DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to the application filed on 12/12/24.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu Shanglin (CN 113014099, cited in the IDS filed on 9/19/23. Also, see English translation) in view of Gu et al. (US 20110148379).
Regarding claim 1: Shanglin discloses (i.e. figure 1) a circuitry, comprising:
a regulator (i.e. regulator of figure 1), configured to receive an input signal (i.e. from Vin) to generate an output voltage (i.e. Vout);
a control circuit (i.e. 500), coupled to the regulator (i.e. regulator of figure 1), configured to select (i.e. by S1, S2) one of a first reference voltage (i.e. figure 7: VFB1 during t1 – t1’) and a second reference voltage (i.e. figure 7: VFB1 during t2 – t2’) to serve as an output reference voltage (i.e. VFB1) according to an output signal (i.e. signal of Vout) of the regulator (i.e. regulator of figure 1), and generate a control signal (i.e. control signal of 400) according to the output reference voltage (i.e. VFB1) to control a voltage level (i.e. level of Vout) of the output voltage (i.e. Vout) of the regulator (i.e. regulator of figure 1),
but does not specifically disclose wherein the output signal is an output current of the regulator.
Gu et al. disclose a converter (i.e. figure 5) comprising the output signal (i.e. sensing by 511, provide the to the first and second comparator 517, 517 to compare with the first and second references from 523) is an output current (i.e. current through 509) of the regulator (i.e. regulator of figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Shanglin’s invention with the converter as disclose by Gu et al. to provide stability in the output of the converter.
Regarding claim 2: Shanglin disclose (i.e. figures 3-7) a selection circuit (i.e. S1, S2), configured to select one of the first reference voltage (i.e. figure 7: VFB1 during t1 – t1’) and the second reference voltage (i.e. figure 7: VFB1 during t2 – t2’) to serve as the output reference voltage (i.e. VFB1) according to the first control signal (i.e. SCMP1) and the second control signal (i.e. SCMP2),
but does not specifically disclose the control circuit comprises: a first comparator, configured to compare the output current with a reference current to generate a first control signal; a second comparator, configured to compare the reference current with the output current to generate a second control signal
Gu et al. disclose a converter (i.e. figure 5) having the control circuit comprises: a first comparator (i.e. 517), configured to compare the output current (i.e. from 511) with a reference current (i.e. V1) to generate a first control signal (i.e. from 517); a second comparator (i.e. 518), configured to compare the reference current (i.e. V2) with the output current (i.e. from 511) to generate a second control signal (i.e. from 518).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Shanglin’s invention with the converter as disclose by Gu et al. to provide stability in the output of the converter.
Regarding claim 6: the method steps will be met during the normal operation of the apparatus described above. (Examiner notes: 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).
5. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu Shanglin (CN 113014099, cited in the IDS filed on 9/19/23. Also, see English translation) in view of Gu et al. (US 20110148379) and further in view of Yang et al. (US 8901907).
Regarding claim 5: Shanglin disclose (i.e. figures 3-7) wherein the control circuit further comprises: an error amplifier (i.e. EAO), coupled to the selection circuit (i.e. S1, S2), but does not specifically disclose an error amplifier configured to compare the output reference voltage with a triangular wave to generate the control signal to control the regulator.
Yang et al. discloses a converter (i.e. figure 4) comprising an error amplifier (i.e. 426) configured to compare the output reference voltage (i.e. input to 426) with a triangular wave (i.e. 424) to generate the control signal (i.e. VCTRL) to control the regulator (i.e. 410).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Shanglin’s invention with the converter as disclose by Yang et al. to provide a current-limit system where the average current is detected as a current limit, in order to prevent the current-limit mode from being triggered inaccurately when noises cause a greater current ripple.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 3-4 and 8 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.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1269. The examiner can normally be reached Flex: M-F 8-7.
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 on 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.
/Nguyen Tran/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights