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 .
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 12/23/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy 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.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 12, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 13, “set as a start point” appears that it should read as “set as the first start point”;
in line 15, “to be changed” appears that it should read as “starts to be changed”.
Regarding claim 4, in line 21, “a A PWM signal” appears that it should read as “an A PWM signal”.
Regarding claim 12, in line 12, “set as a start point” appears that it should read as “set as the first start point”;
in line 14, “to be changed” appears that it should read as “starts to be changed”.
Regarding claim 13, in line 12, “set as a start point” appears that it should read as “set as the first start point”;
in line 14, “to be changed” appears that it should read as “starts to be changed”. 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 4-8 and 10 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 4, the signal switching unit limitation recites that, in a case in which the operation mode is determined to be the second mode, the signal switching unit inputs “the B PWM signal generated by the second comparison unit to the first switching element as the first PWM signal” and also inputs “the A PWM signal generated by the first comparison unit to the first switching element as the first PWM signal”. It is unclear how both the B PWM signal and the A PWM signal are each input to the first switching element as the first PWM signal in the second mode, because a single switching element cannot simultaneously receive two different PWM signals as one first PWM signal. The metes and bounds of the claim therefore cannot be determined. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as inputting the B PWM signal to the first switching element as the first PWM signal and inputting the A PWM signal to the second switching element as the second PWM signal in the second mode. Dependent claims 5-8 and 10 of claim 4 inherit the deficiencies of claim 4 and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez et al. (“Smooth-Transition Simple Digital PWM Modulator for Four-Switch Buck-Boost Converters,” Electronics 2022, 11, 100, hereinafter “Fernandez”) in view of Ma et al. (“Bumpless Transfer of Non-Inverting Buck Boost Converter among Multiple Working Modes,” 2018 IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC), pp. 1909–1914, hereinafter “Ma”).
Regarding claim 1, Fernandez discloses (see Fig. 1) a control device (the FPGA-based controller comprising the compensator G(z) and the two digital pulse-width modulators) controlling a switching power supply circuit (the four-switch buck-boost converter, 4SBB), the switching power supply circuit comprising a first switching element (M1) and a second switching element (M3), wherein the control device operates the switching power supply circuit in accordance with an operation mode (the Buck mode, the Boost mode, and the Buck+Boost mode) according to a difference between a voltage value of an input voltage (v1) for the switching power supply circuit and a voltage value of an output voltage (v2) from the switching power supply circuit (see §2 of Fernandez, which selects Buck operation when v2 is less than v1 and Boost operation when v2 is greater than v1); the control device linearly changes a duty ratio in PWM control of the first switching element (dbuck[n]) from a first start point (point B, at which dbuck[n] = dbuck,B) and linearly changes a duty ratio in PWM control of the second switching element (dboost[n]) from a second start point (point B, at which dboost[n] = dboost,min), in a case in which the operation mode operating the switching power supply circuit is to be switched (the transition among the Buck, Buck+Boost, and Boost modes; see Section 3.2 of Fernandez, “a linearization of the expressions in Table 1 and Table 2 is proposed”).
Fernandez does not disclose that the first start point is a duty ratio in PWM control of the first switching element before the operation mode switching, and that the second start point is a duty ratio in PWM control of the second switching element before the operation mode switching.
However, Ma teaches (see Fig. 7) a control device (the multi-mode controller of Fig. 7) for a non-inverting buck-boost converter (the converter comprising switches S1, S2, S3, and S4 of Fig. 1) in which the first start point is a duty ratio of the first switching element before the operation mode switching (the duty ratio d1 of switch S1 immediately before the switch) and the second start point is a duty ratio of the second switching element before the operation mode switching (the duty ratio d2 of switch S2 immediately before the switch), by performing a bumpless transfer that resets the integral part of the incoming controller so that the control output, and hence the equivalent duty ratio deq mapped to d1 and d2, is continuous across the mode switch (see Section IV of Ma, “continuous control output can be ensured”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Fernandez such that the first start point is the duty ratio of the first switching element before the operation mode switching and the second start point is the duty ratio of the second switching element before the operation mode switching, as taught by Ma, because it can help eliminate the voltage bump introduced at the mode transition (see Section I and Section III of Ma) and remove the residual transition step that arises when the duty ratio instead begins at the jumped-to point dbuck,B.
Regarding claim 12, Fernandez discloses (see Fig. 1) a switching power supply circuit (the four-switch buck-boost converter, 4SBB) comprising a first switching element (M1) and a second switching element (M3), wherein the switching power supply circuit is operated in accordance with an operation mode (the Buck mode, the Boost mode, and the Buck+Boost mode) according to a difference between a voltage value of an input voltage (v1) and a voltage value of an output voltage (v2) (see Section 2 of Fernandez, selecting Buck operation when v2 is less than v1 and Boost operation when v2 is greater than v1); the switching power supply circuit linearly changes a duty ratio in PWM control of the first switching element (dbuck[n]) from a first start point (point B) and linearly changes a duty ratio in PWM control of the second switching element (dboost[n]) from a second start point (point B), in a case in which the operation mode operating the switching power supply circuit is to be switched (the linearized duty-cycle trajectories set forth for claim 1 above; see Section 3.2 of Fernandez).
Fernandez does not disclose that the first start point is a duty ratio in PWM control of the first switching element before the operation mode switching, and that the second start point is a duty ratio in PWM control of the second switching element before the operation mode switching.
However, Ma teaches (see Fig. 7) a switching power supply circuit (the non-inverting buck-boost converter comprising switches S1, S2, S3, and S4 of Fig. 1) in which the first start point is a duty ratio of the first switching element before the operation mode switching (the duty ratio d1 of switch S1 immediately before the switch) and the second start point is a duty ratio of the second switching element before the operation mode switching (the duty ratio d2 of switch S2 immediately before the switch), by performing the bumpless transfer set forth for claim 1 above that keeps the control output, and hence the duty ratios, continuous across the mode switch (see Section IV of Ma).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the switching power supply circuit of Fernandez such that the first start point is the duty ratio of the first switching element before the operation mode switching and the second start point is the duty ratio of the second switching element before the operation mode switching, as taught by Ma, because it can help eliminate the voltage bump introduced at the mode transition (see Section I and Section III of Ma).
Regarding claim 13, Fernandez discloses (see Fig. 1) a control method (the control method performed by the FPGA-based controller) controlling a switching power supply circuit (the four-switch buck-boost converter, 4SBB) including a first switching element (M1) and a second switching element (M3), the control method comprising: operating the switching power supply circuit in accordance with an operation mode (the Buck mode, the Boost mode, and the Buck+Boost mode) according to a difference between a voltage value of an input voltage (v1) and a voltage value of an output voltage (v2) (see Section 2 of Fernandez, selecting Buck operation when v2 is less than v1 and Boost operation when v2 is greater than v1); and linearly changing a duty ratio in PWM control of the first switching element (dbuck[n]) from a first start point (point B) and linearly changing a duty ratio in PWM control of the second switching element (dboost[n]) from a second start point (point B), in a case in which the operation mode operating the switching power supply circuit is to be switched (the linearized duty-cycle trajectories set forth for claim 1 above; see Section 3.2 of Fernandez).
Fernandez does not disclose that the first start point is a duty ratio in PWM control of the first switching element before the operation mode switching, and that the second start point is a duty ratio in PWM control of the second switching element before the operation mode switching.
However, Ma teaches (see Fig. 7) a control method (the control method of the multi-mode controller of Fig. 7) in which the first start point is a duty ratio of the first switching element before the operation mode switching (the duty ratio d1 of switch S1 immediately before the switch) and the second start point is a duty ratio of the second switching element before the operation mode switching (the duty ratio d2 of switch S2 immediately before the switch), by performing the bumpless transfer set forth for claim 1 above that keeps the control output, and hence the duty ratios, continuous across the mode switch (see Section IV of Ma).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fernandez such that the first start point is the duty ratio of the first switching element before the operation mode switching and the second start point is the duty ratio of the second switching element before the operation mode switching, as taught by Ma, because it can help eliminate the voltage bump introduced at the mode transition (see Section I and Section III of Ma).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez in view of Ma, and further in view of Chen et al. (US Patent Application Publication US 2021/0226535 A1, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 2, Fernandez discloses (see Fig. 1) wherein the switching power supply circuit includes a first side (the input-side leg) including a first upper arm (M1) and a first lower arm (M2) of an H bridge (the bridge formed by M1, M2, M3, and M4); a second side (the output-side leg) including a second upper arm (M4) and a second lower arm (M3) of the H bridge; a coil (the inductor L) joining a first connection point (the node between M1 and M2) between the first upper arm and the first lower arm on the first side and a second connection point (the node between M3 and M4) between the second upper arm and the second lower arm on the second side; the first switching element (M1) disposed in the first upper arm; and the second switching element (M3) disposed in the second lower arm.
Fernandez does not disclose a first current limiting unit disposed in the first lower arm and limiting a direction of a current from the first lower arm side to the first upper arm side, and a second current limiting unit disposed in the second upper arm and limiting a direction of a current from the second lower arm side to the second upper arm side.
However, Chen teaches (see Fig. 6) a first current limiting unit disposed in the first lower arm (the input-side diode of the non-synchronous two-switch buck-boost regulator 600, replacing the lower input-side switch) and a second current limiting unit disposed in the second upper arm (the output-side diode of the regulator 600, replacing the upper output-side switch), each diode passively conducting in a single direction (see [0021] of Chen, “non-synchronous two-switch buck-boost regulator”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power circuit of Fernandez to implement the first lower arm and the second upper arm as current limiting units, as taught by Chen, because it can help reduce the number of actively driven switches and their associated gate-drive circuitry while still providing the required unidirectional current paths.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez in view of Ma and Chen, and further in view of Callegaro et al. (“An Intelligent Pass-Through Algorithm for Non-Inverting Buck-Boost Solar Power Optimizers,” 2019 21st European Conference on Power Electronics and Applications (EPE’19 ECCE Europe), hereinafter “Callegaro”).
Regarding claim 11, Fernandez discloses (see Fig. 1) a power supply inputting the input voltage between the first upper arm and the first lower arm (the dc source supplying the input voltage v1 to the M1-M2 leg). Fernandez does not disclose that the power supply is a solar panel.
However, Callegaro teaches (see Fig. 1) that the power supply inputting the input voltage between the first upper arm and the first lower arm is a solar panel (the photovoltaic module supplying the input voltage vpv to the non-inverting buck-boost dc-module integrated converter of Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) (see the Abstract of Callegaro, “non-inverting buck-boost photovoltaic module integrated converter”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the power circuit of Fernandez such that the power supply inputting the input voltage is a solar panel, as taught by Callegaro, because it can help regulate the input voltage to track and extract the maximum power available from the photovoltaic source over a wide input-voltage range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 9 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 3, none of the cited prior art alone or in combination disclose or teach the claimed inventions in which “…the control device, in a case in which the operation mode is switched from a first mode to a second mode, changes the duty ratio of the first switching element after the operation mode switching from the first start point through feedback control and changes the duty ratio of the second switching element after the operation mode switching from the second start point through linear change control, and, in a case in which the operation mode is switched from the second mode to the first mode, changes the duty ratio of the first switching element after the operation mode switching from the first start point through the linear change control and changes the duty ratio of the second switching element after the operation mode switching from the second start point through the feedback control”. Claim 9 is objected due to its dependency on claim 3.
Claims 4-8 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action, and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2016/0352228 A1 discloses a buck-boost power converter with seamless mode transition control using controllable hysteresis on the buck and boost pulse-width-modulation modules.
US 2011/0043172 A1 discloses a buck-boost converter providing smooth transitions between modes by offsetting the buck and boost duty cycles at the mode boundary.
US 2017/0040898 A1 discloses determining the operation mode of a buck-boost converter from the input and output voltages or from the duty cycles of the control signals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYE-JUNE LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7726. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 5 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, Monica Lewis can be reached on 5712721838. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MONICA LEWIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/JYE-JUNE LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights