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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of “a comparator” and “a summer” as recited in claim 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1,3-13,17,19 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
It appears that the specification does not provide sufficient details of “at least in part on a threshold level derived from a magnitude of the measured current flowing through the secondary windings” as recited in claims 1 and 19 and “a summer” and “a comparator” as recited in claim 21.
The dependent claims not specifically addressed share the same indefiniteness as they depend from rejected base claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,3-13,17,19 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, what is considered as “in part on a threshold level derived from a magnitude of the measured current flowing through the secondary windings” and how it is defined?
In claim 3, it is unclear where “a static overcurrent protection threshold” is from and how it is interrelated and associated with “a current flowing through the secondary windings” as recited in claim 1?
In claim 4, “the static overcurrent protection threshold” has not been recited previously, therefore this term is indefinite. Should this claim depends from claim 3 instead of claim 3?
In claim 19, what is considered as “in part on a threshold level derived from a magnitude of the measured current flowing through the secondary windings”?
In claim 21, what are considered as “a summer” and “a comparator” and what do they comprises of?
In claim 27, it appears that the limitation of “a controller is operative to control the first switch circuitry based on a status of the first overcurrent fault signal” is improperly claimed since this limitation does not have supports in the specification.
The dependent claims not specifically addressed share the same indefiniteness as they depend from rejected base claims.
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.
Claims 1,6,17,19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al (PG-Pub# 20220109368 A1).
As to claims 1 and 17, Zhou et al disclose a system for overcurrent protection of a multi-
phase trans-inductance voltage regulator as shown in figures 1-2 having a plurality of
transformers (221,222,22N), each transformer comprising a primary winding (221-2,222-2,22N- 2) and a secondary winding (221-1.222-1,22N-1), wherein the primary winding (221-2, 222-2,22N-2) of each transformer (221,222,22N) is provided between a respective input node (111) and a common output node (133), the secondary windings (221-1.222-1,22N-1), of the plurality of transformers (221,222,22N) being connected in series, and wherein each input node (111) is connected to a respective one of a plurality of phase inputs, the system comprising: a first sensor (240) arrangement configured to measure a current (135) flowing through the secondary windings (221-1.222-1,22N-1); and a controller (140) configured to generate an overcurrent fault signal based at least in part on the measured current flowing through the secondary windings (see paragraph# 0074). It is noted that Zhou et al do not explicitly mention about the controller configured to generate an overcurrent fault signal based at least in part on a threshold level derived from a magnitude of the measured current flowing through the secondary windings. However, since the controller (140) generates an overcurrent fault signal based on a magnitude of the measured current flowing through the secondary windings, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to considered this fault signal as a threshold level derived from a magnitude of the measured current flowing through the secondary windings.
As to claim 6, Zhou et al disclose a system for overcurrent protection of a multi-phase trans-inductance voltage regulator as mentioned in claim 1 wherein the current (135) flowing
through the series circuit path (160) includes a series resistor component (see paragraph #000073) and that series resistor component is a DC resistance current sensing circuit.
As to claim 19, the apparatus of Zhou et al as mentioned in claim 1, performs the method steps as recited in claim 19.
As to claim 21, Zhou et al disclose as shown in figures 1-2 having a first input (111) operative to receive a first threshold value component; a second input (240) operative to receive a second threshold value component, the second threshold value component representing a magnitude of measured current through a series connection of a first secondary winding (221-1) and a second secondary winding (222-1, the first secondary winding (221-1) magnetically coupled to a first primary winding (221-2) in a first transformer of a trans-inductance voltage regulator, the second secondary winding (222-1) magnetically coupled to a second primary winding (222-2) in a second transformer of the trans-inductance voltage regulator; a summer (240) operative to produce an overcurrent protection threshold value based on a summation of the first threshold value component and the second threshold value component and a comparator (140) operative to generate a first overcurrent fault signal based on a comparison of a magnitude of a first phase current conveyed through the first primary winding and the overcurrent protection threshold value. It is noted that Zhou et al do not explicitly mention about an overcurrent protection threshold value based on a summation of the first threshold value component and the second threshold value component. Hower, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the overcurrent protection threshold value would base on a summation of the first threshold value component and the second threshold value component for the purpose of detecting the overcurrent protection threshold value.
Conclusion
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 filed on 08/18/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gilliom (PG-Pub# 20130154507) discloses CURRENT CONTROL FOR SIMO CONVERTERS.
Zhang et al (PG-Pub# 20200348740) disclsoe SMART CONTROLLER WITH PHANTOM INDUCTOR CURRENT SENSING FOR SWITCHED MODE POWER
SUPPLIES.
Degen (Pat# 11,011.995) discloses Power Supply Apparatuses And Methods With Output Control For Multiple Terminals Involving Mitigation Of Imbalance Across The Multiple Terminals.
You et al (Pat# 12,176,813) disclose Trans-inductance Multi-phase Power Converters, Monitoring And Management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINH P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1964. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Phan Huy can be reached on 571-272-7924. 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.
/VINH P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights