DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 17 Dec 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued that the reference does not anticipate the claim for several reasons. Since there seems to be some confusion, examiner will start with a figure and then explain how it meets each and every limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
370
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above, Chin teaches, by circuit layout alone, “A power supply, comprising: a power converter having a high-side switch, a low-side switch coupled to the high-side switch, and a bootstrap capacitor coupled between the high-side switch and the low-side switch;and a control circuit coupled to the low-side switch, the control circuit configured to activate the low- side switch ”. The only remaining claim langauge not taught by the physical layout is “and charge the bootstrap capacitor without changing an output voltage of the power converter.” Specifically, the physical layout does not explicitly tell how Chin “activate the low-side switch and charge the bootstrap capacitor without changing an output voltage of the power converter.”
Of those two remaining limitations, “charge the bootstrap capacitor without changing of an output voltage” can be readily seen by the fact that the bootstrap capacitor is charged by the control voltage REG. It does not matter if the LS switch or HS switch is active, voltage REG will charges the capacitor independent of the value of the output voltage. This means that the only limitation not readily determined from the layout is “activate the low-side switch without changing an output voltage of the power converter.” There are several responses to this. First, Chin does not change the DC output voltage of the converter. While applicant might have been referring to the small ripple voltage present in any real system, it is certainly within the broadest reasonable interpretation to say that the DC output voltage does not change. Second, Chin describes the output voltage as constant in an expression right before ¶80, and prior art is presumed enabled (MPEP 2121).
Most importantly, it is presumed the steady state output voltage would not change. One of ordinary skill would not expect the output voltage to change significantly. Rephrased simply, tying a 100V load to a 50V supply or 150V source generally does not work. One of ordinary skill would expect Chin to produce a steady output with a small ripple, without a significant change in the output voltage. Also, note that the capacitor on the output in both applicant’s specification and Chin will also smooth any ripple voltage. In short, though while applicant might have meant something more specific, the claimed language simply permits too many reasonable interpretations (See MPEP 2111.01, 2173.01).
As to the remarks of claim 10, once again, one of ordinary skill would not expect the output votlage to change significantly, and is referred to as a constant by Chen. As such, the anticipation rejection is unfortunately sustained.
As to the remarks with respect to claim 5, note that by closing the LS switch, there is a circuit path from Vreg through a diode and resistor, though the boost capacitor to the low side switch to ground. In other words, Chin taught the charging the boot capacitor when the LS switch conducts, and Kolar was only needed for the negative peak detection. As such, this argument is not persuasive. As to the arguments about being non-analogous art, examiner notes that both are power factor correction circuits, and changing from one to three phase (and vice versa) is old and well known (See §MPEP 2144.03 & See US 3,686,343 Col. 11 lines 46-52; US 4,176,333 Col. 3 lines 50-55; US 5,854,729 Col. 3 lines 44-57 for going from single-phase to three phase and see US 3,596,038 Col. 8 lines 18-23; US 3,757,179 Col. 8 lines 52-64; US 3,787,724; US 4,056,775 Col. 6 lines 20-25 for going from polyphase to single phase). As such, the obviousness rejection should be sustained.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority to 17 December 2024.
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, 8-12, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Chin (US 20240014733).
As to claim 1, Chin discloses A power supply (Fig. 3), comprising: a power converter having a high-side switch (S1), a low-side switch (S2)coupled to the high-side switch, and a bootstrap capacitor (Fig. 3, Cqbst) coupled between the high-side switch and the low-side switch; and a control circuit (Fig. 3, the supply voltage, REG is connected to S2 and S1, as well as item generating gate signals) coupled to the low-side switch, the control circuit configured to activate the low-side switch and charge the bootstrap capacitor without changing an output voltage of the power converter (Vreg is tied to the driver and the switching node, which is similar to applicant’s invention).
As to claim 2, Chin discloses wherein the bootstrap capacitor is coupled in series with a diode (the circuit shows a series combination of a diode, resistor, and bootstrap capacitor).
As to claim 3, Chin discloses wherein the diode is coupled to a voltage source (REG), and wherein the bootstrap capacitor is coupled between the high-side and low-side switches.
As to claim 4, Chin teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the low-side switch to charge the bootstrap capacitor while the high-side switch is turned off (S1/S2 switch complimentarys, See figures 2a-2d).
As to claim 8, Chin discloses wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the low-side switch for one or more switching cycles (this is shown in Figs 2a-2d).
As to claim 9, Chin discloses wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the low-side switch following a selected pattern of switching cycles (Figs. 2a- 2d).
As to claim 10, Chin discloses further comprising an inductor (Fig. 3, L) coupled between the high and low-side switches, wherein the control circuit is configured to turn the low-side switch off before the inductor accumulates sufficient energy to change the output voltage of the power converter.
As to claim 11, Chin discloses An electronic circuit, comprising: a power converter having a high-side switch, a low-side switch coupled to the high-side switch, an output capacitor coupled across the high-side and low-side switches, and a bootstrap capacitor coupled between the high-side low-side switches; and a control module coupled to the power converter, wherein the control module is configured to activate the low-side switch to opportunistically charge the bootstrap capacitor without increasing an electrical charge across the output capacitor (this is similar to claim 1, with the only difference being applicant specifying an output voltage rather than capacitor voltage. However, the capacitor voltage and the output voltage are the same, so this is anticipated for similar reasons).
As to claim 12, Chin teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the low-side switch to charge the bootstrap capacitor while the high-side switch is turned off (S1/S2 switch complimentarys, See figures 2a-2d).
As to claim 15, Chin discloses wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the low-side switch for one or more switching cycles (this is shown in Figs 2a-2d).
As to claim 16, Chin discloses wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the low-side switch following an alternating pattern of switching cycles (Figs. 2a- 2d).
As to claims 17-18 theres are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 11 and 16, just with fewer limitations. As such, these are anticipated for similar reasons per MPEP 2112.02
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 5, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chin (US 20240014733) in view of Kolar (US 20220085725)
As to claim 5, Chin does not disclose wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the low-side switch to charge the bootstrap capacitor in response to a mains voltage reaching its negative peak.
Kiolar teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the low-side switch to charge the bootstrap capacitor in response to a mains voltage reaching its negative peak (¶134 “ii) statically operating the bridge leg that receives the minimum input voltage Umin includes switching off the high-side switch of the respective bridge leg and switching on the low-side switch of the respective bridge leg.”).
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 activate the low side switches at an input minimum as disclosed in Kilar to improve DC voltage regulation.
As to claim 5, Chin does not disclose wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the low-side switch to charge the bootstrap capacitor in response to a mains voltage reaching its negative peak.
Kiolar teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the low-side switch to charge the bootstrap capacitor in response to a mains voltage reaching its negative peak (¶134).
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 activate the low side switches at an input minimum as disclosed in Kilar to improve DC voltage regulation.
Claims 6-7, 14, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chin (US 20240014733) in view of Lind (US 20220158559).
As to claim 6, Chin does not disclose wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the low-side switch in response to the power supply operating in burst mode, a non-switching mode, or a low frequency switching mode.
Lind teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the low-side switch in response to the power supply operating in burst mode, a non-switching mode, or a low frequency switching mode (¶95 “It will be appreciated that other embodiments can also be implemented alternately to the fixed frequency DCM operation associated with low frequencies. For example, switching operation strategies may involve transitions into CrCM bursts (x cycles of switching and then y cycles of no switching), or DCM bursts or similar modes.”)
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 DCM to improve light load efficiency.
As to claim 7, Chin in view of Lind teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the low-side switch in response to receiving a mode active signal (Lind, Fig. 2a/2b).
As to claim14, Chin does not disclose wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the low-side switch in response to the power supply operating in burst mode, a non-switching mode, or a low frequency switching mode.
Lind teaches wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the low-side switch in response to the power supply operating in burst mode, a non-switching mode, or a low frequency switching mode (¶95).
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 DCM to improve light load efficiency.
As to claim 19, Chin does not explicitly teach wherein the selected mode of operation comprises a burst mode.
Lind teaches wherein the selected mode of operation comprises a burst mode(¶95).
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 burst mode and DCM to improve light load efficiency.
As to claim 20, Chin does not teach wherein the selected mode of operation comprises a non-switching mode or a low frequency switching mode.
Lind teaches wherein the selected mode of operation comprises a non-switching mode or a low frequency switching mode. (¶95).
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 burst mode and DCM to improve light load efficiency.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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