DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 5 December 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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority based on a provisional application filed 12 April 2024.
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 “fixed delay from the variable clock” 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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As to claim 1, applicant claims “determining a period of an internal clock signal…with a fixed delay from the external clock”. However, as near as can be determined, the internal clock appears to refer to item 102 in Figure 1, and does not appear to be dependent upon the external clock in the Figures or otherwise in the description. Also in claim 1, applicant claims “scaling a slope of a carrier”. Generally speaking, one of ordinary skill regards carrier waveforms as square-waves or sine-waves, which control system modulates off of. As near as can be determined, it appears that applicant is referring to what one of ordinary skill would typically call a ramp signal, though it could be regarded applicant meant to claim scaling the frequency. Regardless, this must be made clear. Also, contrary definitions are generally not permitted per MPEP 2173.05(a)(III). For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed applicant meant to scale the frequency, which is suggested by a number of different periods shown in the graph.
Claim 3 clams “a fixed period”. Though a clock may be oscillating a at a fixed period in the control system, as near as can be determined by Figs. 1 and 2, it appears all control takes place on a variable clock, which would appear to be the output of applicant’s signals 110 and 112.
As to claim 4, applicant claims “a variable gain”. This is extremely unclear, since no gains, op-amps, multiplier/dividers appear to be shown connected to control samples.
Claims 5, 7, 8 have similar issues to claim 1, 3, 4 above, since it appears to be an apparatus claim which performs an act similar to the claimed method.
Also in regards to claim 5, applicant claims several process steps (queueing, determine a period for the internal clock signal at a start of each cycle) in an apparatus claim, which is generally not permitted 2173.05(p). For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed applicant claimed sufficient structure that would perform the process step.
Claims 2-4, 6-8 depend directly or indirectly from a rejected claim and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) , or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph for the reasons set above.
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 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.
For method claims, 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 device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated. (The claims have been condensed.)
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, 4 (as best understood) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Dan (US 20170093604)
As to claim 1, Dan discloses a method for varying a variable switching frequency of a power converter based on a variable external clock (730), the method comprising: generating, with a queue, an internal clock signal (710) with a same sequence of periods as the variable external clock and with a fixed delay from the variable external clock; determining a period of the internal clock signal at a start of each cycle of the internal clock signal (720); and for each cycle of the internal clock signal, scaling a slope of a carrier signal (¶38) of a modulator configured to generate one or more switching signals of the power converter.
As to claim 4, this is similar to claim 1 above and is anticipated for similar reasons.
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 of this title, 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, 4 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guh (US 20090051395) in view of Pontius (US 20110050313).
As to claim 1, Guh discloses A method for varying a variable switching frequency of a power converter based on a variable external clock (CLK3), the method comprising: generating, with a queue (214), an internal clock signal (X) with a same sequence of periods as the variable external clock and with a
Though he teaches much of the claimed invention, he does not explicitly teach a fixed delay (¶3 “If only a few discrete frequencies are to be allowed, then the state machine can be designed to accommodate those frequencies, advancing the state when the appropriate limit has been reached. Continuing the example described above, if 500 MHz, 250 MHz, and 100 MHz are the only three choices, the condition for advancing the state machine might be written as (clk500=true && counter=100).parallel.(clk250=true && counter=50).parallel.(clk100=true && counter=20) where && indicates a logical AND operation and .parallel. indicates a logical OR operation.”. See also title).
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 above to use a fixed delay as disclosed in Pontius to ensure a maximum frequency.
As to claim 4, this is similar to claim 1 above and is obvious for similar reasons.
Claims 2-4, 6-8 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guh (US 20090051395) in view of Pontius (US 20110050313) and Nguyen (US 2012/0043944).
As to claim 2, Guh in view of Pontius teaches controlling an output of the power converter at the variable switching frequency by triggering control calculations with the internal clock signal (it is fed into duty cycle calculations); and generating measurement of a cycle
Though he teaches outputs, he does not explicitly teach average value control.
Ngueyn teaches and generating measurement of a cycle average of outputs (¶4 “determining an actual average converter current over a time period equal to one switching cycle of the power converter, comparing the desired average converter current with the actual average converter current, and outputting a control signal capable of adjusting a converter current based on said comparison.”) of the controller at the variable switching frequency based on the period (¶24 “The PWM frequency of the power converter 230 can range from kilohertz to megahertz depending on the capability of the power switching converter 230, and is decided by the designers during the design of the power system.”).
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 above to use average current control as disclosed in Ngueyn to prevent overheating power circuitry.
As to claim 3, Guh in view of Pontius and Nguyen teach wherein generating measurement of a cycle average of outputs of the controller comprises: identifying samples of the outputs of the controller in accordance with a fixed period (Nguyen, average current control); and applying a fixed gain (1) to differences between successive samples based on the fixed period to generate the cycle average.
As to claim 4, Guh in view of Pontius and Nguyen wherein generating measurement of a cycle average of outputs of the controller comprises: identifying samples of the outputs of the controller in accordance with a variable period; and applying a variable gain to differences between successive samples based on the variable period to generate the cycle average (As near as can be determined, this should be taught by the combination, since an average would include the amount of time, the spread spectrum of Guh appears to read on the claim).
As to claims 5-8, these are similar to claims 14 above and are obvious for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular column, paragraph, 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1375. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM,Monday through Thursday, EST.
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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/PETER M NOVAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2839
Prosecution Insights