DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 08 October 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to argument
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 2=4, filed on 10 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument, “Rejecting claim 1, the Office Action at page 6 concedes that Kong lacks the burst activator of claim I but considers that Yang has taught one. Applicant respectfully asserts that Yang has been improperly applied. In formulating the rejection, the Office Action (see page 6) cites "Introduction; "proposed green mode (GM) uses the concept of conventional………… Based on the above, Applicant respectfully asserts that claim 1 is patentable over Kong in
view of Yang at least because they both fail to teach, disclose or suggest the burst activator that claim 1 includes.”, it shows in Fig. 3 (Yang) a PWM pulse supplied to the LED of the photocoupler. The claim limitation is very broad because, for instance, "each predetermined period" isn't defined. It can be any period of time and Yang obviously will send some PWM pulses through the coupler during a burst mode.
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 6-8, filed on 10 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument, “The wake-up judgement circuit in Fig. IO(c) of Yang does not disclose the standby detector in claim 7 of this application for at least the following three reasons……………. According, once the VoUT drops to reach the boundary voltage VBL, the wake-up judgement circuit in Fig. l0(c) makes FVS in the primary side exit a standby mode and enter a normal mode, very opposite to the standby detector in claim 7.”, it would point more broadly to all of Fig. 10 (Yang) and the paragraph right below it, when it describes Fig. 10(a) it specifically says entering GM (Green mode) based on the detected error voltage, which is equivalent to the claimed "reflected signal representing the output voltage”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pengju Kong et. al (US11527962B2; hereafter “Kong”).
-Regarding claim 11:
Kong discloses:
The primary-side controller of claim 7, wherein the deep-burst reactor periodically generates pulses to turn ON and OFF the power switch ( claim 7; “a storage element configured to cycle on the power switch transistor in response to being set and to cycle off the power switch transistor in response to being reset”) until an operation voltage for the primary-side controller exceeds a predetermined value (claim 9; “storage element in response to a power supply voltage being less than the threshold voltage.”).
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 1,2,4-7,9-10, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pengju Kong et. al (US11527962B2; hereafter “Kong”) in view of Shang-Hsien Yang et. al (IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, Volume: 31, Issue: 4; hereafter “Yang”).
-Regarding claim 1:
Kong discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
684
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A secondary-side controller for a power converter, the secondary-side controller comprising: a portion of a feedback loop (Fig. 1A; inside secondary controller 116 and Fig. 1B), configured to generate a control signal in response to a difference between an output voltage and a target voltage (in claim 1; “feedback loop configured to operate during a normal mode of operation to generate a control signal based upon an error between an output voltage for the flyback converter and a reference voltage”) in a normal mode; a load detector in response to connection of a load and the power converter for controlling the feedback loop in the normal mode, and in response to disconnection of the load from the power converter for exiting the normal mode to power down the feedback loop (cable detach detector configured to control the feedback loop during the normal mode of operation in response to a detection of a coupling of a device to the flyback converter and to power down the feedback loop during a standby mode of operation in response to a detection of a disconnection of the device from the flyback converter”) ; and
However, Kong does not disclose a burst activator for switching a LED current through a photocoupler a predetermined number of times at each predetermined period during a standby mode after exiting the normal mode.
Yang, in the same field of endeavor, discloses:
a burst activator for switching a LED current through a photocoupler a predetermined number of times at each predetermined period during a standby mode after exiting the normal mode (Introduction; “proposed green mode (GM) uses the concept of conventional burst mode with variable switching frequency
to further improve efficiency at light loads.” and Fig. 4b; operation wave form of FVS converter, Vdrain has a finite duration in light load section, which Vdrain is voltage of switch Mp of photocoupler); wherein the predetermined number of times is at least once.
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 described in Kong such that a commonly used Flexible Voltage Scaling technique described in Yang is applied to the power adapter having ultra-low standby power. Doing so allows for improving the reducing standby power in power converter.
