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 filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Daub does not disclose droop based on a sensed current and the applicant argues Daub does not mention changing output voltage based on a sensed current. Both arguments are unpersuasive even thought he first only seems to be relevant to the claimed invention. Regardless, Daub still discloses the claimed subject matter even though it is not spelled out in the terms pleasing to the applicant.
As to the second argument, Daub certainly does not propose an unregulated power supply. The mere fact Daub shows a feedback and control loop indicates the output is regulated. The mere fact, the output current sensed and used in the control loop indicates the output is regulated based on output current. If Daub is regulating current, the output voltage will still change with the sensed current as Daub tries to regulate the current. And, if Daub is regulating the output voltage, then the output voltage will still change based on the sensed current as the feedback and control loop tries to regulate the output voltage to the desired level. Either way, the output voltage ultimately changes due to the sensed current. So this argument presented by the applicant is not persuasive.
Next, Daub clearly illustrates a current sensing circuit (1,11) sensing a current through resistor R which is the “sensed current”. Clearly, the sensed current causes an output voltage droop by merely passing through the resistor and creating the V=IR voltage droop across the resistor and consequently a droop to the load. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and Daub clearly still anticipates the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-7, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being
anticipated by Daub (US 20140347029).
Claims 1, 5-7, 10 and 12; Daub discloses a bidirectional converter comprising: first and second terminals (N2, N1, or gnd) between which a current flows; and a current-sensing circuit (1, R, OTA1a, OTA1b) electrically connected to only one (N1) of the first and the second terminals to sense the current; wherein current sensing is only performed at the one of the first terminal and the second terminal to which the current-sensing circuit is connected; and an output voltage (N1) of the bidirectional converter droops based on the sensed current (i.e. the current passing through the resistor R is the sensed current and that current causes a voltage drop across R that makes the output droop).
Claim 2; PWM controller 3, M, S, etc. receiving U1 from sense circuit 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daub in view of Kung (US 9160194).
Claim 3; Daub discloses the claimed subject matter in regards to claim 1 supra, except for a voltage measurement circuit (23) electrically connected to a first terminal (VSYS).
Kung teach a bidirectional switching regulator having a voltage measurement circuit electrically connected to only the first terminal so that an error amplifier EA1 compares a feedback signal FB related to the output voltage VSYS with the reference signal Vref1, to generate the control signal CL1. by detecting the output terminal SYS through a first voltage detection device 23.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Daub to include a voltage measurement circuit (23) electrically connected to a first terminal in order to generate a control signal for controlling the switching operation of the circuit as taught by Kung.
Claim 4; Daub discloses the claimed subject matter in regards to claim 1 supra, except for a first voltage measurement circuit electrically connected to the first terminal; and a second voltage measurement circuit electrically connected to the second terminal.
Kung teaches a bidirectional switching regulator having a voltage measurement circuit electrically connected to only the first terminal so that an error amplifier EA1 compares a feedback signal FB related to the output voltage VSYS with the reference signal Vref1, to generate the control signal CL1. by detecting the output terminal SYS through a first voltage detection device 23. Moreover, figure 6 shows a further voltage measurement circuit (28) electrically connected to a second terminal. The voltage detection device 28 transmits the voltage detection result to the error amplifier EA5. The error amplifier EA5 generates the control signal CL5 according to the voltage detection result and the reference signal Vref5, to control the operation of the operation circuit 22.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Daub to include a voltage measurement circuit (23) electrically connected to a first terminal and a second voltage measurement circuit electrically connected to the second terminal in order to generate control signals for controlling the switching operation of the circuit as taught by Kung.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daub
in view of Smith (US 20080246460).
Claim 8; Daub discloses the claimed subject matter in regards to claim 1 supra, except for the current-sensing circuit includes a metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor.
Smith teaches that it is well known the art to use a FET in a current sensing circuit. The sensing circuit 208 consumes very little power and has negligible effect on the switching regulator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Daub to include a current-sensing circuit includes a metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor so that the sensing circuit consumes very little power and has negligible effect on the switching
regulator as taught by Smith.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daub
in view of Brkovic (US 20040114404).
Claim 9; Daub discloses the claimed subject matter in regards to claim 1 supra, except for the current-sensing circuit further includes a temperature compensation circuit.
Brkovic teach that a current sensor may include means to compensate temperature dependence of the sensed signal in order to compensate for variations caused by temperature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was effectively filed to modify Daub to include a temperature
compensation circuit in order to compensate for variations caused by temperature.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daub in view of Capel (US 5138249).
Claim 13; Daub discloses the claimed subject matter in regards to claim 1 supra,
except for the bidirectional converter is an isolated bidirectional converter.
Capel teaches it is known to use bidirectional switching regulators or bidirectional; see figures 4 and 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was effectively filed to modify Daub to include the bidirectional
converter being an isolated bidirectional converter in order to provide isolation as is
sometimes required in some applications between the grounds of the networks.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daub in view of Lethellier (US 6424129).
Daub discloses the claimed subject matter in regards to claim 1 supra, except for first and second bidirectional converters having first terminals connected to each other; and second terminals connected to each other and while not sharing the same current sensing signal.
Lethellier teaches parallel connecting switching regulators by connecting the input terminals and output terminals in a parallel configuration and while maintaining separate sensing and control in order to provide higher current to a load than one regulator is able to provide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Daub to include first and second bidirectional converters having first terminals connected to each other; and second terminals connected to each other and while not sharing the same current sensing
signal as taught by Lethellier in order to provide higher current to a load than one regulator is able to provide with separate sensing for higher accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is still objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20060171178 Shvarts discloses a power supply with current sensor and drooped output voltage; US 20010045815 Muratov et al. disclose controlling the output voltage droop with current sensor and feedback loop; US 6246220 Isham et al. disclose a DC converter with current sensing circuit and an output voltage droop.
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 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 9/23/2026
Prosecution Insights