DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 05/28/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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
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 1-8, 11-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20100046261, hereinafter ‘261).
Claim 12, ‘261 teaches a control module for a switching power converter (e.g., see Fig. 2-8), comprising: an input-sense terminal (e.g., ZCD), a switch-node terminal (e.g., the middle node of 36 and 78), and a drive terminal (e.g., OUT); a controller comprising: a regulator (e.g., the circuits comprising 52) configured to generate a drive signal (e.g., VGATE, VZCDDTO) that is periodic, each period defining an on-time and an off-time; a mode controller (e.g., comprising 54, 55, 57) coupled to the input-sense terminal and the regulator, the mode controller configured to change conduction modes implemented by the regulator based on a state of a sense signal (e.g., at ZCD) received from the input-sense terminal; and a transition controller (e.g., 57, 64) coupled to the regulator, the mode controller, and the drive terminal, the transition controller configured to: pass unchanged the drive signal to the drive terminal during at least some periods of the drive signal (e.g., when VZCDDT being LOW, or 0V, see Fig. 6); and responsive to the mode controller changing conduction modes, convey with adjustments the drive signal to the drive terminal (e.g., when VZCDDT being High, see Fig. 6).
Claim 13, ‘261 teaches the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein when the transition controller conveys with adjustment, the transition controller is configured to modify the on-time during a plurality of periods of the drive signal (e.g., see Fig. 6).
Claim 14, ‘261 teaches the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein when the transition controller conveys with adjustments, the transition controller is configured to: sense an input-sense signal from the input sense terminal (e.g., VZCD, see Fig. 2-5); and while the input-sense signal is rising, decrease the on-time for at least one period (e.g., from 5th to 6th switching cycle of current Vin cycle, see Fig. 6).
Claim 15, ‘261 teaches the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein when the transition controller conveys with adjustments, the transition controller is configured to: sense an input-sense signal from the input sense terminal (e.g., VZCD, see Fig. 2-5); and while the input-sense signal is rising, decrease the on-time for at least one period (e.g., from 5th to 6th switching cycle of current Vin cycle, see Fig. 6) and then increase the on-time for at least one period (e.g., from 2nd to 3rd switching cycle of the next Vin cycle, see Fig. 6).
Claim 16, ‘261 teaches the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein when the transition controller conveys with adjustments, the transition controller is configured to: sense an input-sense signal from the input sense terminal (e.g., VZCD, see Fig. 2-5); and while the input-sense signal is falling, increase the on-time for at least one period (e.g., from 2nd to 3rd switching cycle of current Vin cycle, see Fig. 6).
Claim 17, ‘261 teaches the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. It further teaches that wherein when the transition controller conveys with adjustments, the transition controller is configured to: sense an input-sense signal from the input sense terminal (e.g., VZCD, see Fig. 2-5); and while the input-sense signal is falling, increase the on-time for at least one period and then decrease the on-time for at least one period (e.g., from 5th to 6th switching cycle of current Vin cycle, see Fig. 6).
Claim 20, ‘829 teaches a switching power converter (e.g., see Fig. 2-8) comprising: a rectifier defining (e.g., 20) a rectified output and a return (e.g., see Fig. 2); an inductor (e.g., 34) having a first lead coupled to the rectified output, and a second lead defining a switch node (e.g., the middle node of 36 and 78, see Fig. 2); a diode (e.g., 78) having an anode coupled to the switch node, and a cathode defining a positive polarity connection (e.g., the positive polarity connection of Vo in reference to GND, see Fig. 2); an electrically-controlled switch (e.g., 36) having a first lead coupled to the switch node (e.g., see Fig. 2), a second lead coupled the return, and a control input (e.g., the gate input of 36, see Fig. 2); a control module coupled to the control input and the positive polarity connection (e.g., the circuits comprising 52), the control module comprising: a regulator (e.g., 52) configured to generate a drive signal (e.g., VGATE, VZCDDTO) that is periodic, each period defining an on-time and an off-time; a mode controller (e.g., 54, 57) coupled to the regulator, the mode controller configured to change conduction modes implemented by the regulator (e.g., see Fig. 6); and a transition controller (e.g., 57) coupled to the regulator, the mode controller, and the control input, the transition controller configured to: pass unchanged the drive signal to the control input during at least some periods of the drive signal (e.g., when VZCDDT being LOW, or 0V, see Fig. 6); and responsive to the mode controller changing conduction modes, convey with adjustments the drive signal to the control input (e.g., when VZCDDT being High, see Fig. 6).
For method claims 1-8, 11, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 9, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20100046261, hereinafter ‘261), in view of Pervaiz et al. (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20220393574, hereinafter ‘574).
Claim 9, ‘261teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. ‘261 does not explicitly disclose that wherein changing between conduction modes comprises changing between at least one selected from a group comprising: discontinuous-conduction mode (DCM) and critical-conduction mode (CrCM); and CrCM and continuous-conduction mode (CCM)..
‘574 discloses a PFC converter with auto-mpde transition between CCM and CrCM (e.g., between CCM and TM/CrCM, see Abstract, [0007][0032], Fig. 2, 7).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify ‘261 by including the mode changing between CCM and CrCM as taught by ‘574 in order of being able to achieve relatively high power factor and relatively low total harmonic distortion (THD) (e.g., see [0032]).
