DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 28 January 2025.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13, 16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoyerby (US 2017/0324321).
In re claims 1, 13 and 19, Hoyerby discloses a wireless device comprising a power management circuit (Fig. 6 and [0065]: “portable communication terminal” understood as a wireless device) comprising:
a dual output voltage conversion circuit and the corresponding method of its operation (see Fig. 2) comprising:
a main multi-level charge pump (MCP) (101 except Q4, Q5) configured to:
generate a first low-frequency voltage at a first voltage output (224, Pvdd) as a function of a battery voltage (Vdd) based on a first duty cycle (see waveforms of Fig. 4D and [0059]); and
output the first low-frequency voltage as a transfer voltage (Vcf_p) when the first low-frequency voltage is higher than the battery voltage (see waveforms of Fig. 4D: voltage Vcf_p reaches magnitude Pvdd which may be up to twice the battery voltage Vdd as taught at [0050], [0052]); and
a lightweight MCP (Q4, Q5; considered “lightweight” due to having fewer components than the main MCP) configured to:
receive the transfer voltage from the main MCP (see Fig. 2); and
generate a second low-frequency voltage at a second voltage output (225, 1/2Pvdd) as a function of the transfer voltage based on a second duty cycle (see waveforms of Fig. 4D and [0059]).
In re claims 2, 16 and 20, Hoyerby discloses wherein the main MCP is further configured to output the first low-frequency voltage as the transfer voltage when the first low-frequency voltage is substantially equal to twice the battery voltage (see waveforms of Fig. 4D: voltage Vcf_p reaches magnitude Pvdd which may be up to twice the battery voltage Vdd as taught at [0050], [0052]).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyerby in view of Khlat (US 2021/0226585)1.
In re claim 14, Hoyerby discloses the invention according to claim 13 as explained above, but does not further disclose a first power inductor coupled to the first voltage output and configured to generate a first low-frequency current based on the first low- frequency voltage; and a second power inductor coupled to the second voltage output and configured to generate a second low-frequency current based on the second low-frequency voltage.
Whereas Khlat discloses a power management circuit (Figs. 1 and 3A) in which a first power inductor (26A) is coupled to a first output (VDCA) and a second power inductor (26B) is coupled to a second output (VDCB) for the purpose of converting a low-frequency voltage output into a low-frequency current provided to a load ([0025]-[0026]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Hoyerby by including a first power inductor coupled to the first voltage output and configured to generate a first low-frequency current based on the first low-frequency voltage; and a second power inductor coupled to the second voltage output and configured to generate a second low-frequency current based on the second low-frequency voltage as shown and taught by Khlat to provide filtering and smoothing of the low frequency voltages into low frequency currents.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-13, 15-16 and 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/383,962 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims under rejection are wholly contained within the text of the claims of the reference application. For example, the limitations of the instant independent claims 1, 13 and 20 are found within the independent claims 1, 11 and 20, respectively, of the reference application. Likewise, the instant dependent claims under rejection are also found within corresponding, respective dependent claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6 and 17 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.
Claims 5, 7-12, 15 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if a proper Terminal Disclaimer is filed to overcome the provisional rejection for non-statutory Double Patenting.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 3, the closest prior art in Hoyerby discloses the invention according to claim 1 as explained above, but does not further disclose wherein the second duty cycle is generated independently from the first duty cycle to thereby cause the lightweight MCP to operate independently from the main MCP. Instead, as shown in Hoyerby, Fig. 3, the duty cycles of the main and lightweight MCPs are generated in a functionally-dependent manner through the use of a single PWM circuit.
Furthermore, the additional prior art on record does not suggest an obvious modification that could be made to Hoyerby that would have resulted in the claimed features.
With respect to claim 4, the closest prior art in Hoyerby discloses the invention according to claim 1 as explained above, but does not further disclose wherein:the main MCP is further configured to toggle between a zero-times multiple (Ox), a one-times multiple (1 x), and/or a two-times multiple (2x) of the battery voltage based on the first duty cycle; and the lightweight MCP is further configured to toggle between a zero-times multiple (Ox), a one-half-times multiple (0.5x), and/or a one-times multiple (1 x) of the transfer voltage based on the second duty cycle. Instead, Hoyerby only discloses singular conversion ratios for each of the two output voltages.
Furthermore, the additional prior art on record does not suggest an obvious modification that could be made to Hoyerby that would have resulted in the claimed features.
With respect to claim 5, the closest prior art in Hoyerby discloses the invention according to claim 1 as explained above, but does not further disclose wherein the main MCP comprises a first buck-boost voltage converter and a second buck-boost voltage converter coupled in parallel between the battery voltage and the first voltage output and configured to alternately provide the transfer voltage to the lightweight MCP. Instead, Hoybery discloses the main and lightweight MCPs as part of a single boost voltage converter structure, rather than the parallel structure of claim 5 where the first and second converter alternately provide the transfer voltage.
Furthermore, the additional prior art on record does not suggest an obvious modification that could be made to Hoyerby that would have resulted in the claimed features.
Claims 6-12 each depend, either directly or indirectly, from claim 5 and so would be allowable for the same reasons.
With respect to claim 15, the closest prior art in Hoyerby discloses the invention according to claim 1 as explained above, but does not further disclose a first voltage modulation circuit configured to generate a first modulated voltage; a second voltage modulation circuit configured to generate a second modulated voltage; a switching circuit coupled to the first voltage modulation circuit, the first power inductor, the second voltage modulation circuit, and the second power inductor, the switching circuit is configured to: provide the first modulated voltage and the first low-frequency current to any one of a first output node and a second output node; and provide the second modulated voltage and the second low- frequency current to another one of the first output node and the second output node; and a first power amplifier coupled to the first output node; and a second power amplifier coupled to the second output node.
Furthermore, the additional prior art on record does not suggest an obvious modification that could be made to Hoyerby that would have resulted in the claimed features.
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3, and would therefore be allowable for the same reasons as explained above.
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 5, and would therefore be allowable for the same reasons as explained above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2005/0012542 discloses a Power Supply comprising charge-pump circuit with dual output voltages.
US 2013/0181521 discloses a SINGLE +82 C-BUCKBOOST CONVERTER WITH MULTIPLE REGULATED SUPPLY OUTPUTS.
US 2016/0241142 discloses an INTERLEAVED DUAL OUTPUT CHARGE PUMP.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED E FINCH III whose telephone number is (571)270-7883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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.
/FRED E FINCH III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
1 Cited by Applicant in the 10 April 2025 Information Disclosure Statement.
Prosecution Insights