DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 8/14/2025.
No prior art is being applied to Claims 11 and 20 because the prior art does not disclose or make obvious the first variable resistive element includes a plurality of first resistors, wherein the second variable resistive element includes a plurality of second resistors, and the common mode controller is further configured to select one of the first voltage regulator and the second voltage regulator, based on a high and low relationship between the common mode voltage and a reference voltage, and stepwise activate the plurality of first resistors or the plurality of second resistors of the selected one of the first voltage regulator and the second voltage regulator, as is currently claimed, in the combination, and as best understood.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 11-18 directed towards the previous 112(a) rejections,
While the rejections are responded to below, the Examiner respectfully notes that not all rejections are responded to. For example, while certain individual features have been responded to, the Examiner also previously rejected combinations of such feature, where it was the combination itself that also raised an issue. An example of this is found in paragraph 34 of the prior Office Action. This combination and the explanation presented in the rejection has, respectfully, not been responded to.
As to Claim 11,
Applicant argues that the original disclosure provides support for the feature “wherein the common mode controller is configured to transmit a first voltage control signal to the first voltage regulator to vary the first voltage based on an increase in the bias current, and transmit a second voltage control signal to the second voltage regulator to vary the second voltage based on a decrease in the bias current.” Applicant cites several paragraphs and underlines certain claim features. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not explain the significance of any of the paragraphs or underlined features.
Furthermore, applicant cites Figures 2A and 2B, but the Examiner respectfully notes that neither of these figures disclose Claim 11, and thus cannot reasonably provide support for the claim. Claim 11 expressly requires that the common mode controller is configured to select one of the first or second voltage regulator and active a plurality of resistors. No such selection of any resistors, let alone the existence of a plurality of resistors, are found in the embodiment of Figure 2A. Similarly, Figure 2B does not include a common mode controller as claimed at all, and thus cannot reasonably provide support for the claim feature. What applicant is doing, respectfully, is selectively identifying elements from various embodiments that stating that collectively the provide support for the claim feature. However, the original disclosure does not reasonably contemplate the combination of embodiments as required by applicant’s arguments, nor does it reasonably explain the manner in which such a combination would be made. While Figures 1-3A were grouped together in the species restriction, such a grouping was solely done for the purpose of prior art. Each of these embodiments are still distinct embodiment, and unless applicant originally contemplated combing such embodiments along with a reasonable explanation as to the manner in which they could be combined, they cannot later be combined or pieces of these embodiments argued to collectively provide support for the claim.
In order for the claims to find proper written description, one single embodiment must exist that reasonably includes all claim features. The controller (170a) of Figure 2A does not include the features necessary for the claim features, and no such controller exists in Figure 2B. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that either figure and their corresponding description reasonably provide support for the claim features. Applicant, respectfully, has not identified one single embodiment that includes all features as claimed.
Applicant then cites other paragraphs, such as paragraphs [0065] and [0066], but these paragraphs, respectfully, do not reasonably disclose the manner in which the claim features are implemented. Applicant argues that an external processor may transmit the control signals, but the Examiner respectfully notes that Claim 11 expressly states that it is the common mode controller that transmits such signals, and not an external processor. Applicant’s original disclosure makes clear that there is a distinction between a common mode controller as seen in Figure 2A, as opposed to any external processing as seen in Figure 2B. The external processor was not originally contemplated as the common mode controller as evidenced by these figures and their related description. This external processor, and Figure 2B as a whole, therefore cannot reasonably demonstrate support for the argued claim feature.
Furthermore, apparatus 100a does not include all of the argued claim features, as that embodiment is not disclose to include all of the features of Claim 11, such as the resistors and any switching/selected as claimed. This embodiment therefore does not reasonably provide support for the argued claim features, because it does not disclose all of the claim features recited in Claim 11.
Lastly, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not reasonably cite any location that provides support for the manner in which applicant discloses the manner in which the common mode controller is configured to “vary the first voltage based on an increase … and … vary the second voltage based on a decrease in the bias current” as claimed. Merely disclosing that control voltage are generated “based on” a different between values or that other values are “based on” another value does not reasonably disclose what the controller is doing when it varies the voltages. None of the cited sections explain what this varying includes such as by how much any voltage is varied and the manner in which it is varied. Paragraph [0066] is not reasonably applicable to Claim 11 because the apparatus it refers to does not reasonably include all claim features, and thus is not the embodiment being claimed. That stated, even if such a paragraph was directed towards the claimed embodiment, this paragraph merely states that the common mode voltage may be “adjusted.” However, such a disclosure provides no explanation as to what this adjustment means, such as by how much it is adjusted or any decision as to why it is adjusted. That stated, this paragraph is only describing the adjustment of the common mode voltage itself, but where Claim 11 claims the varying of the first voltage and the second voltage. The first and second voltage are not the same as the common mode voltage cited in paragraph [0066].
As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant then notes that the previous rejection stated that applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which any device, including the common mode controller, is able to identify any change in the bias current. Applicant then cites various paragraphs, including bolding an underline various sections, but applicant does not reasonably explain why any of these sections provide support for such a feature. The sections cited by applicant do note that the bias current is variable, and that when the bias current changes, the common mode voltages “may” also change. However, this does not mean that any feature of the disclosure actually identifies a change of the bias current, nor explains how any change, such as a related in change in the common mode voltages, are used or correlated to actually identify any change in the bias current. Meaning, in short, merely because the bias current can change or because other voltages are affected by a change in the bias current, does not reasonably disclose any device that actually identifies such a change. What applicant identifies is as most a causal relationship between the bias current and other features such as common mode voltages, but with no further explanation as to what device identifies any change in the bias current or the manner in which such a device makes an identification of such a change.
Applicant then argues the feature of “the common mode controller is further configured to select one of the first voltage regulator and the second voltage regulator, based on a high and low relationship between the common mode voltage and a reference voltage, and stepwise activate the plurality of first resistors or the plurality of second resistors of the selected one of the first voltage regulator and the second voltage regulator.” However, the Examiner respectfully notes that merely because a resistance is increased or decreased based upon the output of the comparator does not reasonably mean any particular voltage regulator has been selected. While applicant makes that argument, the original disclosure, respectfully, does not state this argument. The original disclosure does disclose that resistance values of the at least first and second resistors may change based upon the output of the comparator, but the disclosure does not state that any selection, other than the switches for the individual resistors, are selected. Applicant neither states nor explains, originally, that any increase or decrease in the total resistance for either set of first and second resistors would amount to a selection. As such, this argument amounts to attorney argument, and no evidence has been submitted that would demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have recognized any selection of the first or second regulator based upon a resistance.
As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As to Claim 19,
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the previous written description rejection which is repeated below.
As to Claim 20,
First, applicant argues what applicant believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would know but without evidence. MPEP 2145(I) explains that “An argument by the applicant is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of applicant statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.”
Second, the issue here is not the basic function of a voltage regulator, but instead the manner in which applicant actually implements any control over the switches themselves by way of the claimed stepwise function. In fact, the entire stepwise function is not disclosed, and no reasonably explanation is provided with regard to such a function. As best understood, applicant intends to use a stepwise activation of the switches in Figure 3A to change the total resistance of the resistors. However, the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which this stepwise activation is implemented. Applicant does not reasonably provide any explanation as to the manner in which this stepwise activation is performed, how the controller decides to stop the activation, or any other reasonable details necessary to demonstrate proper written description None of the cited sections nor provided explanation reasonably demonstrate the manner in which such a feature is implemented. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the sections cited by applicant do state that voltage regulators may be adjusted, they make no mention of a transmitted control signal or disclose the manner in which the common mode controller actually implements the claim feature. The Examiner acknowledges that a common mode controller can be 170b as seen in Figure 3A, and where the output of 171 and 172 can be considered respective control signals. However, the original disclosure does not reasonably explain the manner in which the common mode controller actually implements any variation of the first voltage or second voltage. The only disclosure is the use of a stepwise change, but such a disclosure does not reasonably explain the manner that such a stepwise change is implemented to allow the device to implement the claim feature. Note that the test for proper written description is not whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could figure out a way to implement a claim feature, as this is the enablement test. Instead, the test is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the specific manner that applicant is implementing the claim feature. While applicant can rely upon that which is well-known in the art, applicant must still reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant is implementing a claim feature in order to establish possession. No formula, such as a stepwise function used by applicant, or any other explanation as to the manner in which such a stepwise activation is disclosed that would reasonably cause or allow the claim features to be implemented.
As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the arguments on page 18 directed towards the previous 112(b) rejections,
The Examiner respectfully notes that no specific arguments are presented and that the instant amendments do not reasonably overcome the previously raised issues. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and these rejections are repeated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-13, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “wherein the common mode controller is configured to transmit a first voltage control signal to the first voltage regulator to vary the first voltage based on an increase in the bias current, and transmit a second voltage control signal to the second voltage regulator to vary the second voltage based on a decrease in the bias current so that the common mode voltage is equal to a reference voltage” on lines 13-17 lacks proper written description.
1) While the sections cited by applicant do state that voltage regulators may be adjusted, they make no mention of a transmitted control signal or disclose the manner in which the common mode controller actually implements the claim feature. The Examiner acknowledges that a common mode controller can be 170b as seen in Figure 3A, and where the output of 171 and 172 can be considered respective control signals. However, the original disclosure does not reasonably explain the manner in which the common mode controller actually implements any variation of the first voltage or second voltage. The only disclosure is the use of a stepwise change, but such a disclosure does not reasonably explain the manner that such a stepwise change is implemented to allow the device to implement the claim feature. Note that the test for proper written description is not whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could figure out a way to implement a claim feature, as this is the enablement test. Instead, the test is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the specific manner that applicant is implementing the claim feature. While applicant can rely upon that which is well-known in the art, applicant must still reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant is implementing a claim feature in order to establish possession. No formula, such as a stepwise function used by applicant, or any other explanation as to the manner in which such a stepwise activation is disclosed that would reasonably cause or allow the claim features to be implemented.
2) Applicant claims that the common mode controller is configured to transmit control signals based on a change in the bias current (increasing or decreasing). However, applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which any device, including the common mode controller, is able to identify a change in the bias current. Merely because a change in the output of the Hall sensor occurs does not mean a change in the bias current has occurred. For example, a Hall sensor is used to detect magnetic fields, and any change in the output of the Hall sensor may be directly dependent on the magnetic field. The original disclosure, in the constructively elected embodiment, does not reasonably disclose the manner in which any device reasonably recognizes any change in the bias current, or has the ability to detect a change in the bias current itself. This phrase therefore lacks proper written description.
The phrase “the common mode controller is further configured to select one of the first voltage regulator and the second voltage regulator, based on a high and low relationship between the common mode voltage and a reference voltage, and stepwise activate the plurality of first resistors or the plurality of second resistors of the selected one of the first voltage regulator and the second voltage regulator until the common voltage is equal to the reference voltage” in the last paragraph lacks proper written description.
At no point in any of the actually elected species does applicant disclose the manner in which the above claim feature is implemented. Applicant does disclose that one output, such as that shown in Figure 2A, can be compared to a reference voltage. Applicant further discloses that each output of the Hall, can individually be compared to a reference voltage, such as that the output at HP can be compared to a reference voltage, and the output at HN can be compared to a reference voltage. However, neither the output at HP or HN are a common mode voltage, and applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant obtains and then uses such a common mode voltage in the claimed manner. The original disclosure, within the confines of the actually elected embodiment, is completely silent as to the manner in which applicant implements such a feature. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
The phrases “wherein the common mode controller is configured to transmit a first voltage control signal to the first voltage regulator to vary the first voltage based on an increase in the bias current, and transmit a second voltage control signal to the second voltage regulator to vary the second voltage based on a decrease in the bias current so that the common mode voltage is equal to a reference voltage” on lines 13-17 and “the common mode controller is further configured to select one of the first voltage regulator and the second voltage regulator, based on a high and low relationship between the common mode voltage and a reference voltage, and stepwise activate the plurality of first resistors or the plurality of second resistors of the selected one of the first voltage regulator and the second voltage regulator until the common mode voltage is equal to the reference voltage” in the last paragraph collectively introduce new matter and lacks proper written description.
As to new matter,
Applicant is now claiming that in one instance, the common mode controller varies the first and second regulators based on a bias current, but then claims that the common mode controller is configured to select one of the first and second voltage regulator based on a relationship between the common mode voltage and a reference current. However, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose switching up what the common mode controller uses to control the regulators, in that applicant does not originally disclose using the bias current in one instance, and then using the common mode voltage in another instance. In fact, paragraph [0097] makes clear that the voltage VO “may be replaced with a bias current, and the reference voltage VREF may be replaced with a reference current.” Meaning, in one embodiment, applicant uses VO and a reference voltage, but in another embodiment, applicant instead uses a bias current and a reference current. Applicant however is claiming the use of the bias current and a reference voltage, but where this combination is not originally disclosed. Applicant does not originally disclose the use of a bias current in one instance, and then a common mode voltage and reference voltage in another instance all as part of the same apparatus. When applicant claims that one component or feature may be replaced with another, applicant is creating a new embodiment that includes this new combination of features. However, this does not mean that all or even some alternative features can be combined together, unless applicant originally discloses such a combination. For example, if applicant disclosed that both the voltage regulators can be a combination of switches and resistors or they can be microprocessors, such a disclosure would not reasonably allow applicant to combine these alternatives to claim that one voltage regulator has switches and resistors, and the other is a microprocessor, unless applicant expressly disclosed as such.
As to written description,
Only to the extent that it is held that the above claim combination does not introduce new matter, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the combination of these claim features would be implemented. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which a common mode controller would select a first or second voltage regulator based on a relationship between a common mode voltage and reference voltage, but also where the common mode controller transmits a control signal to the first and second voltage regulator based on an increase or decrease in the bias current. The Examiner acknowledges that, indirectly, any increase or decrease in the bias current will alter the common mode voltage. However, when applicant claims that the common mode controller is configured to transmit control signals “based on” a change in the bias current, such a claim feature reasonably means that the common mode controller is configured to identify a change in the bias current, and that based upon this change, to transmit a desired control signal. A common mode controller is not reasonably itself configured to perform this function unless it identifies such a change in the bias current. If the common mode controller is changing a control signal or selecting a regulator based on a difference between the common mode voltage and a reference voltage, then the controller is configured to do just that, and it is not configured to identify or otherwise base any decision for a control signal or selection of a regulator on the bias current itself. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the common mode controller would initially transmit control signals based on a state of the bias current, and then also base a selection of the regulators on a difference between a common mode voltage and reference voltage. This is because, as seen in Figure 3A, any control signal generated by the common mode controller is based a difference computed in comparator 173, and such a comparator does not use the bias current. As such, applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which a common mode controller would be configured to implement the entirety of the above claim feature combination. This claim combination therefore lacks proper written description.
As to Claim 12,
The phrase “wherein a difference between the second voltage and the first voltage increases based on an increase in the bias current by the bias provider” on lines 2-3 introduces new matter.
To the extent that applicant intends the bias provider to be the device that obtains the claimed difference, such a feature introduces new matter. The bias provider is not originally disclosed to take the claimed difference, and this feature therefore introduces new matter.
As to Claim 19,
The phrase “the bias provided is configured to vary the bias current and control the first voltage and the second voltage” on lines 1-3 lacks proper written description.
The original disclosure does not reasonably provide any guidance as to the manner in which the bias controller controls the first and second voltage as claimed. Applicant does not reasonably provide any explanation as to what type of control is performed or the manner in which the bias controller effects such a control over the first and second voltages. Merely stating a function of what a device can do without any reasonable explanation as to the manner in which is implements such a function does not reasonably demonstrate proper written description or possession of the claim feature.
As to Claim 20,
The phrase “the controller is further configured to vary a total resistance of either one or both of the plurality of first resistors and the plurality of second resistors” on lines 14-15 lacks proper written description.
Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the controller is able to vary the total resistance as claimed. As best understood, applicant intends to use a stepwise activation of the switches in Figure 3A to change the total resistance of the resistors. However, the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which this stepwise activation is implemented. Applicant does not reasonably provide any explanation as to the manner in which this stepwise activation is performed, how the controller decides to stop the activation, or any other reasonable details necessary to demonstrate proper written description. The original disclosure is completely silent as to what the stepwise activation process entails, and thus, this phrase lacks proper written description as a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements the claim features.
The phrase “the common mode controller is further configured to select one of the first voltage regulator and the second voltage regulator, based on a high and low relationship between the common mode voltage and a reference voltage, and stepwise activate the plurality of first resistors or the plurality of second resistors of the selected one of the first voltage regulator and the second voltage regulator” in the last paragraph lacks proper written description and introduces new matter.
As to new matter,
The Examiner notes that applicant’s claims limit the invention to Figures 2A and 3A. This is because applicant positively claims a common mode controller, and thus such a controller must be present in the apparatus, and because the only figure within the elected embodiment that has the ability to “select” any feature is that found in Figure 3A by way of the switches. As such, the common mode controller 170a is actually 170b, in the combination. However, as seen in Figure 2A, only one output, VO, is taken, and where it is this single output that is compared to a reference voltage in Figure 3A, which is then used to control the voltage regulators 171 and 172. This embodiment however does not reasonably disclose or otherwise use a difference between a common mode voltage and a reference voltage as claimed. While such claim language is found in the summary section of the invention, such a disclosure does not reasonably apply to all embodiments of the invention unless applicant reasonably makes clear as to which embodiments would include such a feature. Applicant is expressly elected Species I in the reply filed 8/2/20233, and constructively elected Figures 2A and 3A together by way of the previous claim amendments. Neither the constructively elected embodiment or the actually elected embodiment disclose the above claim feature, and thus this claim feature, in the combination with the other claim features, introduces new matter.
Furthermore, as explained above, the newly recited claim features are directed towards the embodiment of Figure 3A. This figure expressly shows the common mode controller as element 170b. While this controller does receive an output from one terminal of the Hall sensor, it does not receive, determine, or otherwise obtain a common mode voltage. For example, it does not compute the average between signals received at the output of both terminals Hp and Hn of the Hall sensor. This controller from Figure 3A is therefore not reasonably disclosed to perform any control based upon a common mode voltage of the first and second Hall sensor outputs as claimed. Instead, it performs control based upon the voltage from one of these Hall sensor outputs (Vo) and a reference voltage (Vref). The combination of these claim features therefore introduces new matter as applicant does not originally disclose the common mode controller of Figure 3A to have the ability to perform the above claim features, in the combination.
As to proper written description,
Only to the extent that it is held that the above claim feature does not introduce new matter, such a feature further lacks proper written description. At no point in any of the actually elected species does applicant disclose the manner in which the above claim feature is implemented. Applicant does disclose that one output, such as that shown in Figure 2A, can be compared to a reference voltage. Applicant further discloses that each output of the Hall, can individually be compared to a reference voltage, such as that the output at HP can be compared to a reference voltage, and the output at HN can be compared to a reference voltage. However, neither the output at HP or HN are a common mode voltage, and applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant obtains and then uses such a common mode voltage in the claimed manner. The original disclosure, within the confines of the actually elected embodiment, is completely silent as to the manner in which applicant implements such a feature.
Furthermore, applicant does not reasonably demonstrate the manner in which a controller as seen in Figure 3A would vary a difference between the first and second voltage based on a common mode voltage of a first Hall sensor output terminal of the Hall sensor and a second Hall sensor output terminal of the Hall sensor, including the use of a stepwise activation. The common mode controller 170b is not disclosed to obtain or otherwise use a common mode voltage, and it is not connected to receive a voltage from both terminals Hp and Hn of the Hall sensor. As such, applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the common mode controller implements the claim features, in the combination, as there is no disclosure as to the manner in which the common mode controller would reasonably base any control on a common mode voltage as claimed, in the embodiment of Figure 3A.
As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
The phrases “the controller is further configured to vary a total resistance of either one or both of the plurality of first resistors and the plurality of second resistors” on lines 14-15 and “the common mode controller is further configured to select one of the first voltage regulator and the second voltage regulator, based on a high and low relationship between the common mode voltage and a reference voltage, and stepwise activate the plurality of first resistors or the plurality of second resistors of the selected one of the first voltage regulator and the second voltage regulator” in the last paragraph collectively introduce new matter.
As best understood, the ability of the controller to vary the total resistance is the same as the stepwise activation feature also recited above. These features are being distinctly recited, but where, as best understood, they are not distinct and in fact refer to the same configuration of the controller. Nevertheless, as claimed, applicant is claiming that the controller has two distinct configurations that cause it to vary a total resistance of the resistors separate from the stepwise activation of the resistors. Such a feature introduces new matter because applicant does not disclose a controller that is configured to vary the total resistance of the resistors in a manner that is separate and distinct from the claimed stepwise activation as claimed. This combination therefore introduces new matter.
As to Claim 23,
The phrase “the controller is further configured to control the first voltage regulator to increase the first voltage and/or control the second voltage regulator to decrease the second voltage, in response to the common mode voltage of the first hall sensor output terminal and the second hall sensor output terminal increasing so that the common mode voltage is equal to a reference voltage, and wherein the controller is further configured to control the first voltage regulator to decrease the first voltage and/or control the second voltage regulator to increase the second voltage, in response to the common mode voltage of the first hall sensor output terminal and the second hall sensor output terminal decreasing so that the common mode voltage is equal to a reference voltage” on lines 1 to the end introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
1) As explained above, the newly recited claim features are directed towards the embodiment of Figure 3A. This figure expressly shows the common mode controller as element 170b. While this controller does receive an output from one terminal of the Hall sensor, it does not receive, determine, or otherwise obtain a common mode voltage. For example, it does not compute the average between signals received at the output of both terminals Hp and Hn of the Hall sensor. This controller from Figure 3A is therefore not reasonably disclosed to perform any control based upon a common mode voltage of the first and second Hall sensor outputs as claimed. Instead, it performs control based upon the voltage from one of these Hall sensor outputs (Vo) and a reference voltage (Vref). The combination of these claim features therefore introduces new matter as applicant does not originally disclose the common mode controller of Figure 3A to have the ability to perform the above claim features, in the combination.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Claim 20 already recites that a stepwise activation is used to activate the various resistors that are part of the first and second voltage regulators. As best understood, this activation of these resistors is what applicant means by controlling the regulators to change the first and second voltages. While applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which this stepwise activation is implemented as explained above, Claim 23 is essentially reciting what was already claimed in Claim 20 but in a different manner. Meaning, the control of the regulators to increase or decrease the first and second voltage is what is being done in Claim 20 by the stepwise activation already claimed. As such, this claim introduces new matter because applicant does not originally disclose controlling the regulators a second and distinct time in the manner claimed, that is distinct from the stepwise activation already recited in Claim 20.
2) Only to the extent that the above feature is held to not introduce new matter, such a feature also lacks proper written description. This is because applicant does not reasonably demonstrate the manner in which a controller as seen in Figure 3A would vary a difference between the first and second voltage based on a common mode voltage of a first Hall sensor output terminal of the Hall sensor and a second Hall sensor output terminal of the Hall sensor. The common mode controller 170b is not disclosed to obtain or otherwise use a common mode voltage, and it is not connected to receive a voltage from both terminals Hp and Hn of the Hall sensor. As such, applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the common mode controller implements the claim features, in the combination, as there is no disclosure as to the manner in which the common mode controller would reasonably base any control on a common mode voltage as claimed, in the embodiment of Figure 3A.
Similarly, applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the stepwise activation would be implemented in Claim 20 as well as the control of the regulators in Claim 23, where both features are distinct as claimed.
As to Claims 12-13, 17, 18, 19, and 23,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12, 13, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to Claim 12,
The phrase “wherein a difference between the second voltage and the first voltage increases based on an increase in the bias current by the bias provider” on lines 2-3 is indefinite.
1) While applicant has amended the claim, applicant does not reasonably recite what component performs the claimed difference on the last two lines. Applicant does not reasonably recite any structural feature of the claim is configured to or otherwise capable of performing the claim subtraction. Instead, applicant distinctly claims the difference from any other claim feature, making it unclear whether the difference is performed by a claim feature such as the common mode controller, or some other claimed or unclaimed component. The Examiner acknowledges that applicant has added “by the bias provider.” But, this claim feature does not state that it is the bias provider that is configured to or otherwise designed to obtain the claimed difference. Instead, this claim phrase states that a difference between the voltages increases based on an increase in bias current, but then stating “by the bias provider” does not reasonably make clear what role the bias provide plays in the claim. For example, it does not state that the bias provider is configured to obtain the difference, or that the bias provider increases the current. It is unclear which this amended claim feature is intended to mean.
2) It is unclear if the difference feature is or is not required in the claim. This is because it is unclear if applicant intends for a component to be configured to perform the difference, or if applicant is merely describing what would happen if a difference were made. As such, the scope of the claim is unclear. Furthermore, to the extent that applicant intends the difference to be positively recited, such a feature amounts to a method step of obtaining a difference, as is currently recited. Applicant does not recite such a feature as a function of another component, and instead recites that a subtraction is performed. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), such a recitation is indefinite. Apparatus claims must be limited to what the apparatus is, and not what it does.
As to Claim 20,
The phrases “the controller is further configured to vary a total resistance of either one or both of the plurality of first resistors and the plurality of second resistors” on lines 15-17 and “the common mode controller is further configured to select one of the first voltage regulator and the second voltage regulator, based on a high and low relationship between the common mode voltage and a reference voltage, and stepwise activate the plurality of first resistors or the plurality of second resistors of the selected one of the first voltage regulator and the second voltage regulator” in the last paragraph collectively is indefinite.
As best understood, the ability of the controller to vary the total resistance is the same as the stepwise activation feature also recited above. These features are being distinctly recited, but where, as best understood, they are not distinct and in fact refer to the same configuration of the controller. Nevertheless, as claimed, applicant is claiming that the controller has two distinct configurations that cause it to vary a total resistance of the resistors separate from the stepwise activation of the resistors. Such a feature is therefore unclear because applicant the difference and relationship between the varying of the resistance and the stepwise activation, as claimed, are unclear.
As to Claim 23,
The phrase “the controller is further configured to control the first voltage regulator to increase the first voltage and/or control the second voltage regulator to decrease the second voltage, in response to the common mode voltage of the first hall sensor output terminal and the second hall sensor output terminal increasing so that the common mode voltage is equal to a reference voltage, and wherein the controller is further configured to control the first voltage regulator to decrease the first voltage and/or control the second voltage regulator to increase the second voltage, in response to the common mode voltage of the first hall sensor output terminal and the second hall sensor output terminal decreasing so that the common mode voltage is equal to a reference voltage” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
As best understood, the above controlling of the first and second voltages is the same thing as the stepwise activation of the resistors already recited in Claim 20. Applicant is, as best understood, distinctly reciting the same feature of the disclosure in two different ways in two different claims, both in a distinct manner. However, these features, as best understood, are not distinct. As such, the difference and relationship between these features are therefore unclear.
As to Claims 13 and 23,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858