Claim 18, ‘261 teaches the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above. ‘261 does not explicitly disclose that wherein when the mode controller changes conduction modes, the mode controller is configured to change between at least one selected from a group comprising: discontinuous-conduction mode (DCM) and critical-conduction mode (CrCM); and CrCM and continuous-conduction mode (CCM).
‘574 discloses a PFC converter with auto-mpde transition between CCM and CrCM (e.g., between CCM and TM, see Abstract, [0007][0032], Fig. 2, 7).
‘261 reads the same obviousness as discussed in claim 9 rejection above.
Claims 10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wu (US Patent or PG Pub. No. 20100046261, hereinafter ‘261), in view of YAN (CN 115333389 A, hereinafter YAN).
Claim 10, ‘261teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. ‘261 does not explicitly disclose that wherein changing between conduction modes comprises changing between at least one selected from a group comprising: discontinuous-conduction mode (DCM) and critical-conduction mode (CrCM); and CrCM and continuous-conduction mode (CCM)..
YAN discloses a conversion circuit boosting a rectified AC input (e.g., U1) with conduction mode transition selection between 3rd-valley DCM and 2nd-valley DCM, and/or 2nd -valley DCM and 1st -valley DCM (e.g., see Abstract, [0079], Fig. 1-2, 8-10).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify ‘261 by including the mode changing between 3rd-valley DCM and 2nd-valley DCM, and/or 2nd -valley DCM and 1st -valley DCM as taught by YAN in order of being able to improve the electric energy conversion efficiency of the converter circuit (e.g., see Abstract, [0079], Fig. 1-2, 8-10).
Claim 19, ‘261teaches the limitations of claim 12 as discussed above.
‘261 does not explicitly disclose that wherein when the mode controller changes conduction modes, the mode controller is configured to change between at least one selected from a group comprising: third-valley discontinuous-conduction mode (DCM) and second-valley DCM; second-valley DCM and first-valley DCM.
YAN discloses a conversion circuit boosting a rectified AC input (e.g., U1) with conduction mode transition selection between 3rd-valley DCM and 2nd-valley DCM; and/or 2nd -valley DCM and 1st -valley DCM (e.g., see Abstract, [0079], Fig. 1-2, 8-10).
YAN reads the same obviousness as discussed in claim 10 rejection above.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments in the remarks filed on 05/28/2026 have been considered have been fully considered and please see the examiner's responses for the reasons as discussed below.
Applicants stated on pages 7- 9 of the REMARKS:
PNG
media_image1.png
174
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
358
908
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
150
896
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
258
876
media_image4.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image5.png
330
878
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Response:
Applicant's above arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner would like to respectfully remind Applicant that as indicated in claim 12 rejection of the current office action above, the prior art ‘100 teaches the claimed limitations including “… a drive terminal (terminal OUT carrying drive signal Vgate); … a drive signal (Vgate being function of the signals comprising signal VZCDDTO, see Fig. 3- 6) that is periodic, each period defining an on-time and an off-time (see Fig. 4, 6); a mode controller (the circuits comprising 55, 57) … to change conduction modes implemented by the regulator based on a state of a sense signal (e.g., at ZCD) received from the input-sense terminal; … a transition controller (comprising 57, 64) … to: pass unchanged the drive signal to the drive terminal during at least some periods of the drive signal (during VZCDDT being LOW, or 0V, each cycle of the drive signal the pass unchanged, see Fig. 6); and responsive to the mode controller changing conduction modes, convey with adjustments the drive signal to the drive terminal (during VZCDDT being High ON/OFF peroids of signal Vgate being adjusted before send to the terminal OUT, see Fig. 4, 6) …", just as recited in the claim. Therefore, it is Examiner’s position that the prior art ‘261 does teach the argued limitations as recited in the claims.
PNG
media_image6.png
478
752
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
466
652
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In further response to applicant's argued features such as “…VZCDDT low/high state to both the claimed mode-controller-driven conduction-mode change and the claimed transition-controller trigger; … uses that zero-voltage-zone indication to extend on- time and vary the slew rate of VRAMP, including by changing charging/discharging current or capacitance while VIN is within the zero-voltage crossing zone. …, Wu's adjustment is responsive to a detected near-zero input-voltage region, not responsive to a mode controller changing an inductor conduction mode …”, Applicants are respectfully reminded that before the prior art can be applied, the Patent Office must consider the scope of the claims, and during examination, patent claims are to be given the "broadest reasonable interpretation" in light of the specification. MPEP § 2258(G); see also § 2111 (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Since Applicant did not limit the drive signal or the mode-controller in the argued claims to or excluding any specific states, structure or functional details other than be recited in the respective argued claim(s), it is Examiner’s position that the prior art ‘261 anticipates the argued limitations as recited in the claims.
Therefore, for at least the reasons as discussed above, the grounds of the claim rejections are maintained in the current office action, and the current office action is made FINAL.
Examiner's Note:
Examiner has cited particular columns 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.
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 extension fee 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUE ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1263. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM-5:00PM
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Lewis can be reached on 571-272-2838. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JUE ZHANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights