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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karadi (US 10,345,838).
For claim 1, Karadi teaches a method (via Figures 1-2), comprising:
measuring an input voltage (Vout) from a device under test (Load, current source Ilim);
determining a feedback control voltage (voltage output by the drain terminal of Mpower) based at least in part on the input voltage (via 238) to provide a constant voltage (CV) mode control loop for the DUT (“when the second control loop 234 is activated, the voltage regulation circuit 230 is operating in a constant voltage mode in which the voltage is regulated”, col. 8, lines 65-67); and
applying the feedback control voltage added to the input voltage to the DUT to operate the DUT in a CV mode (via Mpower, as understood by examination of Figure 2 and col. 8, lines 65-67).
For claim 2, Karadi further teaches:
modifying the determined feedback control voltage to provide a constant current (CC) mode control loop for the DUT (via the first control loop, Abstract; 232 of Figure 2); and
applying the feedback control voltage to the DUT without adding the input voltage to operate the DUT in a CC mode (via Msen, as understood by examination of Figure 2).
For claim 4, Karadi further teaches:
the DUT comprises a constant current source (Ilim).
For claim 7, Karadi further teaches:
applying the feedback voltage added to the input voltage to the DUT applies a controllable effective resistance to the DUT (when Mpower is on, the voltage added to Vout is Vsup minus the inherent voltage drop across Mpower; when Mpower is off, the effective resistance is substantially infinite).
For claims 9 and 17, Karadi further teaches:
applying a snubber to reduce voltage fluctuations across the terminals of the DUT (R1 and C1 within 242).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al (US 2011/0037448).
For claim 10, Liu teaches a control system (Figure 12) comprising:
a device under test (circuit not shown to which Vout is supplied) configured in a constant voltage (CV) mode control loop (voltage regulation, Abstract and [0007]); and
a voltage-controlled resistor (120, Q2) coupled in a feedback path to the DUT (as understood by examination of Figure 12) and configured to operate as a control element for regulating a voltage across terminals of the DUT (as understood by examination of Figure 12).
For claim 11, Liu further teaches the voltage-controlled resistor comprises:
a measurement device (21, 22) configured to measure an input voltage from the DUT (Vout via FB); and
an amplifier (11) configured to controllably modify an amplitude of the input voltage (error amplifier, as understood by examination of Figure 12), and wherein the voltage-controlled resistor is configured to apply the amplitude-modified input voltage to the DUT to regulate the voltage across the terminals of the DUT ([0032]).
For claim 12, Liu further teaches the voltage-controlled resistor comprises:
a measurement device (21, 22) configured to measure an input voltage from the DUT (Vout via FB);
a constant voltage (CV) mode control loop (11, 12, Q2) configured to determine a feedback control voltage (sink voltage when Q2 is on) based at least in part on the input voltage (as understood by examination of Figure 12), and wherein the voltage-controlled resistor is configured to apply the feedback control voltage plus the input voltage to the DUT to regulate the voltage across the terminals of the DUT (as understood by examination of the Figures).
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karadi, Benedict (US 2017/0316811) and official notice.
For claim 3, Karadi teaches the limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach an FPGA as claimed.
However, Benedict teaches operating a voltage regulator in a constant voltage or constant current mode based upon controller 500 (Figure 6) which selects between constant voltage or constant current modes of operation (606) based upon a comparison between an output voltage of a voltage regulator (Figure 7) and a reference voltage (Figure 6). Benedict’s controller “may be implemented completely in hardware, such as an integrated circuit (IC), or may be implemented in a combination of hardware and software, such as including a processor that executes computer-executable code stored on a computer-readable data storage medium” [0028].
Similarly, Karadi teaches selecting between a constant voltage or constant current mode of operation via a comparison between two voltages.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Karadi’s 238, S1, the unlabeled buffer directly connected to S1, S2 and 244 using an integrated circuit since the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Benedict.
The combination of Karadi and Benedict as cited above teaches:
determining the feedback control voltage is performed by an integrated circuit.
The combination of Karadi and Benedict as cited above fails to teach the integrated circuit is an FPGA.
However, examiner takes official notice that an FPGA is a notoriously old and well-known type of integrated circuit capable of implementing comparators and switches.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Karadi’s 238, S1, the unlabeled buffer directly connected to S1, S2 and 244 using an FPGA since the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karadi and Benedict (US 2017/0316811).
For claim 5, Karadi teaches the limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach feedback control software coupled to analog integrators as claimed.
However, Benedict teaches operating a voltage regulator in a constant voltage or constant current mode based upon controller 500 (Figure 6) which selects between constant voltage or constant current modes of operation (606) based upon a comparison between an output voltage of a voltage regulator (Figure 7) and a reference voltage (Figure 6). Benedict’s controller “may be implemented completely in hardware, such as an integrated circuit (IC), or may be implemented in a combination of hardware and software, such as including a processor that executes computer-executable code stored on a computer-readable data storage medium” [0028].
Similarly, Karadi teaches selecting between a constant voltage or constant current mode of operation via a comparison between two voltages.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Karadi’s 238, S1, the unlabeled buffer directly connected to S1, S2 and 244 using a combination of hardware and software since the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Benedict.
The combination of Karadi and Benedict as cited above teaches:
determining the feedback control voltage is performed by feedback control software (which implement 238, S1, the unlabeled buffer directly connected to S1, S2 and 244) coupled to analog integrators (C1 and Cout), and wherein applying the feedback control voltage added to the input voltage is performed by a field-effect transistor (Mpower).
For claim 6, Karadi in view of Benedict teaches the limitations of claim 5 as cited above and Karadi further teaches:
the FET comprises a metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (NMOS).
For claim 18, Karadi teaches (via Figure 2):
measuring an input voltage (Vout) from a device under test (Load, current source Ilim);
determining a feedback control voltage (voltage output by the drain terminal of Mpower) based at least in part on the input voltage (via 238) to provide a constant voltage (CV) mode control loop for the DUT (“when the second control loop 234 is activated, the voltage regulation circuit 230 is operating in a constant voltage mode in which the voltage is regulated”, col. 8, lines 65-67); and
applying the feedback control voltage added to the input voltage to the DUT to operate the DUT in a CV mode (via Mpower, as understood by examination of Figure 2 and col. 8, lines 65-67).
Karadi fails to distinctly disclose a non-transitory computer readable memory medium as claimed.
However, Benedict teaches that a controller for a voltage regulator “may be implemented completely in hardware, such as an integrated circuit (IC), or may be implemented in a combination of hardware and software, such as including a processor that executes computer-executable code stored on a computer-readable data storage medium” [0028].
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Karadi’s circuit using a processor and memory (e.g., simulation of a circuit using a computer program such as PSPICE) since the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Benedict.
For claim 19, the combination of Karadi and Benedict further teaches:
modifying the determined feedback control voltage to provide a constant current (CC) mode control loop for the DUT (via the first control loop, Abstract; 232 of Figure 2); and
applying the feedback control voltage to the DUT without adding the input voltage to operate the DUT in a CC mode (via Msen, as understood by examination of Figure 2).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karadi and McDonald et al (US 2009/0119519).
For claim 8, Karadi teaches the limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach a PID controller as claimed.
However, McDonald teaches a PID controller (32, Figure 3) comprising a first comparator and second comparator, the PID controller controlling operation of a voltage regulator (26).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Karadi’s 238 and 244 using a PID controller since the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The combination of Karadi and McDonald as cited above teaches:
determining the feedback control voltage is performed by a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller (at least in part, as understood by the combination of references).
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Karadi.
For claim 13, Liu teaches the limitations of claim 12 as cited above but fails to teach a constant current mode control loop.
However, Karadi teaches constant voltage and constant current modes of operation via a constant voltage mode control loop (234) and a constant current mode control loop (232). The constant voltage mode control loop provides a feedback voltage based on the output voltage (Vfb) to an error amplifier (238) and the constant current mode control loop providing a feedback voltage based on the output current (Vocp) to an error amplifier.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Karadi’s current control loop and circuitry for switching between modes of operation (244, S1, S2) with Liu’s voltage mode regulator for the advantage of fault protection (Karadi’s Abstract).
For claim 15, Liu teaches the limitations of claim 10 but fails to teach a constant voltage source in series with a resistor or constant current source as claimed.
However, Karadi teaches constant voltage and constant current modes of operation via a constant voltage mode control loop (234) and a constant current mode control loop (232). The constant voltage mode control loop provides a feedback voltage based on the output voltage (Vfb) to an error amplifier (238) and the constant current mode control loop providing a feedback voltage based on the output current (Vocp) to an error amplifier. The current corresponding to Vout is measured using a constant current source Ilim.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Karadi’s current control loop and circuitry for switching between modes of operation (244, S1, S2) with Liu’s voltage mode regulator for the advantage of fault protection (Karadi’s Abstract).
The combination of Liu and Karadi as defined above teaches:
the DUT comprises a constant current source (Ilimit).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and McDonald et al (US 2009/0119519).
For claim 14, Liu teaches the limitations of claim 12 but fails to teach a PID controller as claimed.
However, McDonald teaches a PID controller (32, Figure 3) comprising a first comparator and second comparator, the PID controller controlling operation of a voltage regulator (26).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement one or more elements of Liu’s 120 by a PID controller since the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The combination of Karadi and McDonald as cited above teaches:
determining the feedback control voltage is performed by a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller (at least in part, as understood by the combination of references).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Benedict.
For claim 16, Liu teaches the limitations of claim 10 but fails to teach software coupled to analog integrators as claimed.
However, Benedict teaches a controller for a voltage regulator which “may be implemented completely in hardware, such as an integrated circuit (IC), or may be implemented in a combination of hardware and software, such as including a processor that executes computer-executable code stored on a computer-readable data storage medium” [0028].
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement one or more elements of Liu’s 120 using a combination of hardware and software since the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The combination of Liu and Benedict teaches:
determining the feedback control voltage is performed by feedback control software (hardware and software used to implement 120, at least in part) coupled to analog integrators (C1, Cout), and wherein applying the feedback control voltage added to the input voltage is performed by a field-effect transistor (Q2).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Karadi, Benedict and McDonald et al (US 2009/0119519).
For claim 20, the combination of Karadi and Benedict teaches the limitations of claim 18 but fails to teach a PID controller as claimed.
However, McDonald teaches a PID controller (32, Figure 3) comprising a first comparator and second comparator, the PID controller controlling operation of a voltage regulator (26).
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Karadi’s 244, 238, S1, the buffer directly connected to S1 and S2 by a PID controller since the particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The combination of Karadi and McDonald as cited above teaches:
determining the feedback control voltage is performed by a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller (at least in part, as understood by the combination of references).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CALRISSIAN PUENTES whose telephone number is (571)270-5070. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6:30 (flex).
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/DANIEL C PUENTES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849