DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 20 November 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 .
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,848,613 (“the ‘613 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the instant claims are found, either expressly recited or implicitly, in the claims of the ‘613 patent.
For example, the limitations of instant independent claim 1 are found in corresponding limitations of claims 1 and 9 of the ‘613 patent. The limitations of instant claim 10 are found in corresponding limitations of claims 9 and 16 of the ‘613 patent. The only substantive difference between the claims at issue is that instant claims 1 and 10 specify that the multiple phases deliver equal quantities of charge “when each phase is active”, whereas the claims in the ‘613 patent simply recite that, “each phase … deliver[s] a substantially equal quantity of charge”. However, the function of delivering is an action that is being performed by the respective phases. As such, it is understood that each phase is, by definition, “active” when it is performing the act of delivering the quantity of charge.
Furthermore, each of the instant dependent claims 2-9 and 11-15 find their limitations covered by one or more of the corresponding dependent claims 2-8, 10-15 and 17-20 of the ‘613 patent.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,176,814 (hereinafter “the ‘814 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the instant claims are found, either expressly recited or implicitly, in the claims of the ‘814 patent.
For example, the limitations of instant independent claim 1 are found in corresponding limitations of claim 1 of the ‘814 patent. The limitations of instant claim 10 are found in corresponding limitations of claim 10 of the ‘814 patent. The only substantive difference between the claims at issue is that instant claims 1 and 10 specify that the multiple phases deliver equal quantities of charge “when each phase is active”, whereas the claims in the ‘613 patent simply recite that, “each phase … deliver[s] a substantially equal quantity of charge”. However, the function of delivering is an action that is being performed by the respective phases. As such, it is understood that each phase is, by definition, “active” when it is performing the act of delivering the quantity of charge.
Furthermore, each of the instant dependent claims 2-9 and 11-15 find their limitations covered by one or more of the corresponding dependent claims 2-9 and 11-15 of the ‘814 patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if a proper Terminal Disclaimer is filed to obviate the rejections based on nonstatutory double patenting, presented above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 1-15, the closest prior art is clearly Rajagopolan, US Patent 6,137,274, which discloses a nearly identical controller for a multiphase buck converter providing equal current sharing between phases. However, Rajagopolan does not explicitly disclose controlling a duty cycle of each of the set of corresponding switching devices such that each phase delivers a substantially equal quantity of charge to the output capacitor when each phase is active as recited in claim 1 and similarly in claim 10. Instead, Rajagopolan controls the converter such that each phase delivers an equal amount of current (Abstract), but is silent with respect to charge delivered to the output capacitor.
In addition, the cited chapter of Power Electronics: Converters, Applications, and Designs by Mohan et al. sets forth basic formulas for determining charge provided by a switching buck converter to an output capacitor or load.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED E FINCH III whose telephone number is (571)270-7883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 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, Monica Lewis can be reached at (571) 272-1838. 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.
/FRED E FINCH III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights