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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/20/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henmi et al. (US 2013/0162294).
For claim 1, Figure 4 of Henmi et al. teaches a dual-tail sampler comprising: a first stage (100) comprising: an input pair of transistors (N1-N2) having inputs (DI, DIB) connected to gates of the input pair of transistors (N1-N2); a cross-coupled load circuit (P1-P2) having gates (gates of P1-P2) directly connected to drain nodes (NUB, NU) of the input pair of transistors (drains of N1-N2); and at least one pass-gate switch (P5-P6) between the input pair of transistors (N1-N2) and the cross-coupled load circuit (P1-P2).
For claim 2, Figure 4 of Henmi et al. teaches wherein the at least one pass-gate switch (P5, P6) comprises a pair of complementary pass-gate switches (P5-P6, because transistors P5 and P6 turns on/off complementary to each other since they receive complementary signal from each other).
For claim 3, Figure 4 of Henmi et al. teaches wherein the gates of the cross-coupled load circuit (P1-P2) are connected to the drain nodes (NUB, NU) of the input pair of transistors (N1, N2) rather than to output nodes (NDB, ND) of the first stage (100).
For claim 4, Figure 4 of Henmi et al. teaches wherein the first stage (100) comprises an amplification stage (100).
For claim 5, Figure 4 of Henmi et al. teaches further comprising a precharge device (N3-N4) connected between the drain nodes (NUB, NU) of the input pair of transistors.
For claim 6, Figure 4 of Henmi et al. teaches comprises a second stage (200) coupled to the first stage (100).
For claim 7, Figure 4 of Henmi et al. teaches wherein the second stage (200) comprises an amplification stage (200).
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shiratake (USP 6,147,514).
For claim 1, Figure 11 of Shiratake teaches a dual-tail sampler comprising: a first stage (Mp1-Mp3, Mn1-Mn3, MX1-MX2) comprising: an input pair of transistors (Mn1-Mn2) having inputs (Q, /Q) connected to gates of the input pair of transistors (Mn1-Mn2); a cross-coupled load circuit (MX1-MX2) having gates (gates of MX1-MX2) directly connected to drain nodes of the input pair of transistors (drains of Mn1-Mn2); and at least one pass-gate switch (Mp3) between the input pair of transistors (Mn1-Mn2) and the cross-coupled load circuit (MX1-MX2).
For claim 4, Figure 11 of Shiratake teaches wherein the first stage (Mp1-Mp3, Mn1-Mn3, MX1-MX2) comprises an amplification stage (Mp1-Mp3, Mn1-Mn3, MX1-MX2).
For claim 5, Figure 11 of Shiratake teaches a precharge device (Mp1-Mp2) connected between the drain nodes of the input pair of the transistors (drains of Mn1-Mn2).
For claim 6, Figure 11 of Shiratake teaches a second stage (Mp4-Mp5, Mn4-Mn6) coupled to the first stage (Mp1-Mp3, Mn1-Mn3, MX1-MX2).
For claim 7, Figure 11 of Shiratake teaches wherein the second stage (Mp4-Mp5, Mn4-Mn6) comprises an amplification stage (Mp4-Mp5, Mn4-Mn6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Henmi et al. (US 2013/0162294) or Shiratake (USP 6,147,514) in view of Mohan (USP 7,800,411).
For claim 8, each of Henmi et al. (Figure 4) and Shiratake (Figure 11) teaches a dual-tail sampler includes all the limitations of this claim as discussed in the 102 rejection above except for “the dual-tail sampler further comprising a set-reset latch that encodes a sampled signal from the second stage as a bit”. However, Figure 4 of Mohan teaches a set-reset latch (420, 430) that encodes a sampled signal from the second stage (410, 430) as a bit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art at the time before the invention was effectively filed to modify the dual-tail sampler in each of Henmi et al. (Figure 4) and Shiratake (Figure 11) to include a set-reset latch (420, 430), as taught in Figure 4 of Mohan, that encodes a sampled signal from the second stage as a bit for the purpose to hold the output values during reset for improve the performance of the dual-tail sampler circuitry (Mohan, Col. 1, lines 25-33; and Col. 4, lines 19-35).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/20/26 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directly to Examiner Long Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1753. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Regis Betsch, can be reached at (571) 270-7101. The fax number for this group 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).
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.
/Long Nguyen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights