DETAILED ACTION
This action is in regards to the application filed on 12/31/2024.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sampling resistor and filter circuit of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “A renewal” should be written as “a renewal”. 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 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1 line 7, the limitation “the output” lacks proper antecedent basis and should be written as “an output”. In line 12, the limitation “the switching” lacks proper antecedent basis and should be written as “a switching”. In line 13, the limitation “the switching” lacks proper antecedent basis and should be written as “a switching”. Dependent claims 2-10 inherits the deficiencies of independent claim 1 and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b). Further regarding claim 3, it’s not clear as to if the limitation “an output of the first power supply unit” is the same or different from the limitation “the output of the first power supply unit” mentioned in claim 1. Further regarding claim 4, the limitations “the duty cycle of the first switch” and “the duty cycle of the second switch” lacks proper antecedent basis and should be written as “a duty cycle of the first switch” and “a duty cycle of the second switch”. Further regarding claim 9, the limitation “the alternating current” lacks proper antecedent basis and should be written as “an alternating current”.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (GB2273836A) in view of Kumagai (US 2007/0285072). Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Brown et al. discloses (see fig. 1) a contactor, comprising: a coil unit comprising a coil (16) and a first switch (14), wherein a first end of the first switch is connected to an input (14 connection to HV supply) and a second end of the first switch is connected to the coil (14 connection to 16); a first power supply unit comprising a second switch (20) and a voltage stabilizing diode (22), wherein the second switch is connected in parallel with the voltage stabilizing diode (parallel connection of 20 and 22), and the first power supply unit is connected in series with the coil unit (series connection to 16), wherein a cathode of the voltage stabilizing diode is connected to the output of the first power supply unit (connection of 22 to output); a current detection unit (18), which is configured to detect a current flowing through the coil (operation of 18) and to feed a current detection signal to a control unit (output from 18 to 24); and the control unit (24), which is configured to control the switching on and off of the first switch according to the current detection signal (operation of 24 controlling 14 based on output from 18). Brown et al. does not disclose a voltage detection unit, which is configured to detect a first supply voltage at the output and to feed a voltage detection signal to the control unit; and to control the switching on and off of the second switch according to the voltage detection signal, wherein the first supply voltage is less than an input voltage at the input. Kumagai discloses (see fig. 1) a voltage detection unit (R1/R2), which is configured to detect a first supply voltage at an output (operation of R1/R2) and to feed a voltage detection signal to a control unit (output fromR1/R2 to control unit comprising AMP1/CMP1/CMP2/12/13/15); and to control a switching on and off of a second switch (SW1) according to the voltage detection signal (operation of AMP1/CMP1/CMP2/12/13/15 controlling SW1 based on output from R1/R2 and AMP1), wherein the first supply voltage is less than an input voltage at the input (0.5v to 1.5v is less than 3v). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the contactor of Brown et al. to include the features of Kumagai because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Brown et al. does not disclose that the control unit is configured to control the duty cycle of the first switch and the duty cycle of the second switch by means of pulse width modulation. Kumagai discloses (see fig. 1) that the control unit(AMP1/CMP1/CMP2/12/13/15) is configured to control a duty cycle of a first switch (SW2) and a duty cycle of the second switch (SW1) by means of pulse width modulation (operation of AMP1/CMP1/CMP2/12/13/15). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the contactor of Brown et al. to include the features of Kumagai because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Brown et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first switch and/or the second switch being constructed as insulated gate bipolar transistors. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the first switch and/or the second switch be constructed as insulated gate bipolar transistors, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the contactor of Brown et al. to include the features of having the first switch and/or the second switch be constructed as insulated gate bipolar transistors, because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies. Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Brown et al. does not disclose that the first supply voltage is 15V. Kumagai discloses the claimed invention except for the first supply voltage being 15V. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the first supply voltage be 15V, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the contactor of Brown et al. to include the features of having the first supply voltage be 15V, because it provides for a reduction in component variance, which can increase operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (GB2273836A) in view of Kumagai (US 2007/0285072) and Wang et al. (US Patent 11843380). Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Brown et al. does not disclose a renewal diode, wherein the renewal diode is connected in parallel with a series circuit comprising the coil and the first power supply unit. Wang et al. discloses (see fig. 1) a renewal diode (D1), wherein the renewal diode is connected in parallel with a series circuit comprising a coil and a first power supply unit (D1 parallel connection to series circuit comprising C1 and Tli/VZi). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the contactor of Brown et al. to include the features of Wang et al. because it provides for a transient protection means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (GB2273836A) in view of Kumagai (US 2007/0285072) and Williams (US 2007/0131938). Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Brown et al. does not disclose that the first power supply unit further comprises a transient voltage suppressor, wherein a first end of the transient voltage suppressor is connected to an output of the first power supply unit, and a second end of the transient voltage suppressor is connected between the coil and the first power supply unit. Williams discloses (see fig. 7a) that a first power supply unit (106/107/105/115) further comprises a transient voltage suppressor (105/115), wherein a first end of the transient voltage suppressor is connected to an output of the first power supply unit (connection of 105/115 to source of 106), and a second end of the transient voltage suppressor is connected between a coil and the first power supply unit (connection of 105/115 between 114 and drain of 106). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the contactor of Brown et al. to include the features of Williams because it provides for a transient control means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (GB2273836A) in view of Kumagai (US 2007/0285072) and Wang et al. (US Patent 11808789). Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Brown et al. does not disclose that the current detection unit comprises a sampling resistor and a filter circuit connected in parallel with the sampling resistor. Wang et al. discloses (see fig. 2) that a current detection unit (200) comprises a sampling resistor (Rs) and a filter circuit (Cs) connected in parallel with the sampling resistor (parallel connection of Rs and Cs). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the contactor of Brown et al. to include the features of Wang et al. because it provides for a transient protection means to prevent unwanted fluctuations in operation, thus increasing operational efficiencies.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (GB2273836A) in view of Kumagai (US 2007/0285072) and Lanes (US 2022/0238289). Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Brown et al. does not disclose that the contactor further comprises: a rectifier module, which is configured to convert the alternating current at the input to direct current. Lanes discloses (see fig. 2) that a contactor further comprises: a rectifier module (bridge rectifier in 6), which is configured to convert an alternating current at an input to direct current (operation of bridge rectifier in 6). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the contactor of Brown et al. to include the features of Lane because it allows for a specific design choice, which can provide a specific/desired type of operation using an AC input, thus reducing operational variances and increasing operational efficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Eager et al. (US Patent 6504351) discloses systems and methods for controlling the charge profile for a voltage regulator. Lam et al. (US Patent 7256568) discloses a single inductor multiple-input multiple output switching converter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A GBLENDE whose telephone number is (571)270-5472. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 at 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.
/JEFFREY A GBLENDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights