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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1-2, filed 01/29/2026, with respect to Claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of 10/29/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant' s arguments, see pg. 2-3, filed 01/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 10-14 and 20 under 35 USC §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wang et al.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Claim 1, the amendments of “comprising a circuit having at least one wide bandgap device” are not taught by Bauer. However, in a related field, the amendment is taught by Wang. The additional amendments of “comprising application of a first pulse and a second pulse; identify a measurement start point in the measurement data for the first pulse; find a measurement stop point in the measurement data for the first pulse,” are taught by the previous reference of Bauer. Further, the amendment of “use the output charge to validate in-circuit operation of the wide bandgap device,” lack support in the spec.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 discloses “a user interface.” Claim 19 is a dependent of Claim 12 which already discloses “a user interface.” Examiner believes Claim 19 should recite “the user interface.” Claim 19 further recites “the display.” Examiner believes the claim should recite “a display on the user interface.” A proposed examiner’s amendment is below. Appropriate correction is required.
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
The application has been amended as follows:
19. (Currently Amended) The method as claimed in claim 18, further comprising receiving inputs through the [[a]] user interface to at least configure selection of the measurement stop point, allow the user to annotate regions of interest on a [[the]] display on the user interface, and, if the predetermined percentage is used, to set the predetermined percentage.
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 1 and 12 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. Claim 1 and 12 disclose "using the output charge to validate in-circuit operation of the at least one wide bandgap device." The specification is void of any information regarding this limitation and therefore consequently raise doubt as to possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if written to overcome the 112 rejection and claim objections set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Bauer teaches a test and measurement instrument (Abstract), comprising:
a user interface (pg. 4 and 6 (Network Analyzer));
one or more probes configured to connect to a device under test (DUT) (Abstract; pg. 3, last paragraph); and
one or more processors configured to execute code that causes the one or more processors to (pg. 4 and 6 (Network Analyzer or oscilloscope));
take measurements from the DUT during application of a double pulse test comprising application of a first pulse and a second pulse to the DUT to create
measurement data (pg. 5, first full paragraph);
identify a measurement start point in the measurement data for the first pulse (pg. 5, first two full paragraphs; Fig. 2-4);
find a measurement stop point in the measurement data for the first pulse (pg. 5, first two full paragraphs; Fig. 2-4); and
display the output charge to a user on the user interface (pg. 4, 1st-3rd and 7th paragraph). Although Bauer teaches se the measurement data between the measurement start point and the measurement stop
point to determine an output charge, Qoss, of the DUT (pg. 4, 7th paragraph),
Bauer fails to teach “comprising a circuit having at least one wide bandgap device; use the measurement data between the measurement start point and the measurement stop point to determine an output charge, Qoss, of the at least one wide bandgap device on the DUT without modifying hardware of the circuit or DUT; and use the output charge to validate in-circuit operation of the wide bandgap device.
However, in a related field, Wang teaches comprising a circuit having at least one wide bandgap device (pg. 3). Wang, Bauer and all other references fail to teach use the measurement data between the measurement start point and the measurement stop point to determine an output charge, Qoss, of the at least one wide bandgap device on the DUT without modifying hardware of the circuit or DUT; and use the output charge to validate in-circuit operation of the wide bandgap device. It is for this reason, Claim 1 and all of its dependencies would be allowed.
Claim 12 includes analogous, though not necessarily coextensive, features in conjunction with Claim 1, and would be, therefore, along with its dependencies, for similar rationale as disclosed above, allowable.
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 MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights