DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed on March 03, 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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 03, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were filed on March 03, 2025. These drawings are accepted 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.
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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " set the PFC voltage to the first value or the second value" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 6-8 and 10 depend directly or indirectly from a rejected claim and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph for the reasons set above.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishibashi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 12,021,448 B2).
In re claim 1, Ishibashi discloses a power factor corrector (PFC) circuit (Fig. 1A) for outputting a PFC voltage by compensating for a power factor of an input voltage (input voltage Vin) of an electronic device, the PFC circuit comprising:
a sensing unit (input voltage detector circuit 12) configured to acquire the input voltage; and
a controller (control circuit 20) configured to adjust the PFC voltage based on at least one of the input voltage and a load of the electronic device (Col. 4, lines 1-67).
In re claim 2, Ishibashi discloses wherein the controller is configured to: set the PFC voltage to a first value when the load of the electronic device is a high load; and set the PFC voltage to a second value less than the first value when the load of the electronic device is a low load (Col. 4, lines 1-67).
In re claim 3, Ishibashi discloses wherein the controller is configured to acquire the load of the electronic device based on on-time of the PFC circuit (Col. 4, lines 1-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding to claim 5, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest “wherein the controller is configured to: set the PFC voltage to a first value or a second value less than the first value, based on the input voltage and the load; and adjust an on-time based on a difference between the set PFC voltage and an actual PFC voltage” in combination with other limitations of the claim. Claims 6-8 and 10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 5 and are, therefore, would also be allowable at least for the same reasons set above.
Claim 4 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 to claim 4, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest “wherein the controller is configured to: determine the load as a high load when the on-time is greater than a preset reference time; and determine the load as a low load when the on-time is less than the reference time” in combination with other limitations of the claim.
Regarding to claim 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest “wherein the controller is configured to: set the PFC voltage to a first value or a second value less than the first value, based on the load, when the input voltage is greater than a preset reference voltage; and set the PFC voltage to the second value when the input voltage is less than the reference voltage” in combination with other limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL O. DE LEÓN DOMENECH whose telephone number is (571)270-0517. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m..
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, Hammond Crystal can be reached at (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 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.
/RAFAEL O DE LEON DOMENECH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights