DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to the application filed on 2/20/25.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cantoro (US 20120327692).
Regarding claim 1: Cantoro disclose (i.e. figures 8-9) a power conversion circuit (i.e. figure 8), comprising:
a transformer (i.e. 20), comprising a primary coil (i.e. L1) and a secondary coil (i.e. L2), wherein the secondary coil (i.e. L2) generates an output voltage (i.e. Vout) of the power conversion circuit (i.e. figure 9);
a high-side transistor (i.e. Q1) and a low-side transistor (i.e. Q2), coupled to the primary coil (i.e. L1) and acting as a half bridge circuit (i.e. Q1, Q2) to magnetize and demagnetize the transformer (i.e. L1); and
a control circuit (i.e. circuit of figure 9), individually turning on the high-side switch (i.e. Q1) and the low-side switch (i.e. Q2) based a feedback signal (i.e. fb) and a current detection signal (i.e. from Vs, represent the current flow) to regulate the output voltage (i.e. Vout);
wherein the feedback signal (i.e. fb) is related to the output voltage (i.e. Vout), and the current detection signal (i.e. from Vs, represent the current flow) is indicative of a current flowing (i.e. current of L1) through the primary coil (i.e. L1);
wherein the control circuit (i.e. circuit of figure 9) further generates a power signal (i.e. signal to 201 from noted 213) related to an output current (i.e. Iout) of the power conversion circuit (i.e. figure 8) based on a state of the high-side switch (i.e. HSGD) and the feedback signal (i.e. fb).
Regarding claim 2: (i.e. figures 8-9) wherein the control circuit (i.e. circuit of figure 9) generates the power signal based (i.e. signal to 201 from noted 213) on a conduction time of the high-side switch (i.e. HSGD), a conduction time of the low-side switch (i.e. LSGD), and the feedback signal (i.e. fb, signals HSGD and LSGD are generated based on signal fb).
Regarding claim 3: (i.e. figures 8-9) wherein a time for magnetizing the transformer (i.e. 20) is equal to the conduction time (i.e. on time) of the high-side switch (i.e. Q1); wherein a time for demagnetizing the transformer (i.e. 20) is equal to the conduction time (i.e. on time) of the low-side switch (i.e. Q2).
Regarding claims 11-13: the method steps will be met during the normal operation of the apparatus described above. (Examiner notes: 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantoro (US 20120327692) in view of Kadoi et al. (US 20250266769).
Regarding claim 4: Cantoro disclose the control circuit generates the power signal (i.e. signal to 201 from noted 213), but does not specifically disclose based on an average of the feedback signal.
Kadoi et al. disclose a power supply (i.e. figure 3) comprising on an average of the feedback signal (i.e. from 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cantoro’s invention with the average of the feedback signal as disclose by Kadoi et al. to have the control circuit generates the power signal based on an average of the feedback signal, because its provides a switching power supply circuit that can reduce the amount of the radiated electromagnetic noise even in a case of the jitter in the load.
Regarding claim 5: Cantoro disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose the control circuit comprises a low-pass filter; wherein the low-pass filter is configured to average the feedback signal to generate the power signal.
Kadoi et al. disclose a power supply (i.e. figure 3) comprising the control circuit comprises a low-pass filter (i.e. 20); wherein the low-pass filter (i.e. 20) is configured to average the feedback signal (i.e. from output of the converter to the measurement unit 30) to generate the power signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cantoro’s invention with the average of the feedback signal as disclose by Kadoi et al. to have the control circuit generates the power signal based on an average of the feedback signal, because its provides a switching power supply circuit that can reduce the amount of the radiated electromagnetic noise even in a case of the jitter in the load.
Regarding claims 14-15: the method steps will be met during the normal operation of the apparatus described above. (Examiner notes: 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).
7. Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantoro (US 20120327692).
Regarding claims 6 and 16: Cantoro disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose when the power signal exceeds a threshold, the control circuit drives the high-side switch and the low-side switch to reduce the output current.
However, in an alternative embodiment, Cantoro disclose (i.e. figures 4 and 7) when the power signal (i.e. signal provide to comparator 201) exceeds a threshold (i.e. Vthp, see figure 7), the control circuit drives the high-side switch (i.e. Q1) and the low-side switch (i.e. Q2) (i.e. ¶ 37-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cantoro’s invention with the configuration as disclose in figures 4 and 7 of Cantoro in order to reduce the output current, because it reduces the effectiveness of the frequency limitation as a means for preventing abnormal operational conditions.
Regarding claims 7 and 17: Cantoro disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose when the power signal exceeds a threshold, the control circuit drives the high-side switch and the low-side switch so that the output current flowing through the secondary coil is a fixed current.
However, in an alternative embodiment, Cantoro disclose (i.e. figures 4 and 7) when the power signal (i.e. signal provide to comparator 201) exceeds a threshold (i.e. Vthp, see figure 7), the control circuit drives the high-side switch (i.e. Q1) and the low-side switch (i.e. Q2) (i.e. ¶ 37-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cantoro’s invention with the configuration as disclose in figures 4 and 7 of Cantoro so that the output current flowing through the secondary coil is a fixed current, because it reduces the effectiveness of the frequency limitation as a means for preventing abnormal operational conditions.
8. Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cantoro (US 20120327692) in view of Lin (US 20100165668).
Regarding claims 8 and 18: Cantoro disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose a power factor correction circuit is configured to convert an AC voltage into an input voltage; wherein the power conversion circuit is configured to convert the input voltage into the output voltage.
Lin discloses a power supply (i.e. figure 2 and 3A) comprising a power factor correction circuit (i.e. 30, 20) is configured to convert an AC voltage into an input voltage (i.e. AC); wherein the power conversion circuit (i.e. 30, 20) is configured to convert the input voltage (i.e. Vbulk) into the output voltage (i.e. Vout).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cantoro’s invention with the power supply as disclose by Lin to provide an universal input switching power supply that has good transforming efficiency at different AC power source condition.
Regarding claims 9 and 19: Cantoro disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose when the power signal exceeds a threshold, the power factor correction circuit raises the input voltage based on the power signal.
Lin discloses a power supply (i.e. figure 2 and 3A) comprising when the power signal (i.e. figure 3: signal from M2 to comparator M11) exceeds a threshold (i.e. compare with Vref2, figure 3A), the power factor correction circuit raises the input voltage (i.e. Vbulk) based on the power signal (i.e. figure 3: signal from M2 to comparator M11) (i.e. by controlling the switch Q5) (i.e. 31-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cantoro’s invention with the power supply as disclose by Lin to provide an universal input switching power supply that has good transforming efficiency at different AC power source conditions.
Regarding claims 10 and 20: Cantoro disclose the limitation of the claim(s) as discussed above, but does not specifically disclose when the power signal does not exceed a threshold, the control circuit disables the power factor correction circuit; wherein when the power signal exceeds the threshold, the control circuit enables the power factor correction circuit.
Lin discloses a power supply (i.e. figure 2 and 3A) comprising when the power signal (i.e. figure 3: signal from M2 to comparator M11) does not exceed a threshold (i.e. compare with Vref2, figure 3A), the control circuit disables (i.e. turn off Q5) the power factor correction circuit (i.e. 20); wherein when the power signal (i.e. figure 3: signal from M2 to comparator M11) exceeds the threshold (i.e. compare with Vref2, figure 3A), the control circuit enables (i.e. turn on Q5) the power factor correction circuit (i.e. 20) (i.e. 31-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify the circuit of Cantoro’s invention with the power supply as disclose by Lin to provide an universal input switching power supply that has good transforming efficiency at different AC power source conditions.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1269. The examiner can normally be reached Flex: M-F 8-7.
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.
/Nguyen Tran/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights