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 .
Request for Continued Examination
The request filed on 7/21/2008, for a Request for Continued Examination (RCE), is acceptable and a RCE has been established. An action on the RCE follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026, with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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(s) 1-3, 5, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaalaas et al. (WO 2010/117674, cited in the IDS, hereinafter “Gaalaas”) in view of Moghe et al. (US 2014/0211862, hereinafter “Moghe”) and Tuttle et al. (US 6,442,271, hereinafter “Tuttle”)
Regarding claim 1, Gaalaas discloses method of operating a digital isolator having an isolation barrier, an isolated data channel and an isolated configuration channel (method flow, Figs. 8 and 9, for isolator transceivers 710 and isolation barrier 720, Fig. 7), the method comprising:
operating the digital isolator in a first mode in which data is communicated across the isolation barrier on the isolated data channel and configuration information is communicated across the isolation barrier on the isolated configuration channel (drive downstream/upstream path states, Fig. 8 para. 45, see also data channels for isolator transceivers 130 via isolator devices 120, and “configuration” channel via isolator device 140 for enumeration enable, Fig. 1); and
operating the digital isolator in a second mode in which the isolated data channel is inactivated to a low-power state (digital isolator goes to RESET state, isolator transmitters and receivers are disabled, and USB transmitter also disabled, Fig. 8, para. 0045, save power, minimizing power consumption, para. 0065).
However Gaalaas does not expressly disclose:
both the isolated data channel and the isolated configuration channel are bi-directional channels; or
data communication across the isolation barrier is precluded in the low power state.
With respect to item i, Moghe discloses a similar USB digital isolator system which includes a bi-directional control channel that allows for each of the two sides of the digital isolator to transmit the current state to the other side so that each side can update its own side, detecting and correcting errors due to power supply or signal glitches or common mode transients (para. 0085).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, to modify the digital isolator system of Gaalaas with a bi-directional control channel as taught by Moghe since this provides both sides of the isolator with additional status information that enables error detection and correction.
With respect to item ii, Tuttle discloses a system with digital bidirectional communication across an isolation barrier (col. 7, ll. 1-18, see also Fig. 17). Tuttle also discloses that the isolation system 330 has a low power mode of operation to save power (col. 22, ll. 41-48), and discloses disabling an output of the isolation system after entering the low power mode to ensure that no erroneous signals are output (col. 23, ll. 60-65, see also claim 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, to modify the system of Gaalaas and Moghe to disable the output of the isolation system/barrier during a low power mode, since Tuttle teaches that this improves performance by preventing the output of erroneous signals.
Regarding claim 2, Gaalaas further discloses entering the second mode in response to detecting a lack of communication on the isolated data channel (entering IDLE state when end of packet condition occurs, para. 0047, 0048).
Regarding claim 3, Gaalaas discloses everything applied to claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose when operating the digital isolator in the second mode, conveying a wake-up signal across the isolation barrier.
Moghe discloses a similar USB digital isolator system (Fig. 1) that also has multiple operation modes including upstream and downstream transmission modes (of varying speeds) as well as corresponding “suspend” and “wake” modes (see page 4, para. 0062-0082). Moghe further discloses wakeup signals (from suspend) are propagated through the isolator by FS/LS signaling (para. 0110).
Because both Gaalaas and Moghe disclose USB digital isolator systems with active and inactive transmission modes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, to substitute one mode switching scheme for another for the predictable result of implementing transmit and receive functions for a wake up signal across the isolation barrier for switching from a suspend mode to a wake mode.
Regarding claim 5, Tuttle further discloses conveying the wake-up signal across the isolation barrier comprising conveying a wake-up signal in response to detecting an event (causing circuitry to “wake-up” in the event that signal is detected by the isolation system; see abstract and col. 23, ll. 43-52).
Regarding claim 10, Gaalaas discloses a multi-mode galvanic isolator, comprising:
an isolated data channel configured to transfer data across an isolation barrier of the multi- mode galvanic isolator (data channels across barriers 720, Fig. 7, multiple modes, see Figs. 8 and 9); and
control circuitry coupled to the isolated data channel and configured to deactivate at least some circuitry of the isolated data channel to a low-power state in response to an absence of data communication through the isolated data channel (upstream controller 750A controls the operating modes of the data channel between drive modes and RESET 810 mode, para. 0045, Fig. 8; similar for reset 910, para. 0050, DRIVE DOWNSTREAM state 830 returns to IDLE state 820 when end of packet is encountered, para. 0048, Fig. 8, IDLE state “disables USB transmitter”, para. 0045).
Gaalaas does not expressly disclose i. wakeup circuitry configured to transfer a wakeup signal across the isolation barrier to wake up at least some circuitry of the isolated data channel from a deactivated low-power state; or ii. that data communication across the isolation barrier is precluded in the low power state.
With respect to i, Moghe discloses a similar USB digital isolator system (Fig. 1) that also has multiple operation modes including upstream and downstream transmission modes (of varying speeds) as well as corresponding “suspend” and “wake” modes (see page 4, para. 0062-0082). Moghe further discloses wakeup signals (from suspend) are propagated through the isolator by FS/LS signaling (para. 0110, it is implicit that corresponding circuitry for sending and receiving the wake(up) signals would be present to enable the wakeup state of the isolator).
Because both Gaalaas and Moghe disclose USB digital isolator systems with active and inactive transmission modes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, to substitute one mode switching scheme for another for the predictable result of implementing circuitry to transmit and receive wake up signal for switching between active transmit and suspend modes.
With respect to item ii, Tuttle discloses a system with digital bidirectional communication across an isolation barrier (col. 7, ll. 1-18, see also Fig. 17). Tuttle also discloses that the isolation system 330 has a low power mode of operation to save power (col. 22, ll. 41-48), and discloses disabling an output of the isolation system after entering the low power mode to ensure that no erroneous signals are output (col. 23, ll. 60-65, see also claim 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, to modify the system of Gaalaas and Moghe to disable the output of the isolation system/barrier during a low power mode, since Tuttle teaches that this improves performance by preventing the output of erroneous signals.
Regarding claim 11, Gaalaas further discloses the control circuitry is configured to activate the at least some circuitry of the isolated data channel after deactivating the at least some circuitry (system can go from IDLE 820 state to Drive Upstream state, which enables the USB transmitter, Fig. 8, para. 0045).
Regarding claim 15, Gaalaas further discloses the control circuitry comprises event detection circuitry configured to detect a data transmission event (controller 750, detects end of packet, para. 0064)
Regarding claim 16, Gaalaas discloses an isolated system, comprising:
a first device (710A, Fig. 7);
a second device (710B, Fig. 7); and
a digital isolator coupling the first and second devices, wherein the digital isolator is configured to operate in a first power consumption mode when the first and second devices are communicating with each other and a second power consumption mode when the first and second devices are not communicating with each other (isolation barrier 720, Fig. 7; drive downstream/upstream path states, Fig. 8 para. 45, see also data channels for isolator transceivers 130 via isolator devices 120, and “configuration” channel via isolator device 140 for enumeration enable, Fig. 1; and digital isolator goes to RESET state, isolator transmitters and receivers are disabled, and USB transmitter also disabled, Fig. 8, para. 0045, save power, minimizing power consumption, para. 0065).
However Gaalaas does not expressly disclose i, wakeup circuitry configured to be active during the second power consumption mode; or ii, that data communication across the isolation barrier is precluded in the second power consumption mode.
With respect to item i, Moghe discloses a similar USB digital isolator system (Fig. 1) that also has multiple operation modes including upstream and downstream transmission modes (of varying speeds) as well as corresponding “suspend” and “wake” modes (see page 4, para. 0062-0082). Moghe further discloses wakeup signals (from suspend) are propagated through the isolator by FS/LS signaling (para. 0110, it is implicit that corresponding circuitry for receiving the wake(up) signals would be present to enable the wakeup state of the isolator).
Because both Gaalaas and Moghe disclose USB digital isolator systems with active and inactive transmission modes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, to substitute one mode switching scheme for another for the predictable result of implementing wakeup circuitry configured to be active during a suspend mode for receiving a wakeup signal.
With respect to item ii, Tuttle discloses a system with digital bidirectional communication across an isolation barrier (col. 7, ll. 1-18, see also Fig. 17). Tuttle also discloses that the isolation system 330 has a low power mode of operation to save power (col. 22, ll. 41-48), and discloses disabling an output of the isolation system after entering the low power mode to ensure that no erroneous signals are output (col. 23, ll. 60-65, see also claim 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, to modify the system of Gaalaas and Moghe to disable the output of the isolation system/barrier during a low power mode (second power consumption mode), since Tuttle teaches that this improves performance by preventing the output of erroneous signals.
Regarding claim 19, Gaalaas further discloses the digital isolator is configured to deactivate a portion of its circuitry during the second power consumption mode (entering RESET state when end of packet condition occurs, para. 0047, 0048).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-9, 13-14, and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID S HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., EST.
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, Hannah Wang can be reached on (571) 272-9018. 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 S Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631 7/11/2026
Prosecution Insights