha et al.'s output voltage is determined by the topology of the circuit and is not determined by a duty cycle of the converter. The topology in Hazucha et al.'s Fig. 3B must provide a one-half output voltage to avoid saturation of the first and second inductors 52, 56. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that changing the duty cycle of Hazucha et al.'s module would not have resulted in changing the output voltage and would have resulted in the first and second inductors being undesirably driven into saturation. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Hazucha et al.'s module cannot be modified in view of Ferrel et al. to provide a one-quarter output”. The examiner does not agree with the applicant’s arguments regarding the Hazucha et al. reference and the Ferrel et al. reference. It’s unclear as to how the different topologies between Hazucha et al. and Ferrel et al. are being used to determine that Hazucha et al. cannot be modified to achieve an output voltage being one-quarter of an input voltage. Hazucha et al. is silent in regards to achieving an output voltage that is one-quarter of an input voltage. Futhermore, Hazucha et al. is silent in regards to stating that the specific topology disclosed is the sole factor in determining an output voltage. Therefore, it’s unclear as how Hazucha et al. cannot be modified by Ferrel et al. to disclose achieving an output voltage that is one quarter of the input voltage (see column 6 lines 42-52 which states “The duty cycle of the on-and-off switching for connecting and disconnecting inductor 122 to and from power supply 116 defines the relationship between the input voltage from power supply 116 and the output voltage of buck converter 112. For instance, a duty cycle of 25% results in the output voltage being one quarter of the input voltage. As an example, if the input voltage were forty volts (40V) then the output voltage would be ten volts (10V)”). Regarding claim 7, the applicant argues that “With respect to claim 7, the Examiner has relied upon Rizzolatti et al. to allegedly cure various deficiencies in Hazucha et al. and Ferrel et al. However, Rizzolatti et al., applied alone or in combination with Hazucha et al. and Ferrel et al., fails to explain how or why it would have been possible to modify Hazucha et al.'s module to provide the feature of "an output voltage that is one quarter of the input voltage" as recited in Applicant's claim 1 and as similarly recited in Applicant's claim 7. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hazucha et al. and the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hazucha et al. and Rizzolatti et al. in view of Ferrel et al”. The examiner’s does not agree with the applicant’s arguments regarding the Rizzolatti et al. reference. Ferrel et al. is relied upon to disclose achieving an output voltage that is one quarter of the input voltage (see column 6 lines 42-52 which states “The duty cycle of the on-and-off switching for connecting and disconnecting inductor 122 to and from power supply 116 defines the relationship between the input voltage from power supply 116 and the output voltage of buck converter 112. For instance, a duty cycle of 25% results in the output voltage being one quarter of the input voltage. As an example, if the input voltage were forty volts (40V) then the output voltage would be ten volts (10V)”), not Rizzolatti et al.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A GBLENDE whose telephone number is (571)270-5472. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Monica Lewis can be reached at 571-272-1838. 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.
/JEFFREY A GBLENDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights