DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 6 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 foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 17 February 2022.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Menegoli does not teach or make obvious an in-phase regulator. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While applicant is correct that the reference does not teach “a linear voltage regulator or non-switching longitudinal voltage controller” the claimed “wherein the switching state of the secondary switching unit is controlled depending on an operating state of an in-phase regulator unit connected to the second electrical capacitor,” has many more meanings than that. Though it is probably a broader than what applicant intended, the courts have repeatedly told the office not to read limitations from the specification into the claim (MPEP 2111.01, MPEP 2173.01). A clock and D-flip flop will regulate cycle time, even if they do not regulate voltage. As such, this argument is not persuasive. The obviousness rejection of the prior claim 4 and current claim 1 is upheld.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menegoli (US 8773088).
As to claim 1, Menegoli discloses (see image below) A method for providing two mutually different electrical DC voltages by a clocked energy converter, wherein a first of the two DC voltages which has a greater voltage value than a second of the two DC voltages the method comprising: applying electrical energy from an electrical energy source to a storage inductor of an energy converter using a converter switching unit of the energy converter; supplying an electric current from the storage inductor to a first electrical capacitor, where the first DC voltage is provided, based on a switching state of a secondary switching unit in response to the secondary switching unit occupying a first switching state; suppling the electric current from the storage inductor to a second electrical capacitor based on the switching state of the secondary switching unit in response to the secondary switching unit occupying a second switching state; and providing the second DC voltage at the second electrical capacitor; wherein the converter switching unit is configured to be controlled based on a result of a first comparison of the first DC voltage with a first voltage comparison value, wherein the switching state of the secondary switching unit is controlled based on a result of a second comparison of the second DC voltage with a second voltage comparison value
PNG
media_image1.png
632
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Menegoli does not explicitly teach wherein the switching state of the secondary switching unit is controlled depending on an operating state of an in-phase regulator unit connected to the second electrical capacitor. Menegoli does make obvious “the switching state of the secondary switching unit is controlled depending on an operating state of an in-phase regulator (fed clock signal) unit (13) connected to the second electrical capacitor. Though technical not external to the secondary switching unit, it is obvious since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Newin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177 (BdPatApp&Int 1969).
As to claim 2, Menegoli discloses wherein the switching state of the secondary switching unit is controlled independently of a switching operation of the converter switching unit (see image above, they are responsive to different feedbacks).
As to claim 6, Menegoli does not explicitly teach wherein the second DC voltage is regulated by means of the secondary switching unit
As to claim 7, Menegoli does not explicitly teach wherein a clock-pulse rate of the secondary switching unit
As to claim 8, Menegoli does not explicitly teach wherein
As to claim 9, Menegoli explicitly teaches A clocked energy converter for providing two mutually different electrical DC voltages the clocked energy converter comprising: ]a converter switching unit capable of being electrically coupled to an electrical energy source, a storage inductor electrically coupled to the converter switching unit , and at least one first electrical capacitor for providing a first of the two DC voltages which has a greater voltage value than a second of the two DC voltages wherein the first electrical capacitor is electrically coupled to the storage inductor, wherein the clocked energy converter is configured to control operation of the converter switching unit depending based on a result of a first comparison of the first of the two DC voltages with a first voltage comparison value, wherein the clocked energy converter further comprises: a second electrical capacitor for providing the second DC voltage, a secondary switching unit which is electrically coupled to the storage inductor and to the first and second electrical capacitors and configured to supply the electric current of the storage inductor either to the first electrical capacitor or to the second electrical capacitor based on a switching state of the secondary switching unit, and wherein the energy converter is designed to control the switching state of the secondary switching unit based on a result of a second comparison of the second DC voltage with a second voltage comparison value (This is similar to calm 1 above, with the only difference being in which output voltage is higher. However, Menegoli describes a number of voltages throughout his specification (Col. 13, lines 15-20, “While output 1 is regulated at 1V, the output 2 is regulated at 2V.” Col. 14, lines 5-12 “While output 1 is regulated at 5V, the output 2 is regulated at 4.5V.”).
As to claim 10, Menegoli discloses wherein the secondary switching unit comprises a power converter unit (the two MOSFETs).
As to claim 11, Menegoli teaches anode electrodes or cathode electrodes which are electrically connected to one another and to the storage inductoat least two first and second electrical capacitors.
Though Menegoli teaches a synchronous rectifier, substituting synchronous rectifiers for diodes and vice versa is known. Substituting the diodes for switches meets the limitation, which is old and well known in the art (See MPEP §2143.03 and (US 5774350 Fig. 1/2 and Col. 2, lines 20-35, US 5672992 Figs. 12/15 and Col. 7 lines 1-10, US 4016476, Fig. 13A/A5A and Col. 8 liens 24-35). The advantage of using diodes is a simpler control circuit. The advantage of using switches is a smaller conduction drop across the conducting semiconductor. Therefore, the advantages of each are known.
As to claim 12, Menegoli teaches wherein the secondary switching unit comprises a with regard to the electric current supplied to the second capacitor. Though thyristors are not explicitly taught, According to §MPEP 2144.03, it obvious since changing switching devices from one type of well-known switch to another (BJT, FET, IGBT, etc.) is also well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. See US Patent 5,568,368 Col. 2, lines 35-45. Also see US Patent Application Publication 2009/0059623A1 ¶0030, US Patent 6,271,605 B1 Col. 5, lines 40-46.
As to claim 15, Menegoli makes obvious further comprising a potential circuit designed to apply a predefined electrical potential to a control connection of the thyristor functional unit during intended operation (the gate/base/control terminal is generated by item 13, and making items integral or separate is not patentable as explained above).
As to claim 16 and 19, Menegoli teaches wherein the in-phase regulator provides a third DC voltage (it provides a DC voltage corresponding to the logic high and low levels).
As to claims 18 and 21, Menegoli teaches wherein only one of the first electrical capacitor and the second electrical capacitor is directly coupled to a switching element of the second switching unit (this could be taught by only having one M3 or M4 as part of the secondary switching unit, with the other capacitor connected via the feedback networks).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over A (Ref X) in view of Menegoli (US 8773088) in view of Eirea (US 20210281173).
As to claim 3, Menegoli teaches sensing the current, but he does not explicitly teach the switching state of the secondary switching unit controlled depending on a result of a third comparison of the electric current of the storage inductor with a current comparison value.
Eirea teaches the switching state of the secondary switching unit controlled depending on a result of a third comparison of the electric current of the storage inductor with a current comparison value (Fig. 4, peak current comparator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use current limits to prevent devices from overheating.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menegoli (US 8773088) in view of Angelin (US 10447168).
As to claim 5, Mengoli does not disclose wherein electrical energy of the first electrical capacitor is supplied to the second clcctrical capacitor via a coupling circuit depending on a result of a fourth comparison of the second DC voltage with a third voltage comparison value.
Angelin teaches wherein electrical energy of the first electrical capacitor (Ca) is supplied to the second electrical capacitor (Cb) via a coupling circuit (1160) depending on a result of a fourth comparison (1152) of the second DC voltage (Vout-VD1) with a third voltage comparison value (Vth).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use capacitor bleed off to provide a form of overvoltage protection on the lower voltages.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menegoli (US 8773088) in view of Andersen (US 3725683).
As to claim 13, Menegoli makes obvious a thyristor. He does not explicitly teach wherein the thyristor functional unit comprises a thyristor circuit arrangement including two bipolar transistors and at least one electrical resistor which is electrically coupled to a collector of one of the two bipolar transistors, wherein the thyristor circuit arrangement is configured
Andersen teaches wherein the thyristor functional unit comprises a thyristor circuit arrangement including two bipolar transistors and at least one electrical resistor which is electrically coupled to a collector of one of the two bipolar transistors, wherein the thyristor circuit arrangement is configured to adjust a holding current of the thyristor functional unit by means of the electrical resistor (Fig. 3, Col. 4, line 65- Col. 3, line 5 “As will be appreciated, the turn-on and holding current characteristics for the thyristor may be adjusted by selecting different values for the resistor 35.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use the thyristor as disclosed in Andersen to have more control over inrush current.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 17, 20 would be allowable if rewritten to include 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:
As to claim 14, the prior art fails to disclose: “wherein
As to claim 17, the prior art fails to disclose: “wherein the in-phase regulator is directly electrically coupled to the second electrical capacitor” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
As to claim 20, the prior art fails to disclose: “wherein the in-phase regulator is directly electrically coupled to the second electrical capacitor.” 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, new 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