CTFR 18/974,060 CTFR 89570 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (US 2009/0116266) in view of Ranstad (US 20070297200) Re Claim 1; Lai discloses a power output circuit (Fig. 7) comprising: a plurality of circuit blocks (730) that are provided in power wirings (the left side bus) to which power is inputted and connected to each other side by side, (Fig. 7) wherein: each of the plurality of circuit blocks includes at least a filter (770) in a last post-stage; (Fig. 7) each of the filters of the plurality of circuit blocks includes a reactor (Li1-n, Lq1-n) and a capacitor (C1-n) connected to the reactor at a node differing from an output node; either of the reactor and the capacitor provided in each of the filters is connected to the power wirings in series so as to connect with the output node; (Fig 7) Lai does not disclose a connection line between the reactor and the capacitor in one of the filters is connected by a wiring to a connection line between the reactor and the capacitor in the remaining other of the filters. However, Ranstad discloses a connection line (24’) between the reactor and the capacitor in one filter is connected to a connection line between the reactor and the capacitor in the remaining other of the filters. (Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have coupled the two filters with a connection line in order to maximize the efficiency of the filtering and also create a redundant filtering system . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (US 2009/0116266) in view of Ranstad (US 20070297200) and further in view of Minami et al. (US 2019/0364657) Re Claim 8; Lai in view of Ranstad discloses wherein: the power wirings include a first power wiring and a second power wiring; a first connection body including the reactor and the capacitor is provided in the first power wiring for each of the filters of the plurality of circuit blocks; and a connection line between the reactor and the capacitor of the second connection body provided in the second power wiring in one of the filters is connected to a connection line between the reactor and the capacitor of the second connection body provided in the second power wiring in the remaining other of the filters.(Fig. 7) The combination does not disclose the filter is a balanced-type filter having a second connection body equivalent to the first connection body in the second power wiring. However, Minami disclose a filter is a balanced-type filter having a second connection body equivalent to the first connection body in the second power wiring. (Fig. 4b) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have used a filter is a balanced-type filter having a second connection body equivalent to the first connection body in the second power wiring in order to selectively passes desired signals while suppressing common-mode noise . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Lai fails to disclose “a connection line between the reactor and the capacitor in one filter being connected to a connection line between the reactor and the capacitor in the remaining other filter,” and that the Office’s reliance on Ranstad is misplaced because Ranstad’s Fig. 3 allegedly does not show two filters each having both a reactor and a capacitor. Applicant contends that in Ranstad, the lower unit lacks a capacitor, so conductor 24' cannot connect between two reactor-capacitor nodes as required by claim 1. Applicant therefore concludes that neither Lai nor Ranstad teaches the claimed wiring connection, and that the combination cannot render claim 1 obvious. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner appreciates Applicant’s explanation, but the cited references when properly understood still teach or render obvious the disputed limitation. 1. Ranstad does disclose a connection between internal filter nodes. Applicant focuses on the fact that the lower unit in Ranstad’s Fig. 3 does not include a capacitor C1. However, the rejection does not rely on the lower unit having a capacitor identical to the upper unit. Instead, the rejection relies on Ranstad’s teaching that the resonant tank components of multiple units are intentionally interconnected at internal nodes to ensure shared resonant behavior and balanced current. Ranstad explicitly teaches that the resonant tanks of multiple units are joined so that “there is not only one inductor as given in FIG. 1 but… one inductor L1… and one additional inductor L2 for each unit… the relevant inductor… is given by the sum L1 + L2” and that the capacitor C' is common to both units ([0038]–[0039]). This means the internal connection lines of the resonant elements are intentionally tied together. Ranstad further explains that the two units are “coupled into the same series loaded resonant tank” ([0017], [0038]), and that this is achieved by joining the resonant components so that circulating currents are avoided. This necessarily requires the internal connection lines between inductors and capacitors to be wired together. Thus, even if the lower unit does not include a discrete capacitor C1, Ranstad still teaches the concept of interconnecting the internal resonant-element nodes of multiple filters exactly the principle recited in claim 1. 2. The claim does not require identical filters only that each filter includes a reactor and a capacitor. Applicant’s argument assumes that each “filter” must have the same physical arrangement as the embodiment in Applicant’s Fig. 3. However, the claim language is broader. It requires: “each of the plurality of filters… includes a reactor and a capacitor connected to the reactor at a node differing from an output node,” and “a connection line between the reactor and the capacitor in one… is connected… to a connection line between the reactor and the capacitor in the remaining other…” Ranstad teaches exactly this structure in its shared resonant tank: Each unit has inductors L1 and L2 forming the resonant inductive portion. Both units share capacitor C' as the resonant capacitor. The internal node between L1 and C' is common to both units (Fig. 2b; [0038]–[0039]). This shared node is precisely a “connection line between the reactor and the capacitor” that is connected between the two filters. 3. Applicant’s reading of Fig. 3 is too narrow. Applicant focuses solely on the lower portion of Fig. 3, but Ranstad’s disclosure must be read as a whole. The detailed description makes clear that Fig. 3 is merely a more detailed version of the topology in Fig. 2b, which explicitly shows: Two inductors L1 (one per unit) Two inductors L2 (one per unit) A single shared capacitor C' A shared internal connection node between L1 and C' Ranstad states: “the resonant tank is joined by one single capacitor C’, which is effective for both units 22, while the attachments to each unit 22 have individual inductors L1 and L2.” ([0038]) This is exactly the type of inter-filter connection recited in claim 1. 4. Lai supplies the remaining structural context. Lai teaches multiple parallel power-conditioning units, each having a filter including an inductor and capacitor (e.g., Fig. 7; [0030]–[0031]). Lai therefore supplies the “plurality of circuit blocks” and “plurality of filters” required by claim 1. Ranstad then teaches the interconnection of internal filter nodes to suppress circulating current precisely the purpose Applicant describes in the specification. A person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to apply Ranstad’s inter-filter node-connection technique to Lai’s parallel filters to achieve the same benefit of current balancing. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANIEL KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pmEst. 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, Rexford Barnie can be reached at (571) 272-7492. 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. /DANIEL KESSIE/ 06/02/2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 Application/Control Number: 18/974,060 Page 2 Art Unit: 2836 Application/Control Number: 18/974,060 Page 3 Art Unit: 2836 Application/Control Number: 18/974,060 Page 4 Art Unit: 2836 Application/Control Number: 18/974,060 Page 5 Art Unit: 2836 Application/Control Number: 18/974,060 Page 6 Art Unit: 2836 Application/Control Number: 18/974,060 Page 7 Art Unit: 2836 Application/Control Number: 18/974,060 Page 8 Art Unit: 2836 Application/Control Number: 18/974,060 Page 9 Art Unit: 2836
Prosecution Insights