DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/5/2024 seems to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “404” has been used to designate both capacitor and a diode (for example see fig. 7). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et. al. US Patent 12,212,234 (Zhang).
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
340
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a current detection circuit (i.e., 25) (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first comparator (i.e., 52) (Fig. 6) configured to compare a sense voltage (i.e., Vis) (Zhang discloses using voltages signals as the current sense signals, see Fig. 5 and Fig. 6), which corresponds to a current flowing through a switching element (i.e., M1) (Fig. 5) (for example see column 5, lines 57-60) when the switching element is turned on, and a threshold (i.e., NOCP) (For example Zhang discloses a predetermined threshold, see column 8 lines 25-28 and Fig. 4a-4b);
and a determiner (i.e., 56) (Fig. 6) configured to determine, based on an output of the first comparator (i.e., 52) (Fig. 6), whether or not a timing at which a magnitude relationship between the sense voltage (i.e., Vis) (Fig. 6) and the threshold voltage (i.e., NOCP) (Fig. 6) is reversed after the switching element (i.e., M1) (Fig. 6) is turned on is before a predetermined time elapses (i.e., Ton_max) (Fig. 7) after the switching element is turned on (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang disclose the sense voltage (i.e., Vis) (Fig. 5) is a voltage generated at a connection node between the switching element (i.e., M1) (Fig. 5) and an inductor (i.e., L1) (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses a switching power supply controller (i.e., 20) (Fig. 1) comprising the current detection circuit (i.e., 25) (Fig. 1).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et. al. US Patent 12,212,234 (Zhang) in view of Aoki et. al., US Patent 11,502,608 (Aoki).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang fail to disclose a light emitting element driver comprising the current detection circuit.
However, Aoki in the same field of endeavor discloses a light emitting element driver comprising the current detection circuit (i.e., CSC) (Fig. 26) in order to detect current.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally provide a light emitting element driver comprising the current detection circuit in Zhang, as taught by Aoki, in order to detect current.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et. al. US Patent 12,212,234 (Zhang) in view of Tajima et. al., US Patent 10,256,725 (Tajima).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang fail to disclose a motor driver comprising the current detection circuit.
However, Tajima in the same field of endeavor discloses a motor driver comprising the current detection circuit (i.e., 10) (Fig. 1) in order to detect current (for example see column 20, lines 48-53).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally provide a motor driver comprising the current detection circuit in Zhang, as taught by Tajima, in order to detect current.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Zhang alone or in combination, as applied above, fail to disclose the determiner including: a first charger configured to be charged with a first constant current until the magnitude relationship between the sense voltage and the threshold voltage is reversed after the switching element is turned on; a second charger configured to be charged with a second constant current after the magnitude relationship between the sense voltage and the threshold voltage is reversed; and a second comparator configured to compare a charging voltage of the first charger and a charging voltage of the second charger.
Claim 4 is dependent of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang alone or in combination, as applied above, fail to disclose the current detection circuit comprising a voltage generator configured to generate the threshold voltage, wherein the voltage generator includes: a resistance element whose resistance value is larger than an on-resistance of the switching element; and a current source configured to cause a set current to flow through the resistance element.
Claim 6 is dependent of claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAHVEH COMAS TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-4011. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursday 830am.
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, Thienvu V Tran can be reached on (571) 270-1276. 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.
/YAHVEH COMAS TORRES/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838