NON-FINAL ACTION
This Office action is responsive to the application filed May 28, 2025.
The instant 19/221,457 application is an application for reissue of U.S. Pat. 7,675,759 B2 to Artusi et al. (“the ‘759 Patent”), which issued March 9, 2010 from U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 11/710,276, filed February 23, 2007 as a continuation-in-part of U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 11/607,325 filed December 1, 2006.
In the application, Patent Owner adds new claims 21-40. Thus claims 21-40 are pending and are rejected below.
This action is Non-Final.
Reissue
The Examiner has determined that there are no other continuations, reissues, reexaminations, inter partes reviews, or other AIA trials or appeals currently pending with respect to the ‘759 Patent. A litigation search has determined there to be no pending litigation as to the ‘759 Patent.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b) to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which the ‘759 Patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Because the instant ‘759 Patent contains claims having an effective date prior to March 16, 2013, the America Invents Act First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions do not apply, rather the pre-AIA provisions do instead. See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note) and 35 U.S.C. § 100 (pre-AIA ). In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of any statutory basis for a 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.
IPR2022-00312 and 01131
The instant ‘759 Patent was previously subject to two Inter Partes Review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), namely IPR2022-00312 filed December 14, 2021 and IPR2022-01131 filed June 15, 2022. Both proceedings were merged before the PTAB and a Final Written Decision was mailed May 17, 2023 adopting all presented grounds of anticipation and obviousness, which led to the issuing of a Trial Certificate October 9, 2025 canceling all issued claims 1-20.
As the filing of this reissue application occurred prior to the publication of the Certificate, a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 is necessary for the Office to resume examination of the reissue including a showing that the reissue claims are narrower than those canceled by the PTAB. MPEP § 1449.01 I. A.(B)(5). Patent Owner filed such petition May 28, 2025 and a decision granting the petition was mailed March 4, 2026.
The Examiner notes that 37 CFR 42.73(d)(3)(i) states that patent owner is precluded from taking action inconsistent with the adverse judgment including obtaining any claim that is not patentably distinct from a finally refused or canceled claim.
Reissue Papers
The application of May 28, 2025 is objected to for the following:
37 CFR 1.173 states:
(a) Contents of a reissue application. An application for reissue must contain the entire specification, including the claims, and the drawings of the patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application. No reissue patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 251.
(1) Specification, including claims. The entire specification, including the claims, of the patent for which reissue is requested must be furnished in the form of a copy of the printed patent, in double column format, each page on only one side of a single sheet of paper. If an amendment of the reissue application is to be included, it must be made pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. The formal requirements for papers making up the reissue application other than those set forth in this section are set out in § 1.52. Additionally, a copy of any disclaimer (§ 1.321), certificate of correction (§§ 1.322 through 1.324), or reexamination certificate (§ 1.570) issued in the patent must be included. (See also § 1.178).
37 CFR 1.173(a)(1) further requires that any certificate from a trial before the PTAB issued for the patent under reissue be included as well. See MPEP § 1410 (“[p]ursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(a)(1), applicant is required to include a copy of any disclaimer (37 CFR 1.321), certificate of correction (37 CFR 1.322 –1.324), reexamination certificate (37 CFR 1.570 and 1.997) or certificate from a trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) (37 CFR 42.80) issued in the patent for which reissue is requested.”) (emphasis added).
Here, the PTAB certificate is not part of the record. Patent Owner is required to provide this Trial Certificate in response to this Office action.
Reissue Declaration
The declaration of May 28, 2025 is objected to for the following:
As per 37 CFR 1.175, a declaration in a reissue must provide an error statement identifying at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See also MPEP § 1414. Here, the statement that issued claims 1-20 were canceled in the previous Inter Partes Review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) are insufficient to identify an error supporting the reissue. In specifically identifying the error as required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify the claim being broadened and a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.
A proper declaration meeting Rule 175 is required in response to this Office action. See also MPEP § 1414.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under §112 ¶6:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with §112 ¶6. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under §112 ¶6 is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with §112 ¶6. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under §112 ¶6 is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under §112 ¶6 except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under §112 ¶6 except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under §112 ¶6 because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
In claims 21, 25, and 41, “a power system controller configured to receive a signal indicating a system operational state of said load and to select a power converter operational state”;
In claims 21, 25, and 41, “a controller configured to receive a command from said power system controller to enter said power converter operational state and to provide a signal to control said duty cycle of said power switch”;
In claim 22, “said power converter is configured to enter said power converter operational state within a transition time”;
In claim 23, “said power system controller is configured to receive a signal indicating a power converter status of said power converter”;
As to elements 1, 2, and 4, the disclosure does not specify what the power system controller and controller comprises, and thus the Examiner asserts here that the power system controller and controller are configured as a general purpose processor. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, while “controller” implies structure, a general purpose processor as claimed does not disclose “sufficiently definite structure that performs the claimed function”. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quoting Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880, 56 USPQ2d 1836, 1838 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161 F. 3d 696, 704, 48 USPQ2d 1880, 1887 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
As to element 3, the term “power converter” is a term that does not disclose “sufficiently definite structure that performs the claimed function” as well.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under §112 ¶6 it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For a computer-implemented §112 ¶6 claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under §112 ¶2. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1336-37, 86 USPQ2d 1235, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking §112 ¶6 the Federal Circuit has stated that "a microprocessor can serve as structure for a computer-implemented function only where the claimed function is ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor itself." EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 622, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1714 (Fed. Cir. 2015), citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "‘It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.’" EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 621, 114 USPQ2 at 1714, quoting Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365, 102 USPQ2d 1122, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2012). "‘[S]pecial programming’ includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer." EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 623, 114 USPQ2d at 1715 (citations omitted). "Examples of such coextensive functions are ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data—the only three functions on which the Katz court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for the district court to determine whether disclosure of a microprocessor was sufficient." 785 F.3d at 622, 114 USPQ2d at 1714. Thus, "[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm." Id., 114 USPQ2d at 1714
To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. In this instance, the structure corresponding to a §112 ¶6 claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008); WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America Co., 989 F.3d 1002, 1007-8, 2021 USPQ2d 284 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Here, however, the Examiner is unable to ascertain the necessary algorithm required and thus is unable to further ascertain the corresponding structure in the disclosure.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under §112 ¶6 applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under §112 ¶6 (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under §112 ¶6.
Note that claims 21, 25, and 41 also recite “a power switch configured to conduct for a duty cycle to provide a regulated output characteristic at an output thereof”. In this case, the Examiner finds such limitation(s) not to fall under the ambit of §112 ¶6 as the term “power switch” is a structural term that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand performs the claimed function, as the function is the inherent function of power switches in switching power supplies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 21-40 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21-33 and 41 are rejected under 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.
Claim limitations 1-4 above invoke §112 ¶6. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function as noted above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under §112 ¶2.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under §112 ¶6;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Objections – 37 C.F.R. 42.73(d)(3)(i)
37 C.F.R. 42.73(d)(3) states in relevant part:
(3) Patent applicant or owner. A patent applicant or owner is precluded from taking action inconsistent with the adverse judgment, including obtaining in any patent:
(i) A claim that is not patentably distinct from a finally refused or canceled claim.
As a result of IPR2022-01131 and IPR2022-00312, issued claims 1-20 were found to be unpatentable and were canceled as noted above. As shown below, claims 21-40 are not patentably distinct from canceled claims of the ‘759 Patent. Therefore claims 21-40 are are objected to under §42.73(d)(3)(i), which prohibits obtaining a claim in a reissue application that is not patentably distinct from a claim that was canceled as a result of an Inter Partes Review proceeding. Softview LLC v. Apple, Inc., 108 F.4th 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
Claims 21-24 are unpatentable over claim 6 of the ‘759 Patent in view of U.S. Pat. 6,873,136 B2 to Chagny (“Chagny”), U.S. Pat 5,875,143 to Chevallier (“Chevallier”), U.S. Pat PGPUB 2004/0128563A1 to Kaushik et al. (“Kaushik”), and U.S. Pat 7,313,500 B2 to Morman (“Morman”).
Claim 21 corresponds to canceled claim 6 of the ‘759 Patent, adding the following features:
wherein said load is a server;
wherein said load includes a processor and said system operational state depends on an ACPI C-state of said processor;
wherein said power system controller is coupled over a bus to a circuit element signaling an environmental parameter;
wherein said environmental parameter is a component temperature;
wherein said power system controller is coupled over the bus to a signal source; and
wherein said signal source is a manufacturing test set that provides a power converter parameter measured after a manufacturing step.
These additional features do not describe a patentably distinct invention when compared to canceled claim 6.
As described below as to claim 21 and § 103(a), Chagny discloses the bus and server features, Chevallier discloses the ACPI C-state feature, Kaushik discloses the environmental temperature feature, and Morman discloses the manufacturing step feature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the ‘759 Patent to modify the representative claim with these features. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such a combination as merely combining prior art elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 22-24 are also patentably indistinct from canceled claim 6 by way of claim 21, on which they depend, as noted below as to the rejection of such claims under § 103(a). The additional features and rationale for modifying reference claim 6 to include the features of claims 22-24 is the same as that provided in the rejections of these claims below.
Claims 25, 30, 31, and 33 are unpatentable over claim 6 of the ‘759 Patent in view of Chagny.
Claim 25 corresponds to canceled claim 6 of the ‘759 Patent, adding the following feature:
wherein said power system controller is coupled over a bus to a signal source.
This additional feature does not describe a patentably distinct invention when compared to canceled claim 6.
As described below as to claim 25 and § 103(a), Chagny discloses this feature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the ‘759 Patent to modify the representative claim with Chagny. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such a combination as merely combining prior art elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 30, 31, and 33 are also patentably indistinct from canceled claim 6 by way of claim 25, on which they depend, as noted below as to the rejection of such claims under § 103(a). The additional features and rationale for modifying claim 6 to include the features of claims 30, 31, and 33 is the same as that provided in the rejections of these claims below.
Claims 26 and 27 are unpatentable over claim 6 of the ‘759 Patent in view of Chagny and Chevallier. Claims 26 and 27 are also patentably indistinct from canceled claim 6 by way of claim 25, on which they depend, as noted below as to the rejection of such claims under § 103(a). The additional features and rationale for modifying claim 6 to include the features of claims 26 and 27 is the same as that provided in the rejections of these claims below.
Claim 28 is unpatentable over claim 6 of the ‘759 Patent in view of Chagny and Kaushik. Claim 28 is also patentably indistinct from canceled claim 6 by way of claim 25, on which it depends, as noted below as to the rejection of such claims under § 103(a). The additional features and rationale for modifying claim 6 to include the features of claim 28 is the same as that provided in the rejections of these claims below.
Claim 29 is unpatentable over claim 6 of the ‘759 Patent in view of Chagny and U.S. Pat 7,432,687 B2 to Jacobs et al. (“Jacobs”). Claim 29 is also patentably indistinct from canceled claim 6 by way of claim 25, on which it depends, as noted below as to the rejection of such claims under § 103(a). The additional features and rationale for modifying claim 6 to include the features of claim 29 is the same as that provided in the rejections of these claims below.
Claim 32 is unpatentable over claim 6 of the ‘759 Patent in view of Chagny and U.S. Pat 6,294,904 B2 to Hirst (“Hirst”). Claim 32 is also patentably indistinct from canceled claim 6 by way of claim 30, on which it depends, as noted below as to the rejection of such claims under § 103(a). The additional features and rationale for modifying claim 6 to include the features of claim 32 is the same as that provided in the rejections of these claims below.
Claims 34, 39, and 40 are unpatentable over claim 16 of the ‘759 Patent in view of Changy.
Claim 34 is similar to claim 25 above, in that it adds “wherein said power system controller is coupled over a bus to a signal source” to the representative claim. Claim 34 is unpatentable over the representative claim in view of Chagny for the same reason set forth above as to claim 25, and further noted below in the rejection of the claim under §103(a).
Claims 39 and 40 are also patentably indistinct from canceled claim 16 by way of claim 24, on which they depend, as noted below as to the rejection of such claims under § 103(a). The additional features and rationale for modifying claim 16 to include the features of claims 39 and 40 is the same as that provided in the rejections of these claims below.
Claims 35 and 36 are unpatentable over claim 16 of the ‘759 Patent in view of Chagny and Chevallier. Claims 35 and 36 are also patentably indistinct from canceled claim 16 by way of claim 34, on which they depend, as noted below as to the rejection of such claims under § 103(a). The additional features and rationale for modifying claim 16 to include the features of claims 35 and 36 is the same as that provided in the rejections of these claims below.
Claim 37 is unpatentable over claim 16 of the ‘759 Patent in view of Chagny and Kaushik. Claim 37 is also patentably indistinct from canceled claim 16 by way of claim 34, on which it depends, as noted below as to the rejection of such claims under § 103(a). The additional features and rationale for modifying claim 16 to include the features of claim 37 is the same as that provided in the rejections of these claims below.
Claim 38 is unpatentable over claim 16 of the ‘759 Patent in view of Chagny and Jacobs. Claim 38 is also patentably indistinct from canceled claim 16 by way of claim 34, on which it depends, as noted below as to the rejection of such claims under § 103(a). The additional features and rationale for modifying claim 16 to include the features of claim 38 is the same as that provided in the rejections of these claims below.
Claim 41 is unpatentable over claim 6 of the ‘759 Patent in view of Chagny and Kaushik.
Claim 41 corresponds to canceled claim 6 of the ‘759 Patent, adding the following feature:
wherein said load includes a processor and said system operational state depends on an ACPI C-state of said processor.
This additional feature does not describe a patentably distinct invention when compared to canceled claim 6.
As described below as to claim 41 and § 103(a), Chagny and Kaushik disclose these features. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the ‘759 Patent to modify the representative claim with Chagny and Kaushik. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such a combination as merely combining prior art elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 25, 30, 31, 33, 34, 39, and 40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. 6,873,136 B2 to Chagny (“Chagny”).
As to claim 25, Chagny discloses:
A power system coupled to a load, comprising:
Chagny discloses a power system coupled to a load. Chagny at FIG 2A elements 200 (“voltage regulator module”, which is a power converter) and 296, Abstract and at 3:54-58. The system is connected to a load 292. Id.
a power system controller configured to receive a signal indicating a system operational state of said load and to select a power converter operational state as a function thereof; and
Chagny discloses a power system controller 296 as noted above as part of the power system. Chagny discloses that the controller 296 is configured to receive a signal indicating a system operational state of the load 292 and to select a power converter operational state as a function thereof. Id. at 4:35-37 (“[i]n one embodiment, a software program 296, which may be included in the operating system (not shown) of the device 290, monitors the processor 292 loading.”) Further, the power system controller uses an activity input 202 to select a power converter operational state based thereon. Id.at 4:62-5:18.
a power converter, including:
a power switch configured to conduct for a duty cycle to provide a regulated output characteristic at an output thereof, and
Chagny discloses that the power system includes a power converter 200 as noted above. System 200 includes a power switch 220 which is configured to conduct for a duty cycle to provide a regulated output characteristic. Chagny at 1:51-59. This is a buck converter, which conducts according to a duty cycle to provide, by way of elements 242 and 244, a regulated output voltage1.
a controller configured to receive a command from said power system controller to enter said power converter operational state and to provide a signal to control said duty cycle of said power switch as a function of said output characteristic and in accordance with said command,
Chagny discloses the system includes a controller 210 which is configured to receive the activity input 202 (which reads a command) from the power system controller to enter the above-noted operational state. Chagny at 4:62-67. Controller 210 further provides a signal to control the switch including the duty cycle as a function of the output characteristic and in accordance with the command. Id. at 4:62-5:18 and 5:28-40.
thereby regulating an internal operating characteristic of said power converter to improve an operating efficiency thereof as a function of said system operational state;
Chagny discloses that the above step dynamically changes the switching frequency which regulates an internal operating characteristic of VRM 200 responsive to the operational state in order to improve efficiency. Chagny at 2:59-61, 4:41-43, 5:3-23.
wherein said power system controller is coupled over a bus to a signal source.
Chagny discloses that the power system controller may be implemented in connection to a bus connected to a signal. Chagny at FIG 4 and 7:17-35 (“[t]he processor 410 communicates with the system components via a bus 450”; “the processor 292 is the same as the processor 410”).
Further as to claim 30:
The power system as recited in claim 25 wherein said internal operating characteristic is an internal voltage or current.
Chagny discloses that the internal operating characteristic is an internal voltage. Chagny at Abstract and 3:52-62.
Further as to claim 31:
The power system as recited in claim 30 wherein said power converter is configured to enter said power converter operational state within a transition time from another power converter operational state.
Chagny discloses that in some embodiments, “the demand for power required by the processor 292 is advantageously controlled by limiting the number of instructions executed for a predefined time period. This control mechanism ensures that the VRM 200 reacts responsively and on time according to the processor 292 demand.” Id., 5:62-66 (emphasis added). In other words, Chagny sets a “predefined period of time,” within which VRM 200 transitions from one switching-frequency state to another, before changing the activity level of processor 292. Id.
Further as to claim 33:
The power system as recited in claim 32 wherein said power converter status is selected from the group consisting of:
a fully operational status,
a failure likely status,
a failed status, and
an overloaded status.
The ’759 Patent describes a “Fully Operational” power converter operational
state as “[a]ll power converter components operational at full performance level,” as
opposed to other states with “reduced switching frequency.” ‘759 Patent at Table I,
19:20-36.
Chagny discloses a power converter operational state wherein “the switching
frequency 216 is selected to be high 150 to advantageously limit the voltage ripples
… .” Chagny at 5:5-18 and 5:23-26 (describing low, medium, and high switching frequency states). The highest switching-frequency state of Chagny’s VRM 200 represents a power converter state where all power converter components operate at full performance level (i.e., a fully operational power converter).
As to claim 34, Chagny discloses:
A method of operating a power system coupled to a load, comprising:
Chagny discloses a power system coupled to a load and a method for operating it. Chagny at FIG 2A elements 200 (“voltage regulator module”, which is a power converter) and 296, Abstract and at 3:54-58. The system is connected to a load 292. Id.
receiving, by a power system controller, a signal indicating a system operational state of said load;
generating, by said power system controller, a power converter operational state as a function of said system operational state;
Chagny discloses a power system controller 296 as noted above as part of the power system. Chagny discloses that the controller 296 is configured to receive a signal indicating a system operational state of the load 292 and to select a power converter operational state as a function thereof. Id. at 4:35-37 (“[i]n one embodiment, a software program 296, which may be included in the operating system (not shown) of the device 290, monitors the processor 292 loading.”) Further, the power system controller uses an activity input 202 to select a power converter operational state based thereon. Id.at 4:62-5:18.
inducing a power converter to enter said power converter operational state; and
providing a signal to control a duty cycle of a power switch of said power converter as a function of an output characteristic thereof and in accordance with said power converter operational state,
Chagny discloses that the power system includes a power converter 200 as noted above. System 200 includes a power switch 220 which is configured to conduct for a duty cycle to provide a regulated output characteristic. Chagny at 1:51-59. This is a buck converter, which conducts according to a duty cycle to provide, by way of elements 242 and 244, a regulated output voltage2. Chagny discloses the system includes a controller 210 which is configured to receive the activity input 202 (which reads a command) from the power system controller to enter the above-noted operational state. Chagny at 4:62-67. Controller 210 further provides a signal to control the switch including the duty cycle as a function of the output characteristic and in accordance with the command. Id. at 4:62-5:18 and 5:28-40.
thereby regulating an internal operating characteristic of said power converter to improve an operating efficiency thereof as a function of said system operational state;
Chagny discloses that the above step dynamically changes the switching frequency which regulates an internal operating characteristic of VRM 200 responsive to the operational state in order to improve efficiency. Chagny at 2:59-61, 4:41-43, 5:3-23.
wherein said power system controller is coupled over a bus to a signal source.
Chagny discloses that the power system controller may be implemented in connection to a bus connected to a signal. Chagny at FIG 4 and 7:17-35 (“[t]he processor 410 communicates with the system components via a bus 450”; “the processor 292 is the same as the processor 410”).
Further as to claim 39:
The method as recited in claim 34 wherein said internal operating characteristic is an internal voltage or current.
Chagny discloses that the internal operating characteristic is an internal voltage. Chagny at Abstract and 3:52-62.
Further as to claim 40:
The method as recited in claim 34 further comprising receiving a signal indicating a power converter status of said power converter and generating said power converter operational state as a function thereof.
Chagny discloses a power system controller 296 as noted above as part of the power system. Chagny discloses that the controller 296 is configured to receive a signal indicating a system operational state of the load 292 and to select a power converter operational state as a function thereof. Id. at 4:35-37 (“[i]n one embodiment, a software program 296, which may be included in the operating system (not shown) of the device 290, monitors the processor 292 loading.”) Further, the power system controller uses an activity input 202 to select a power converter operational state based thereon. Id.at 4:62-5:18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chagny as applied to claim 25 above and further in view of U.S. Pat 5,875,143 to Chevallier (“Chevallier”).
As to claim 26:
The power system as recited in claim 25 wherein said power system controller is coupled over a bus to a circuit element signaling an environmental parameter.
While disclosing Patent Owner’s claim 25 above, Chagny does not disclose that the power system controller is coupled to an environmental parameter signaling circuit over a bus.
To that end, Chevallier discloses an analogous invention, namely an integrated circuit which adjusts an operational parameter of the circuit using a controller connected to a bus. Chevallier at FIG 3 and 3:37-52. Chevallier states specifically that an environmental parameter (here a temperature) is sensed by a sensing circuit and the controller is coupled thereto over a bus. Id. and further at 3:19-36.
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify Chagny in the manner of Chevallier, namely as to connecting the controller to such a sensor over a bus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to have merely been an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 27:
The power system as recited in claim 26 wherein said environmental parameter is a component temperature.
Chevallier discloses that the parameter is a temperature as noted above.
Claim 28 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chagny as applied to claim 25 above and further in view of U.S. Pat PGPUB 2004/0128563A1 to Kaushik et al. (“Kaushik”).
As to claim 28:
The power system as recited in claim 25 wherein said load includes a processor and said system operational state depends on an ACPI C-state of said processor.
While disclosing Patent Owner’s claim 25 above, and further disclosing that the load includes a processor, Chagny does not disclose that the system operational state depends on an ACPI C-state of said processor.
To that end, Kaushik discloses an analogous invention to Chagny, namely a means and method for controlling a processor power state based on a parameter. Kaushik at FIG 1 and ¶¶21-25. Kaushik further discloses that a system operational state of the processor depends on an ACPI C-state of the processor. Id. at FIG 4 and ¶¶35-36.
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify Chagny in the manner of Kaushik, namely as to having the state depend on an ACPI C-state of said processor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to have merely been an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 29 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chagny as applied to claim 25 above and further in view of U.S. Pat 7,432,687 B2 to Jacobs et al. (“Jacobs”).
As to claim 29:
The power system as recited in claim 25 wherein said internal operating characteristic is a gate drive voltage level.
Chagny discloses claim 25 above, but fails to disclose that the operating characteristic is a gate drive voltage level.
Jacobs discloses an analogous invention, namely a switching power supply aimed at providing a varying voltage level by way of a supply processor 160 and power convertor. Jacobs at 7:53-8:24. Jacobs states that the controlling means utilizes an operating characteristic of a gate drive voltage level. Id. at 4:1-29.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chagny in such a manner, utilizing a gate drive voltage as an operating characteristic, as Jacobs states that such compensates for gate capacitance. Id. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to have merely been an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 32 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chagny as applied to claim 30 above and further in view of U.S. Pat 6,294,904 B2 to Hirst (“Hirst”).
As to claim 32:
The power system as recited in claim 30 wherein said power system controller is configured to receive a signal indicating a power converter status of said power converter, said power converter operational state being a function of said power converter status.
While disclosing Patent Owner’s claim 30 above, Chagny fails to disclose that the power system controller is configured to receive a signal indicating a power converter status of said power converter, said power converter operational state being a function of said power converter status.
To that end, Hirst discloses an analogous invention to Chagny, namely a switching power supply system 10 for providing a variable voltage to a load 12 or 14 by way of a power system controller 18 and power converter 12. Hirst at FIG 1, 2:44-45, 3:51-59, and 4:20-32. The controller 18 is configured to receive a signal from monitor 22 and control the voltage applied to the load thereby.
Hirst discloses that its MF switching power supply (i.e., the power converter)
“includes a ripple monitor 49.” Id. at 6:29-31 and FIG 2. Hirst explains that the
“amount of ripple that is present in the output voltage VO tends to increase as the
amount of power being drawn from the MF switching power supply 30 increases.”
Id., 6:30-32. “When the ripple monitor 49 determines that the ripple in the output
voltage VO is too high, the ripple monitor 49 provides a signal to the controller 18
of FIG. 1 to increase the frequency of the MF switching power supply 30.” Id., 6:32-
37. For example, the frequency is increased by switching from the low-frequency
oscillator to the high-frequency oscillator. See id., 6:37-38 (“the frequency is
increased by switching to the first oscillator 46”), 7:66-8:8 (describing “normal
mode of operation” with a high frequency “fHI” and a “standby mode of operation”
with the low frequency “fLO”). In sum, controller 18 (i.e., the power system controller) receives a signal from ripple monitor 49 indicating that the power supply ripple is too high (i.e., indicating a power converter status), and switches the power converter to a higher switching frequency state (i.e., a different power converter operational state) as a function thereof.
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify Chagny in the manner of Hirst, namely as to receiving a signal indicating a power converter status of said power converter, said power converter operational state being a function of said power converter status. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to have merely been an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 35 and 36 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chagny as applied to claim 34 above and further in view of Chevallier.
As to claim 35:
The method as recited in claim 34 wherein said power system controller is coupled over a bus to a circuit element signaling an environmental parameter.
While disclosing Patent Owner’s claim 34 above, Chagny does not disclose that the power system controller is coupled to an environmental parameter signaling circuit over a bus.
To that end, Chevallier discloses an analogous invention, namely an integrated circuit which adjusts an operational parameter of the circuit using a controller connected to a bus. Chevallier at FIG 3 and 3:37-52. Chevallier states specifically that an environmental parameter (here a temperature) is sensed by a sensing circuit and the controller is coupled thereto over a bus. Id. and further at 3:19-36.
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify Chagny in the manner of Chevallier, namely as to connecting the controller to such a sensor over a bus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to have merely been an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 36:
The method as recited in claim 35 wherein said environmental parameter is a component temperature.
Chevallier discloses that the parameter is a temperature as noted above.
Claim 37 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chagny as applied to claim 34 above and further in view of Kaushik.
As to claim 37:
The method as recited in claim 34 wherein said load includes a processor and said system operational state depends on an ACPI C-state of said processor.
While disclosing Patent Owner’s claim 34 above, and further disclosing that the load includes a processor, Chagny does not disclose that the system operational state depends on an ACPI C-state of said processor.
To that end, Kaushik discloses an analogous invention to Chagny, namely a means and method for controlling a processor power state based on a parameter. Kaushik at FIG 1 and ¶¶21-25. Kaushik further discloses that a system operational state of the processor depends on an ACPI C-state of the processor. Id. at FIG 4 and ¶¶35-36.
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify Chagny in the manner of Kaushik, namely as to having the state depend on an ACPI C-state of said processor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to have merely been an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 38 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chagny as applied to claim 34 above and further in view of Jacobs.
As to claim 38:
The method as recited in claim 34 wherein said internal operating characteristic is a gate drive voltage level.
Chagny discloses claim 34 above, but fails to disclose that the operating characteristic is a gate drive voltage level.
Jacobs discloses an analogous invention, namely a switching power supply aimed at providing a varying voltage level by way of a supply processor 160 and power convertor. Jacobs at 7:53-8:24. Jacobs states that the controlling means utilizes an operating characteristic of a gate drive voltage level. Id. at 4:1-29.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chagny in such a manner, utilizing a gate drive voltage as an operating characteristic, as Jacobs states that such compensates for gate capacitance. Id. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to have merely been an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 41 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chagny in view of Kaushik.
As to claim 41, Chagny discloses:
A power system coupled to a load, comprising:
Chagny discloses a power system coupled to a load. Chagny at FIG 2A elements 200 (“voltage regulator module”, which is a power converter) and 296, Abstract and at 3:54-58. The system is connected to a processor load 292. Id.
a power system controller configured to receive a signal indicating a system operational state of said load and to select a power converter operational state as a function thereof; and
Chagny discloses a power system controller 296 as noted above as part of the power system. Chagny discloses that the controller 296 is configured to receive a signal indicating a system operational state of the load 292 and to select a power converter operational state as a function thereof. Id. at 4:35-37 (“[i]n one embodiment, a software program 296, which may be included in the operating system (not shown) of the device 290, monitors the processor 292 loading.”) Further, the power system controller uses an activity input 202 to select a power converter operational state based thereon. Id.at 4:62-5:18.
a power converter, including:
a power switch configured to conduct for a duty cycle to provide a regulated output characteristic at an output thereof, and
Chagny discloses that the power system includes a power converter 200 as noted above. System 200 includes a power switch 220 which is configured to conduct for a duty cycle to provide a regulated output characteristic. Chagny at 1:51-59. This is a buck converter, which conducts according to a duty cycle to provide, by way of elements 242 and 244, a regulated output voltage3.
a controller configured to receive a command from said power system controller to enter said power converter operational state and to provide a signal to control said duty cycle of said power switch as a function of said output characteristic and in accordance with said command,
Chagny discloses the system includes a controller 210 which is configured to receive the activity input 202 (which reads a command) from the power system controller to enter the above-noted operational state. Chagny at 4:62-67. Controller 210 further provides a signal to control the switch including the duty cycle as a function of the output characteristic and in accordance with the command. Id. at 4:62-5:18 and 5:28-40.
thereby regulating an internal operating characteristic of said power converter to improve an operating efficiency thereof as a function of said system operational state;
Chagny discloses that the above step dynamically changes the switching frequency which regulates an internal operating characteristic of VRM 200 responsive to the operational state in order to improve efficiency. Chagny at 2:59-61, 4:41-43, 5:3-23.
wherein said load includes a processor
Chagny discloses the load is a processor above.
Chagny does not disclose that the system operational state depends on an ACPI C-state of said processor.
To that end, Kaushik discloses an analogous invention to Chagny, namely a means and method for controlling a processor power state based on a parameter. Kaushik at FIG 1 and ¶¶21-25. Kaushik further discloses that a system operational state of the processor depends on an ACPI C-state of the processor. Id. at FIG 4 and ¶¶35-36.
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify Chagny in the manner of Kaushik, namely as to having the state depend on an ACPI C-state of said processor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to have merely been an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chagny in view of Kaushik, Cavallier, and U.S. Pat 7,313,500 B2 to Morman (“Morman”).
As to claim 21, Chagny discloses:
A power system coupled to a load, comprising:
Chagny discloses a power system coupled to a load. Chagny at FIG 2A elements 200 (“voltage regulator module”, which is a power converter) and 296, Abstract and at 3:54-58. The system is connected to a processor load 292. Id.
a power system controller configured to receive a signal indicating a system operational state of said load and to select a power converter operational state as a function thereof; and
Chagny discloses a power system controller 296 as noted above as part of the power system. Chagny discloses that the controller 296 is configured to receive a signal indicating a system operational state of the load 292 and to select a power converter operational state as a function thereof. Id. at 4:35-37 (“[i]n one embodiment, a software program 296, which may be included in the operating system (not shown) of the device 290, monitors the processor 292 loading.”) Further, the power system controller uses an activity input 202 to select a power converter operational state based thereon. Id.at 4:62-5:18.
a power converter, including:
a power switch configured to conduct for a duty cycle to provide a regulated output characteristic at an output thereof, and
Chagny discloses that the power system includes a power converter 200 as noted above. System 200 includes a power switch 220 which is configured to conduct for a duty cycle to provide a regulated output characteristic. Chagny at 1:51-59. This is a buck converter, which conducts according to a duty cycle to provide, by way of elements 242 and 244, a regulated output voltage4.
a controller configured to receive a command from said power system controller to enter said power converter operational state and to provide a signal to control said duty cycle of said power switch as a function of said output characteristic and in accordance with said command,
Chagny discloses the system includes a controller 210 which is configured to receive the activity input 202 (which reads a command) from the power system controller to enter the above-noted operational state. Chagny at 4:62-67. Controller 210 further provides a signal to control the switch including the duty cycle as a function of the output characteristic and in accordance with the command. Id. at 4:62-5:18 and 5:28-40.
thereby regulating an internal operating characteristic of said power converter to improve an operating efficiency thereof as a function of said system operational state;
Chagny discloses that the above step dynamically changes the switching frequency which regulates an internal operating characteristic of VRM 200 responsive to the operational state in order to improve efficiency. Chagny at 2:59-61, 4:41-43, 5:3-23.
wherein said load is a server;
Chagny discloses that the load is a processor in a server. Chagny at 1:6-11 and 3:52-65.
wherein said power system controller is coupled over the bus to a signal source;
Chagny discloses that the power system controller may be implemented in connection to a bus connected to a signal. Chagny at FIG 4 and 7:17-35 (“[t]he processor 410 communicates with the system components via a bus 450”; “the processor 292 is the same as the processor 410”).
Chagny does not disclose that the system operational state depends on an ACPI C-state of said processor, or that the power system controller is coupled over a bus to a circuit element signaling a temperature parameter, or that said signal source is a manufacturing test set that provides a power converter parameter measured after a manufacturing step.
As to an ACPI C-state, Kaushik discloses an analogous invention to Chagny, namely a means and method for controlling a processor power state based on a parameter. Kaushik at FIG 1 and ¶¶21-25. Kaushik further discloses that a system operational state of the processor depends on an ACPI C-state of the processor. Id. at FIG 4 and ¶¶35-36.
As to an environmental parameter, Chevallier discloses an analogous invention, namely an integrated circuit which adjusts an operational parameter of the circuit using a controller connected to a bus. Chevallier at FIG 3 and 3:37-52. Chevallier states specifically that an environmental parameter (here a temperature) is sensed by a sensing circuit and the controller is coupled thereto over a bus. Id. and further at 3:19-36.
As to the signal source being a manufacturing test set that provides a power converter parameter measured after a manufacturing step, Morman teaches an analogous invention, namely regulating processors in response to sensed temperature and other conditions. Morman at 3:5-15. Morman further states that in such a control system, a controller may receive information from a manufacturing test set providing a parameter measured after a manufacturing step. Id. at 3:37-47 and 4:46-5:31.
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify Chagny in the manner of Kaushik, Chevallier, and Morman, namely as to having the state depend on an ACPI C-state of said processor, including an environmental parameter, and including a manufacturing test step, respectively. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to have merely been an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 22:
The power system as recited in claim 21 wherein said power converter is configured to enter said power converter operational state within a transition time from another power converter operational state.
Chagny discloses that in some embodiments, “the demand for power required by the processor 292 is advantageously controlled by limiting the number of instructions executed for a predefined time period. This control mechanism ensures that the VRM 200 reacts responsively and on time according to the processor 292 demand.” Id., 5:62-66 (emphasis added). In other words, Chagny sets a “predefined period of time,” within which VRM 200 transitions from one switching-frequency state to another, before changing the activity level of processor 292. Id.
Further as to claim 23:
The power system as recited in claim 21 wherein said power system controller is configured to receive a signal indicating a power converter status of said power converter, said power converter operational state being a function of said power converter status.
Chagny discloses a power system controller 296 as noted above as part of the power system. Chagny discloses that the controller 296 is configured to receive a signal indicating a system operational state of the load 292 and to select a power converter operational state as a function thereof. Id. at 4:35-37 (“[i]n one embodiment, a software program 296, which may be included in the operating system (not shown) of the device 290, monitors the processor 292 loading.”) Further, the power system controller uses an activity input 202 to select a power converter operational state based thereon. Id.at 4:62-5:18.
Further as to claim 24:
The power system as recited in claim 21 wherein said power converter status is selected from the group consisting of:
a fully operational status,
a failure likely status,
a failed status, and
an overloaded status.
The ’759 Patent describes a “Fully Operational” power converter operational
state as “[a]ll power converter components operational at full performance level,” as
opposed to other states with “reduced switching frequency.” ‘759 Patent at Table I,
19:20-36.
Chagny discloses a power converter operational state wherein “the switching
frequency 216 is selected to be high 150 to advantageously limit the voltage ripples
… .” Chagny at 5:5-18 and 5:23-26 (describing low, medium, and high switching frequency states). The highest switching-frequency state of Chagny’s VRM 200 represents a power converter state where all power converter components operate at full performance level (i.e., a fully operational power converter).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Charles Craver whose telephone number is (571) 272-7849. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30-5:30 PT Pacific Time.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. 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.
Signed,
/CHARLES R CRAVER/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ROBERT J HANCE/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 See the May 17, 2023 Final Written Decision in IPR2022-00312 et al. at 15-18 noting that the switch 225 of Chagny reads on the claimed switch.
2 See the May 17, 2023 Final Written Decision in IPR2022-00312 et al. at 15-18 noting that the switch 225 of Chagny reads on the claimed switch.
3 See the May 17, 2023 Final Written Decision in IPR2022-00312 et al. at 15-18 noting that the switch 225 of Chagny reads on the claimed switch.
4 See the May 17, 2023 Final Written Decision in IPR2022-00312 et al. at 15-18 noting that the switch 225 of Chagny reads on the claimed switch.
Prosecution Insights