DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 10/24/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Drawing
The drawing submitted on 10/24/2024 is acknowledged and accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17, 18, 19 of US Patent No. 12155302 as indicated below.
For claims 1, 4, 5, 6, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because they both are dealing with the battery voltage monitoring and the degree of the battery discharge. As clearly indicated in the table below, each claimed limitations of claims 1, 6, 7, 8, of the current application are anticipated by the corresponding limitations of claim 17 of the reference patent.
For claim 13, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because they both are dealing with the battery voltage monitoring and the degree of the battery discharge. As clearly indicated in the table below, each claimed limitations of claim 13 of the current application are anticipated by the corresponding limitations of claim 18 of the reference patent.
For claim 14, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because they both are dealing with the battery voltage monitoring and the degree of the battery discharge. As clearly indicated in the table below, each claimed limitations of claim 14 of the current application are anticipated by the corresponding limitations of claim 19 of the reference patent.
Claims 2, 19 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US Patent No. 12155302, in view of Bondade et al. (NPL_IEEE Integrated Auto-Reconfigurable Power-Supply Network With Multidirectional Energy Transfer for Self-Reliant Energy-Harvesting Applications, hereinafter Bondade) as indicated below.
For Claim 2, claim 1 of 12155302 reciting the limitations of claim 2 except for explicitly disclosing that wherein the controller is further configured to: obtain a first measurement of a first voltage at the second output terminal; compare the first voltage to a first reference voltage value; and if the first voltage is less than the first reference voltage value, activate the first compensation leg to transfer charge from the first output terminal to the second output terminal.
Bondade discloses a SIMO power converter (e.g., see Fig. 5) and further teaches a control process by the controller that wherein the controller is further configured to: obtain a first measurement of a first voltage at the second output terminal (Figure 3(b): (VcNT2)); compare the first voltage to a first reference voltage value( When and as long as VcNr2 < V2H, in state (S2S1S0=111); and if the first voltage is less than the first reference voltage value, activate the first compensation leg to transfer charge from the first output terminal to the second output terminal (When and as long as VcNr2 < V2H, in state (S2S1S0=111) activate the first compensation leg (M3) activated and transfer energy from CcNr3 to CcNr2, see copy of related portion of Fig. 5 below).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the SIMO power converter by including the control process by the controller as taught by Bondade in order of being able to provide stable output voltage at the first output terminal (e.g., see Fig. 5 below).
For Claim 19, claim 1 of 12155302 reciting the limitations of claim 19 except for explicitly disclosing that wherein the controller is further configured to: obtain a first measurement of a first voltage at the second output terminal; compare the first voltage to a first reference voltage value; and if the first voltage is less than the first reference voltage value, activate the first compensation leg to transfer charge from the first output terminal to the second output terminal.
Bondade discloses a SIMO power converter (e.g., see Fig. 5) and further teaches that wherein the controller is further configured to: obtain a first measurement of a first voltage at the second output terminal (Figure 3(b): (VcNT2)); compare the first voltage to a first reference voltage value( When and as long as VcNr2 < V2H, in state (S2S1S0=111); and if the first voltage is less than the first reference voltage value, activate the first compensation leg to transfer charge from the first output terminal to the second output terminal( When and as long as VcNr2 < V2H, in state (S2S1S0=111) activate the first compensation leg (M3) activated and transfer energy from CcNr3 to CcNr2, see copy of related portion of Fig. 5 below).
Bondade reads the same obviousness as discussed in the claim 2 rejection above.
PNG
media_image1.png
625
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7-12, 15, 16-18 are 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 overcome the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection as discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matters:
For claim 3, the closet prior art (which has been made of record) fail to disclose (by themselves or in combination): “wherein the controller is further configured to regulate the first voltage at the first output terminal and the second voltage at the second output terminal based on a priority-based scheme; and the second voltage at the second output terminal is higher priority than the first voltage at the first output terminal”.
For claims 7-12, 15, the closet prior art (which has been made of record) fail to disclose (by themselves or in combination): “wherein the controller is further configured to: regulate, by a first control loop, a first voltage at the first output terminal; wherein the second control loop is faster than the first control loop".
For claims 16-18, the closet prior art (which has been made of record) fail to disclose (by themselves or in combination): “wherein the first compensation leg comprises a third switch”.
Examiner's Note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to 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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUE ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1263. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM-5:00PM
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Monica Lewis can be reached on 571-272-2838. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUE ZHANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights