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 .
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.
In addressing the rejection ground, each claim may not have been separately discussed to the extent the claimed features are the same as or similar to the previously-discussed features; the previous discussion is construed to apply for the other claims in the same or similar way.
In the office action, “/” should be read as and/or as generally understood. For example, “A/B” means A and B, or A or B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-6, and 8-14 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Briere et al. (US 6,898,092).
Regarding claim 1, Briere discloses a system [e.g. figs. 3-6], comprising: a filter [e.g. 206/fig. 5] having a filter input [e.g. 227/228] and a filter output [e.g. 229], wherein the filter input is coupled to a power source [e.g. 101]; a power converter [e.g. 102] having a converter input [e.g. 105] and a converter output [e.g. the output to the LOAD], wherein the converter input is coupled to the filter output, and the converter output is coupled to a load [e.g. LOAD]; and an active electromagnetic interference filter (AEF) [e.g. 212/fig. 4, and see Col. 5, line 62-Col. 6, line 33] coupled to the power source and configured to reduce a magnitude of a noise of the power source, wherein the AEF includes a damping network [e.g. 316, 332, 333, 317; or some or all elements of 316-319, 332, 333, 325, and 311-312] configured to make the AEF less capacitive to the filter [having the same structure as claimed].
Regarding claim 2, Briere discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the AEF includes: a first capacitor [e.g. 319/317] coupled between the power source and a first terminal [e.g. the bottom terminal of 319]; a second capacitor [e.g. 317/319/318] coupled between the power source and a second terminal [e.g. its bottom terminal]; an amplifier [e.g. 314] having first [e.g. + terminal] and second [e.g. - terminal] amplifier inputs and an amplifier output, wherein the first amplifier input is coupled [e.g. coupled via 322, 313, 312; Suggest to narrow the scope of limitation by limiting coupling to electrical coupling because coupling is broad it comprises electrical, magnetic and capacitive coupling] to the first terminal, the second amplifier input is coupled to a third terminal [e.g. the top/bottom terminal of 320/321], and the amplifier output is coupled to a fourth terminal; a resistor [e.g. 325/326] coupled between the fourth terminal and the first terminal; and the damping network [e.g. 316, 332, 333/318] is coupled between the fourth terminal and the second terminal.
Regarding claim 3, Briere discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the resistor is a first resistor, and the damping network includes a second resistor [e.g. 333] coupled between the fourth terminal and the second terminal.
Regarding claim 4, Briere discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the damping network further includes a third capacitor [e.g. 316/332/318/317] coupled between the fourth terminal and the second terminal.
Regarding claim 5, Briere discloses the system of claim 4, further comprising: a fourth capacitor coupled [e.g. 316/332] to the first terminal; a third resistor [e.g. 325] coupled between the fourth terminal and the first terminal through the fourth capacitor; a fifth capacitor [e.g. 318] coupled to the power source; and a fourth resistor [e.g. 324] coupled between a ground terminal [e.g. VEE] and the power source through the fifth capacitor.
Regarding claim 6, Briere discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the second resistor [e.g. 333] dominates an impedance of the damping network for low frequency noise, and wherein the third capacitor [e.g. 317/318] dominates the impedance of the damping network for high frequency noise.
Regarding claim 8, Briere discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the AEF is configured to: sense a noise voltage at a sense terminal e.g. see 310]; and provide a cancellation signal [e.g. the signal at 230; see Col. 5, line 62-Col. 6, line 33] responsive to a difference between the noise voltage and a reference voltage [see reference voltage of 314/315].
Regarding claim 9, Briere discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the AEF is further configured to inject the cancellation signal into the sense terminal [e.g. via 317].
Regarding claim 10, Briere discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the noise voltage includes low frequency noise components and high frequency noise components [high and low are relative terms, the claim does not specify the range of the high and low frequencies].
Regarding claim 11, Briere discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the damping network includes a signal path [e.g. the path along the 316 or 332] configured to reduce an impact of making the AEF less capacitive on operation of the AEF in response to the high frequency noise components.
Regarding claim 12, Briere discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the signal path includes a capacitor [e.g. 316/332].
Regarding claim 13, Briere discloses the system of claim 1, wherein making the AEF less capacitive includes increasing a phase angle of impedance of the AEF [e.g. the offset signal has an opposite polarity; or by adding a circuit element in an injection path, with a purely real impedance component, or another circuit element having an at least partially real impedance component, a phase angle of impedance of the AEF is increased].
Regarding claim 14, Briere discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the cancellation signal reduces a magnitude of a power source noise [see at least Col. 5, line 62-Col. 6, line 33].
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.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briere et al. (US 6,898,092) in view of Cho et al. (US 2019/0028027).
Regarding claim 7, Briere discloses the system of claim 1, except further comprising a current sense circuit having a current sense input coupled to the power converter. However, Cho discloses a current sense circuit [e.g. 110/150 fig. 2] having a current sense input coupled to a power converter [e.g. 144, 146 fig. 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Briere in accordance with the teaching of Cho regarding a current sensing unit [abstract] in order to improve the converter by applying a compensator [abstract, fig. 2].
Suggestion
Suggest to narrow the scope of limitation by limiting coupling to electrical coupling because coupling is broad it comprises electrical, magnetic and capacitive coupling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK C CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7207. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Flexible 9:00-5:30.
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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at 571-272-1988. 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.
/PATRICK C CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842