DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 29 August 2024.
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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority based on a provisional applicaiton filed on 10 November 2023.
Response to Arguments
The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 27 has been sustained. Judging by applicants arguments, applicant probably intended to include the new limitations from claim 1 to claim 27. However, there are a number of limitations present in claim 1. As such, Dearborn still appears to anticipate the claim, especially since applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 27 do not appear to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) since they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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 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.
For method claims, 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. (The claims have been condensed.)
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.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Dearborn (US 20120013322).
As to claim 1, Dearborn discloses a method (fig. 5) of controlling a switching converter using a controller, the switching converter being configured to receive an input voltage (540) and to generate an output voltage (Fig. 5, regulated output voltage), and comprising one or more power switches (544, 546) and at least one energy storage element (542), the method comprising: controlling the switching converter whilst operating in a first control mode during a first state; and controlling the switching converter whilst operating in a hysteretic control mode during a second state (¶5 “controlling power switches of the SMPS with the PWM error generator when the voltage difference is less than a predetermined value, and controlling the power switches of the SMPS with the hysteretic control circuit when the voltage difference is equal to or greater than the predetermined value”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 15-26, 28, 29 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art fails to disclose: he controller comprises a hysteretic control circuit, the hysteretic control circuit being activated during the second state to provide the hysteretic control mode: and the controller is further configured to: receive a digitized output voltage signal, the digitized output voltage signal being a digital representation of the output voltage of the switching converter: periodically sample the output voltage to acquire sampled voltages overntime steps, where n is an integer; repeatedly determine an nth sampled voltage difference by subtracting an (n-m)th sampled voltage from the nth sampled voltage where m is an integer: generate an up signal for charging the at least one energy storage element during the second state when the nth sampled voltage difference is less than a first voltage difference threshold value: and generate a down signal for discharging the at least one energy storage element during the second state when the nth sampled voltage difference is greater than a second voltage difference threshold value.” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
As to claim 28, the prior art fails to disclose: “and the controller is further configured to: receive a digitized output voltage signal, the digitized output voltage signal being a digital representation of the output voltage of the switching converter; sample the output voltage to acquire a first sampled voltage at a first time step and a second sampled voltage at a second time step; determine a sampled voltage difference by subtracting the second sampled voltage from the first sampled voltage; generate an up signal for charging the at least one energy storage element during the second state when the sampled voltage difference is less than a first voltage difference threshold value; and generate a down signal for discharging the at least one energy storage element during the second state when the sampled voltage difference is greater than a second voltage difference threshold value..” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
Please note: while objected or allowed claims have been indicated, only the presented claims have been examined for compliance with form and 35 USC 112 consideration. As a reminder, claims that are dependent upon objected claims still require examination for form and 35 USC 112 issues even if they overcome 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections. Similarly, amendments incorporating allowable subject matter into independent claims requires reconsideration for dependent claim form and any possible 35 USC 112 issues that arise through amendments even if the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are overcome. As such, applicant is advised that while examiner can enter previously allowed claims or previously objected claims rewritten into independent form after final rejection, any other claims may not be entered.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular column, paragraph, 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.
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 PETER M NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1375. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM,Monday through Thursday, EST.
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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/PETER M NOVAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2839
Prosecution Insights