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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because new grounds of rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 4A, 4B, 6 and 12 are all illegible. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/26/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 and 7-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because the font choice for the formula blurs the variables making the formula illegible.
Claim 11 inherits the same from claim 10.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the beginning" in line 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the end" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first power device of a respective switching unit" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim never previously mentioned a respective switching unit having a first power device.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second power device of the respective switching unit" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim never previously mentioned the respective switching unit having a second power device.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a respective switching unit" in line 8. Is the applicant claiming a third switching unit?? Claim 1 now claims two switching units and a respective switching unit making three switching units. Does reference the respective switching unit in line 9 include choice between the two switching units in line 3 in addition to the respective switching unit in line 8?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the source" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What source, which source, which device?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the drain" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What drain, which drain, which device?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the neutral point of each" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The two switching units have not been claimed to include neutral points only the respective switching unit was claimed as having a neutral point.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first power device" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which first power device of which unit?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each switching unit" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. when claiming “each” does the applicant mean each of the two switching units or each of the three claimed units between that includes the additional respective switching unit?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first power device of a respective switching unit" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim never previously mentioned a respective switching unit having a first power device.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a respective switching unit" in line 7. Is the applicant claiming a third switching unit?? Claim 4 now claims two switching units and a respective switching unit making three switching units. Does reference the respective switching unit in line 8 include choice between the two switching units in line 3 in addition to the respective switching unit in line 7?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second power device of the respective switching unit" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim never previously mentioned the respective switching unit having a second power device.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the source" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What source, which source, which device?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the drain" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What drain, which drain, which device?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the neutral point of each" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The two switching units have not been claimed to include neutral points only the respective switching unit was claimed as having a neutral point.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first power device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which first power device of which unit?
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second power device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which first power device of which unit?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a first parasitic output capacitor of two parasitic output capacitors of the first and second power devices of one switching unit" in line 6. This is vague and confusing. Does this mean there are two parasitic output capacitors per power device per switching unit? Or, there are two parasitic capacitors total per switching unit? Or, two output capacitors total?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first power device of a respective switching unit" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim never previously mentioned a respective switching unit having a first power device.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a respective switching unit" in line 8. Is the applicant claiming a third switching unit?? Claim 10 now claims two switching units and a respective switching unit making three switching units. Does reference the respective switching unit in line 9 include choice between the two switching units in line 6 in addition to the respective switching unit in line 8?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second power device of the respective switching unit" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim never previously mentioned the respective switching unit having a second power device.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the source" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What source, which source, which device?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the drain" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What drain, which drain, which device?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the neutral point of each" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The two switching units have not been claimed to include neutral points only the respective switching unit was claimed as having a neutral point.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the first power device" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which first power device of which unit?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "each switching unit" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. when claiming “each” does the applicant mean each of the two switching units or each of the three claimed units between that includes the additional respective switching unit?
Claim 11 inherits from claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4 and 7-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the reasons are the same as stated in the previous office action dated 4/07/2026.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GARY L LAXTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2079. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 am-4 pm.
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 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.
/GARY L LAXTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 8/31/2026
Prosecution Insights