Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/417,643

LOW-DROPOUT REGULATOR CIRCUIT AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 19, 2024
Examiner
MEHARI, YEMANE
Art Unit
2838
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
U-Blox AG
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
813 granted / 909 resolved
+21.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
929
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
54.0%
+14.0% vs TC avg
§102
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
§112
4.3%
-35.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 909 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. This office action is in response to the application filed on 01/19/2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract exceeds 150 words limit. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). On line 1 of the Abstract “Low-dropout regulator circuit and electronic device A low-dropout regulator” should be “Low-dropout regulator circuit and electronic device, the low-dropout regulator”. Appropriate correction is required. On paragraph [0019], lines 1-2, the Specification recites “The improved supply concept also provides an electronic device comprising a low dropout regulator circuit for supplying the electronic device”. It is not clear as to what is supplied to the electronic device. Appropriate clarification is required. Drawing The drawings filed on 01/19/2024 are acceptable. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement IDS/s submitted on 01/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner. The applicant has amended claims 1-15 to correct minor informalities. No new matter has been added. Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 14-15 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. In re to claim 14, on line 2, claim 14 recites “an electronic device comprising a low-dropout regulator circuit according to claim 1, for supplying the electronic device”. It is not clear as to what is supplied to the electronic device. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted as “supplying output voltage of the LDO to the electronic device”. In re to claim 15, claim 15 depend on claim 14, thus is also rejected for the same reasons provided above. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Price et al. (US 2014/0139197 A1), hereinafter ‘Price. In re to claim 1, Price disclose a low-dropout regulator circuit (i.e. 200, fig. 2, see p. [0038]) comprising: a supply terminal (i.e. Vdd, fig. 2) for receiving a supply voltage (i.e. input voltage); an output terminal for providing an output voltage (i.e. Vout); a pass element (i.e. M9, see p. [0037])) coupled between the supply terminal (i.e. Vdd and Vout terminals, see fig. 2) and the output terminal (i.e. Vdd terminal) and a control block (i.e. 200 excluding the pass switch M9 and the bypass circuit 204) configured to control the pass element (i.e. M9) based on a difference between a feedback voltage (i.e. 110, fig. 1, see p. [0030]), which is derived from the output voltage (i.e. Vout), and a reference voltage (i.e. Vref see p. [0030]), which determines a target output voltage (i.e. Vout); wherein: the control block is configured to be selectively operated in a normal mode of operation (i.e. the bypass mode switch 204 may be arranged to switch to the first position in response to the bypass mode signal being in a bypass OFF or open state, see fig. 2 and p. [0037]) ) and in a low-supply mode of operation depending on a selection signal (i.e. when bypass 204 switch is in the second position in response to the bypass mode signal being in a bypass ON or closed state, see fig. 2 and p. [0037 and 0039]); in the normal mode of operation the control block is configured to be operated with a first operating range for the supply voltage, the first operating range excluding the target output voltage (i.e. the control block is configured to control the pass element (M9) as a normal LDO, i.e. controlling a resistance of the pass switch (M9) to match a desired voltage drop between the supply terminal (Vdd) and the output terminal (Vout) to make the voltage at the output terminal to match the target output voltage (i.e. see p. [0030]); in the normal mode the switch 204 is open (i.e. see fig. 2). In the normal mode, the input voltage needs to be higher than the output village, so that the pass element (M9) can provide the regulated output voltage (i.e. the minimum voltage drop required across the pass clement M9 is known in the aria as "dropout voltage”). Therefore, in this mode the control black is configured to be operated with a first operating range for the supply voltage (Vdd) excluding the target output voltage); and in the low-supply mode of operation the control block is configured to be operated with a second operating range for the supply voltage , the second operating range including the target output voltage and only partially overlapping with the first operating range(i.e. In the low-supply mode of operation, the control block connects the gate of the pass element M9 to ground, thus controlling a resistance of the pass element towards zero switching M9 on hard (sea p. [D042]) to achieve a minimum voltage drop between the supply terminal Vdd and the output terminal Vout (see ps. [0041-42]; the second operating range includes the target output voltage and only partially overlapping with the first operating range; in the bypass mode the supply terminal is short circuited to the output terminal, equalizing the two voltages without requiring that Vdd is higher than Vout; therefore, its operating range overlaps with the first operation range: additionally, as M9 is in a hard on state the circuit can still provide its desired output in this mode when Vdd equals the target voltage Vref). In re to claims 2-3, Price disclose the low-dropout regulator circuit (i.e. 200, fig. 2, see p. [0038]) according to claim 1, wherein: in the normal mode of operation the control block is configured to control a resistance of the pass element to match a desired particular voltage drop between the supply terminal and the output terminal (i.e. the control block is configured to control the pass element M9 as a normal LDO, i.e. controlling a resistance of the pass element M9 to match a desired voltage drop between the supply terminal Vdd and the output terminal Vout, and in particular to make the voltage at the output terminal match the target output voltage (see paragraph [0030]; and in the low-supply mode of operation the control block is configured to control a resistance of the pass element towards zero to achieve a minimum voltage drop between the supply terminal and the output terminal (i.e. in the low-supply mode of operation, the control block connects the gate of the pass element M9 to ground, thus controlling a resistance of the pass element towards zero by switching M9 ON hard, see p. [0042], to achieve a minimum voltage drop between the supply terminal (Vdd) and the output terminal Vout, see ps. [0041-0042]); wherein an accuracy of regulation of the control block, if the supply voltage exceeds the second operating range, is higher in the normal mode of operation than in the low-supply mode of operation (i.e. the accuracy of regulation of the control block is higher in the normal mode of operation than in the low-supply mode of operation, as in the normal mode the output voltage is closer to the target output valiage, see p. [0030]). In re to claims 13, Price disclose the low-dropout regulator circuit (i.e. 200, fig. 2, see p. [0038]) according to claim 1, further comprising a voltage detector for generating the selection signal based on the supply voltage (i.e. M3, M7, M8, and M10, see p. [0033]). In re to claims 14-15, Price disclose an electronic device comprising a low-dropout regulator circuit (i.e. 200, fig. 2, see p. [0038]) according to claim 1, for supplying the electronic device (i.e. fig. 6, see p. [0055]); wherein the electronic device is at least one of a cellular communication device, a GNSS positioning device, a short range radio frequency positioning device, or an IoT device (i.e. fig. 6, see p. [0055]). 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. Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 2014/0139197 A1), hereinafter ‘Price. In re to claim 4, Price disclose the low-dropout regulator circuit (i.e. 200, fig. 2, see p. [0038]) according to claim 1. Except, Price fail to explicitly disclose that wherein: the target output voltage is in the range of 0.6 V to 1.1 V; and a lower limit of the first operating range is at least 0.1 V higher than the target output voltage. However, Price disclose the claimed invention except for the target output voltage range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the invention was filled to have determined the optimum or appropriate target output voltage range of the power converter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In re to claim 5, None of the cited prior art alone or in combination disclose or teach the claimed inventions in which “the first input mirror transistor has a larger W/L ratio than the second input mirror transistor; the first steering transistor has a smaller W/L ratio than the second steering transistor; and wherein the low-dropout regulator is operable such that: during the normal mode of operation the first series connection is connected to the supply terminal, a gate terminal of the first steering transistor is connected to the output of the differential amplifier, and a gate terminal of the second steering transistor is connected to the reference potential terminal; and during the low-supply mode of operation the second series connection is connected to the supply terminal, the first series connection is disconnected from the supply terminal, and the gate terminal of the second steering transistor is connected to the output of the differential amplifier”. In re to claim 8, None of the cited prior art alone or in combination disclose or teach the claimed inventions in which “a second differential amplifier having a first input for receiving the reference voltage, having a second input for receiving the feedback voltage and with having an output for providing a second intermediate voltage depending on a difference between the reference voltage and the feedback voltage; wherein: the first differential amplifier is designed for the normal mode of operation; the second differential amplifier is designed for the low-supply mode of operation; wherein the low-dropout regulator is operable such that: during the normal mode of operation the first intermediate voltage is provided to a control input of the pass element; and during the low-supply mode of operation the second intermediate voltage is provided to the control input of the pass element”. In re to claim 9, None of the cited prior art alone or in combination disclose or teach the claimed inventions in which “the second steering transistor having a larger W/L ratio than the first steering transistor; wherein the low-dropout regulator is operable such that: during the normal mode of operation the gate terminal of the first steering transistor is connected to the output of the differential amplifier, and the gate terminal of the second steering transistor is connected to the reference potential terminal; and during the low-supply mode of operation the gate terminal of the second steering transistor In re to claim 11, None of the cited prior art alone or in combination disclose or teach the claimed inventions in which “the first mirror transistor is stronger than the second mirror transistor; the second steering transistor is stronger than the first steering transistor In re to claim 12, None of the cited prior art alone or in combination disclose or teach the claimed inventions in which “a digital control block configured to generate a control word of length N based on the digital difference signal; wherein the pass element comprises N parallel connected pass transistors, each of the N pass transistors being controlled by a dedicated bit of the control word; and wherein the low-dropout regulator is operable such that: during the low-supply mode of operation the digital control block is initialized with a higher valued control word than during the normal mode of operation”. The art of record does not disclose the above limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify the art of record to include either of the above limitations. In re to claims 6-7, claims 6-7 depend on claim 5, thus are also objected for the same reasons provided above. In re to claim 10, claim 9 depend on claim 9, thus is also objected for the same reasons provided above. Remarks The examiner has cited columns, line numbers, paragraph numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2141.02 and § 2123. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEMANE MEHARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7603. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM TO 6 PM. 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, Thienvu V. Tran can be reached at 5712701276. 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. /YEMANE MEHARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 19, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 07, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597851
DISTRIBUTED CONTROL DEVICE AND DISTRIBUTED CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587089
FREQUENCY TUNED RESISTOR-INDUCTOR-CAPACITOR SNUBBER FOR SWITCHING POWER SUPPLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12573951
ELECTRONIC DEVICE COMPRISING BOOST CIRCUIT, AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING SAME ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12562639
POWER ELECTRONICS CONVERTER THERMAL MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12555708
ASSEMBLY COMPRISING A DISCONNECTING DEVICE FOR A SURGE-ARRESTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+5.5%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 909 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month