DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “An electrical supply device … comprising: with”, where the “with” is redundant. Further, each of the above claims recite limitations lacking antecedent basis. The claims are definite, as a previous recitation of each term is not recited in another claim and may be corrected merely by changing “the” to “a” or “an”. The terms lacking antecedent basis are as follows:
“the input of the supply device” (claim 1);
“the area of the supply device” (claim 1);
“the input current” (claim 2);
“the maximum input power” (claim 6);
“the maximum permissible input current” (claim 6);
“the expected efficiency” (claim 6);
“the maximum permissible losses” (claim 7);
“the maximum permissible” (claim 7);
“the initial state of charge” (claim 8);
“the nominal capacity of the accumulator” (claim 8);
“the expected charging time” (claim 8);
“the temperature curve” (claim 8); and
“the charging power” (claim 15).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-7, 10, and 11-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4-7 and 11-15 recite, or depend on a claim that recites, a term that lacks antecedent basis. The claims are indefinite, as the terms lacking antecedent basis are each recited in a preceding claim in which the indefinite claim does not depend upon, and it is thus unclear whether the terms are intended to refer to only the recited term or all limitations of the claim where the term is previously recited. The terms lacking antecedent basis are as follows:
“the respective associated efficiency” (claim 4);
“the efficiency of the electrical supply device” (claim 5);
“the current efficiency” (claim 6);
“the determined efficiency” (claim 6);
“the desired output voltage” (claim 7);
“the input current” (claim 10);
“the efficiency” (claim 11);
“the current efficiency” (claim 13);
“the maximum input power” (claim 13);
“the maximum permissible input current” (claim 13);
“the expected efficiency” (claim 13);
“the maximum permissible losses” (claim 14);
“the maximum permissible” (claim 14);
“the initial state of charge” (claim 15);
“the nominal capacity of the accumulator” (claim 15);
“the expected charging time” (claim 15); and
“the temperature curve” (claim 15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perchlik et al. (US 2018/0232021, hereinafter “Perchlik”).
Claim 1: Perchlik discloses an electrical supply device (Fig.1) according to the Universal Serial Bus standard (USB-C; see Fig.1, [0005]), comprising: with
a controller (12); and
a USB plug contact connection (11),
wherein the supply device is connectable or connected to an input voltage source (“PowerIn”), and wherein the supply device provides an electrical output supply power (to sink port; see [0023]) at the USB plug contact connection (Fig.1),
wherein the controller comprises an input voltage measuring unit for measuring the input voltage applied at the input of the supply device (see the algorithm describe in [0043], which discloses utilizing a “measured input voltage”) and/or
a temperature measuring unit (16, 18) for measuring the temperature (“internal temperature”; see [0022]) in the area of the supply device (at the port 11; see [0023]), and wherein the controller is configured to effect a limitation of the output supply power using the currently measured input voltage and/or the currently measured temperature as a controlled variable (see [0034] and [0021], where when a measured temperature is greater than an upper limit, a new capabilities list of PDOs is determined and set in the port controller, reducing the output supply power to lower the supply device temperature; see also [0042]-[0043] where the input voltage is utilized to determine a calculated/estimated power to negotiate the new source capability).
Claim 3: Perchlik discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine an efficiency of the electrical supply device, and wherein the controller is configured to effect a limitation of the output supply power using the currently determined efficiency as the controlled variable (see the algorithm in [0043], where an efficiency is adjustment factor is provided in a table, thus the efficiency is determined by lookup of the efficiency factor in the table).
Claim 9: Perchlik discloses a method for electrical supply of loads (Fig.1), with a supply interface according to the Universal Serial Bus (USB) standard (USB-C; see Fig.1) with an electrical supply device according to claim 1 (see discussion above), comprising: a) measuring an input voltage applied at the input of the supply device (see the algorithm in [0043], where an input voltage is measured) and/or a temperature in the area of the supply device (e.g. via the temperature sensing circuit 16/18 or the algorithm of [0043]); b) limiting the output supply power using the currently measured input voltage and/or the currently measured temperature as a controlled variable (see [0034] and [0021], where when a measured temperature is greater than an upper limit, a new capabilities list of PDOs is determined and set in the port controller, reducing the output supply power to lower the supply device temperature; see also [0042]-[0043] where the input voltage is utilized to determine a calculated/estimated power to negotiate the new source capability).
Claim 11: Perchlik discloses determining the efficiency of the electrical supply device and limiting the output supply power using the currently determined efficiency as the controlled variable (see the algorithm in [0043], where an efficiency is adjustment factor is provided in a table, thus the efficiency is determined by lookup of the efficiency factor in the table).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perchlik in view of Li et al. (US 2016/0013717, hereinafter “Li”).
Perchlik discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 9, as discussed above. Perchlik further discloses determining a power dissipation using a measured output current, an output voltage, an input voltage, and efficiency adjustment factors (see the algorithm in [0043]). Perchlik does not explicitly disclose measuring the input current and limiting the output supply power using the currently measured input current. However, the examiner notes that power dissipation may be calculated by Ohm’s law, P=V*I, where the input voltage/current would provide an input power, thus corresponding to a measured power dissipation of the supply device of Perchlik. Li discloses that power consumption may be measured by either detecting the input current and input voltage of a power supply to limit the output power (see [0032]). As both methods, measuring the output current and output voltage (of Perchlik) or the input current and input voltage (of Li), result in the same calculation of power, the results of utilizing the input current and input voltage to estimate/calculate power dissipation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided input current measurement and input voltage measurement in the power dissipation calculation algorithm of Perchlik as the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perchlik in view of Schmitz (US 2016/0254748).
Perchlik discloses the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses utilizing efficiency adjustment factors to determine power dissipation (see the algorithm described in [0043]). However, Perchlik discloses that the efficiency factors are stored in a table and does not disclose determining the efficiency by calculating the efficiency for a characteristic variable or a combination of characteristic variables which are selected from the characteristic variables currently determined input voltage, currently determined input current, currently determined output current and desired output voltage. Schmitz discloses that in a similar power converter, efficiency may be calculated based on a determined input voltage (Vin), a currently determined input current (Iin), currently determined output current (Iout), and a desired output voltage (Vout). See [0008]. Schmitz discloses that by deriving an efficiency mathematically, a reliable efficiency determination of a power converter for varying operating conditions may be accomplished (see [0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have utilized a calculated efficiency value based on a determined input voltage, a currently determined input current, currently determined output current, and a desired output voltage in place of the table of Perchlik in order to have provided a reliable efficiency determination for varying operating conditions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
Claims 4, 6-7, and 12-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the following limitations could not be found in the prior art within the overall context of the claims: “wherein the controller is configured to determine the efficiency of the electrical supply device by reading out the efficiencies for the supporting values from the table which are close to a currently determined characteristic value or combination of characteristic values and interpolating the efficiency from the efficiencies read out for the supporting values” (claims 4 and 12), “determining the expected efficiency by interpolation from supporting values for efficiencies of combinations of input voltage, input current, output current and desired output voltage” (claims 6 and 13), “determining the maximum permissible losses in the electrical supply device as a function of the maximum input power, taking into account the determined current temperature and a limit temperature specified as the maximum permissible; and d) determining the specified output current taking into account the measured input voltage, the desired output voltage and the determined maximum permissible losses” (claims 7 and 14), or “wherein the controller is configured to effect a limitation of the output supply power, taking into account a temperature increase to be expected during a charging process of an accumulator and a specified limit temperature, wherein the controller is configured to determine the temperature increase to be expected, taking into account an initial ambient temperature measured at the start of the charging process, the initial temperature of the supply device measured at the start of the charging process, the output supply power, the initial state of charge and the nominal capacity of the accumulator to be charged in the charging process, the expected charging time, the temperature curve during the charging process and/or states from previous charging processes” (claims 8 and 15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Menna Youssef can be reached at (571)270-3684. 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.
/RYAN JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849