-Regarding claim 7:
Kong discloses:
A primary-side controller in use of a power converter, comprising: a power modulator for controlling switching cycles of a power switch in response to a compensation signal in a normal mode(claim 7; “a controller configured during a normal mode of operation to process a control signal to control a cycling of a power switch transistor”), and for reducing power consumption of the power modulator in a standby mode (claim 7; “configured to be powered down during a standby mode of operation;”); and a deep-burst reactor, for turning ON the power switch at least once when change of the compensation signal is detected during the standby mode (claim 7; “storage element configured to cycle on the power switch transistor in response to being set and to cycle off the power switch transistor in response to being reset”); wherein the compensation signal is controlled by a photocoupler (claim 8;” to set the storage element in response to an opto-coupler current being less than a threshold current.”).
Yang, in the same field of endeavor, discloses:
“a standby detector (Fig. 10 c; wake-up judgement circuit) for making the primary-side controller exit the normal mode and enter the standby mode in response to a reflected signal representing an output voltage of the power converter (Fig. 10 (a); wherein approach of Vout goes to beginning of Green mode (stand by)).”
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 described in Kong such that a commonly used Flexible Voltage Scaling technique described in Yang is applied to the power adapter having ultra-low standby power. Doing so allows for improving the reducing standby power in power converter.
-Regarding claim 2:
Kong discloses:
The secondary-side controller of claim 1, wherein in response to the disconnection and the connection of the load the load detector sets the target voltage a first predetermined value and a normal value respectively, and the normal value is higher than the first predetermined value (in detailed description (7); “The load detector functions similarly to set the flyback converter into the standby mode in response to detecting that a load is either absent or below a threshold load value.”, where a first predetermined value is a threshold load value.).
-Regarding claim 4:
Kong discloses:
The secondary-side controller of claim 1, further comprising: an escape determiner, for in response to the connection of the load keeping the LED current flowing through the photocoupler (in summary (6); “the secondary-side comparator may cause a current to flow through a photodiode in an opto-coupler.”) for a first predetermined period.
-Regarding claim 5:
Yang discloses:
The secondary-side controller of claim 1, further comprising a switch connected in series with the photocoupler (Fig. 4a; Ms), wherein the burst activator turns ON the switch at least once at each predetermined period (Fig. 4 b; VD, where VD is control voltage for photocoupler from secondary controller).
-Regarding claim 6:
Kong discloses:
The secondary-side controller of claim 1, wherein the load detector detects a configuration channel to determine the disconnection of the load (Claim 3; “a data channel; wherein the cable detach detector is configured to monitor the data channel to detect whether the device is disconnected from the flyback converter.”).
-Regarding claim 9:
Kong discloses:
The primary-side controller of claim 7, wherein the standby detector makes the primary-side controller exit the normal mode when the reflected signal meets a first condition (Claim 7; “first comparator configured to set the storage element in response to a feedback signal being less than a threshold voltage”), and the primary-side controller enters the standby mode when the reflected signal meets a second condition different from the first condition (Claim 7; “a second comparator configured to reset the storage element after the storage element has been set.”). The storage element controls a power switch, which decides the state of controller.
-Regarding claim 10:
Kong discloses:
The primary-side controller of claim 9, further comprising: a periodic pulse generator for switching the power switch at a predetermined frequency (Fig. 1A; oscillator 172, and in detailed description 17; “the oscillator 172 is configured to produce a pulsed signal 174 in response to an assertion of the output signal from second comparator 156. The pulsed signal 174 drives the set input (S) of the SR flip-flop 170 to set the flip-flop 170.”) after exiting the normal mode and before entering the standby mode.
-Regarding claims 12-20:
For method claims 12-20, 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 is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device “1 inherently performs the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 UPSQ 136 (Fed Cir. 1986). Therefore, the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
-with respect to claim 3:
the prior arts in Kong, and Yang disclose the claimed invention in basic claims but do not further disclose about a second predetermined value higher than the first predetermined value.
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 SEUNG HO CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-8188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM ET.
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.
/SEUNG HO CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights