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 .
This final office action is responsive to Applicants' amendment filed on 09/14/26. Claims 1-14 are presented for examination and are pending for the reasons indicated herein below.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that Haas and Matsuda, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest a power supply with a switched mode power supply that receives a rectified voltage from a rectifier, where the switched mode power supply is a buck converter or a flyback converter.
The Office Action acknowledges that the circuit of Haas does not include a rectifier or a switched power mode supply receiving a rectified voltage, "Haas does not explicitly mention a circuit comprising: an input source having a rectifier for receiving an alternating current, AC." (Office Action, page 3.) Further, Haas does not disclose, teach or suggest a switched mode power supply that receives a rectified voltage from a rectifier as recited in claim 1.
The Office Action then cites to Matsuda which discusses an AC input. However,
Matsuda actually discusses "a diode bridge circuit 12 that rectifies an alternating current voltage
(AC)." (Matsuda, [0032].) Thus, the combination of Haas and Matsuda still fails to disclose, teach or suggest a switched power mode supply receiving a rectified voltage.
Further, the Office Action has not provided any rationale or clear articulation on how the circuit of Hass can be modified to include any element of Matsuda. Instead, the Office Action simply states that "it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the features of Mat in order to provide a circuit that is compatible with standard electrical outlets." (Office Action, page 4.)
Haas cannot be modified to include the bridge diode circuit of Matsuda without changing the principle of operation of the Haas circuit, which is to protect the end consumer 130 from overcurrent or overvoltage conditions by monitoring and limiting the output power through the diagnostic circuit 140, the comparator circuit 150, and the power limiting circuit 160 of the voltage supply device 100.
MPEP 2143.01.VI states that "[i]f the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959)." Indeed, if the Haas circuit was modified to include the diode bridge circuit 12 or any element as alleged in the Office Action, such a modification would negatively impact the operation of the diagnostic circuit 140, the comparator circuit 150, and the power limiting circuit 160 that monitor the requested load from the consumer 130 and the output of the switched-mode power supply 120, thus changing the principle of operation of the voltage supply circuit 100 of Haas to protect the end consumer 130.
The statements on the proposed combination are mere conclusory statements that a person of ordinary skill in the art could "use the features of Mat in order to provide a circuit that is compatible with standard electrical outlets." (Office Action, page 4.) MPEP 2142 states that "[t]he key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) noted that the analysis Page 6 of 10
supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Federal Circuit has stated that "rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (quoting Federal Circuit's statement in Kahn with approval)." Applicant respectfully submits the Office Action has not met this burden.
Examiner respectively disagrees: Haas, already discloses AC input source and rectifier in ¶6. Matsuda is only being relied on to show how one of ordinary skill in the art would modify structure, to supply a DC source [see Matsuda output of C1 being a rectified voltage]. Bringing a circuit towards nation regulations is more than enough motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure circuit performs in optimal conditions. Haas does not disclose DC source being coupled to a rectifier would define Haas main function.
Applicant argues:
Haas does not disclose, teach or suggest switched mode power supply flyback converter
Haas does not disclose, teach or suggest a switched-mode power supply that is a is a buck converter or a flyback converter as recited in claim 1. Instead, Haas simply states that output power of the voltage supply device 100 may include a flyback converter, "for example, the output power P2 in the case of a so-called flyback converter." (Haas, [0036].) Nowhere does Haas state that this "output power P2" is the output power of the switched-mode power supply or that the switched-mode power supply includes a flyback converter as alleged in the Office Action. Haas is silent in regards to the switched-mode power supply having a flyback converter.
Instead, Haas discusses several examples of how the output power of the switched-mode power supply is limited or otherwise modified prior to being provided to a consumer 130. Thus, the output power referenced in paragraph [0036] of Haas is the output power of the voltage supply device 100.
For example, the circuit of Haas includes a power limiting circuit 160 that limits or modifies the output power of the voltage supply device 100 prior to providing to a consumer 130, "the power limiting circuit 160 then carries out a measure that is suitable for limiting the output power of the switched-mode power supply unit 120 in such a way that the power threshold value is once again fallen below in the subsequent period of time." (Haas, [0026].)
Haas further states that "[t]he output signal of the comparator causes the power limiting device 160 already explained with respect to FIG. 1 to limit the output power of the switched- mode power supply unit 120. For this purpose, the output signal of the comparator 151 of the comparator circuit 150 may act on an actuating element of the power limiting circuit 160. In
FIG. 3, possible positions 161, 162, 163 for such actuating elements are shown schematically." (Haas, [0043].) Therefore, the output power referenced in paragraph [0036] of Haas is the output power of the voltage supply device 100 and Haas does not indicate wherein the voltage supply device 100 the alleged flyback converter may be positioned, whether in the power limiting device 160, comparator circuit 150, diagnostic circuit 140 or any portion of the voltage supply device 100. The Office Action cannot make an assumption as to where the alleged flyback converter may be positioned if Haas provides no explicit description. Thus, Haas does not disclose, teach or suggest a switched-mode power supply that includes a flyback converter.
Examiner respectively disagrees: The flyback converter known as a buck–boost converter with the inductor split to form a transformer, so that the voltage ratios are multiplied with an additional advantage of isolation. Haas, is not silent in disclosing a flyback, since it’s shown in fig 3. The controller components do not exclude Haas being a flyback converter.
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 1-4, 6, 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas (US 20230344338 A1) in view of Matsuda et al. (US 20200127555 A1 and hereinafter as Mat)
Regarding claim 1. Haas teaches a power supply [fig 3] comprising: input voltage [161] and for providing a rectified voltage [161 is a DC voltage];
a switched mode power supply [120] adapted to receive the rectified voltage and to provide a regulated output voltage [see 162] to a load [load for 162];
a first sensor [141] for sensing the rectified voltage and to provide a first control signal [input to 145];
and a controller [μC with 122] for controlling the switched mode power supply, wherein the controller is arranged to enable and disable [¶ 43] the switched mode power supply;
wherein the controller is arranged to enable the switched mode power supply when the first control signal is below a threshold level [¶42-¶43 detected limited power (detected value by 141), going above limited power 121 permanently interrupts power when going above limited power.] and disable the switched mode power supply when the first control signal is above the threshold level,
and wherein the switched mode power supply is a buck converter or a flyback converter [120 is a flyback].
However, Haas does not explicitly mention a circuit comprising: an input source having a rectifier for receiving an alternating current, AC.
Mat teaches a circuit comprising: an input source having a rectifier for receiving an alternating current, AC[see AC input].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the features of Mat in order to provide a circuit that is compatible with standard electrical outlets.
Regarding claim 2. Haas as modified teaches the power supply according to claim 1, wherein the switched mode power supply is a self-oscillating switched mode power supply [120 is self-oscillating].
Regarding claim 3. Haas as modified teaches the power supply according to claim 1, wherein the switched mode power supply comprises a second sensor [144 Haas] for sensing the regulated output voltage and to generate a second control signal, wherein the controller is arranged for receiving the second control signal.
Regarding claim 4. Haas as modified teaches the power supply according to claim 1, wherein the threshold level is based on a power required [implicit, limited power for 120, Haas] by the load, wherein the controller is arranged to: increase the threshold level based on an increase of the power required by the load [function of flyback, Haas], and decrease the threshold level based on a decrease of the power required by the load [lower load will require less power, Haas].
Regarding claim 6. Haas as modified teaches the power supply according to claim 1, wherein the controller is part of the load [limitation is interpreted as controller complimenting the load].
Regarding method claims 13-14, 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 "inherently performs 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.
Claims 7-9, 11-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas (US20230344338 A1) in view of Matsuda et al. (US 20200127555 A1 and hereinafter as Mat) and further in view of Gao et al. (US 10172197 B1)
Regarding claim 7. Haas as modified teaches the power supply according to claim 1.
However, Haas as modified does not explicitly mention a luminating apparatus comprising: a further power supply for providing power to a further load, the load, and the further load.
Gao teaches a luminating apparatus [fig 1] comprising: a further power supply for providing power to a further load, the load, and the further load [see fig 1, LED].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the features of Gao in order to provide power to the LED, thus illuminating the required location.
Regarding claim 8. Haas as modified teaches the luminating apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the further load is a lighting load [LED, Gao].
Regarding claim 9. Haas as modified teaches the luminating apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the lighting load comprises a light emitting diode, LED [i.e. LED].
Regarding claim 11. Haas as modified teaches the luminating apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the further power supply comprises a further controller [i.e. controller of device].
Regarding claim 12. Haas as modified teaches the luminating apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the controller is arranged to control the switched mode power supply and the further power supply [function of controller].
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas (US20230344338 A1) in view of Matsuda et al. (US 20200127555 A1 and hereinafter as Mat) in view of Gao et al. (US 10172197 B1) and further in view of Coetzee et al. (US 20150208469 A1)
Regarding claim 10. Haas as modified teaches the luminating apparatus according to claim 7.
However, Haas as modified teaches a circuit wherein the controller comprises a wireless communication module arranged to receive a wireless signal, wherein the controller is arranged to enable or disable the further power supply based on the received wireless signal.
Coetzee teaches a circuit wherein the controller comprises a wireless communication module arranged to receive a wireless signal, wherein the controller is arranged to enable or disable the further power supply based on the received wireless signal [¶168].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the features of Coetzee in order to provide remote monitoring and configuration that allows update to the controller parameters and no need for additional wiring across isolation boundaries.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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, and if the claim objections stated above were overcome.
Examiner Note
The examiner cites particular columns and lines numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant 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.
Conclusion
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 Bryan Perez whose telephone number is (571)272-8837. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Fri. (7:30 – 5:00).
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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BRYAN R PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights