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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 28, 2024; May 23, 2024; August 18, 2024; and September 11, 2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
An applicant’s duty of disclosure of material information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with “a mountain of largely irrelevant data from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical data. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work.” Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573, 220 U.S.P.Q. 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). An applicant has a duty to not just disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to “bury” it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art. See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1889, 1899 (D. Del. 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 U.S.P.Q. 260, 272 (S.D. Fl. 1972). It is unreasonable for Examiner to review all of the cited references thoroughly. By signing the accompanying 1449 form(s), Examiner is merely acknowledging the submission of the cited references and indicating that only a cursory review has been made.
Examiner notes that Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Ct. App. 2011) (en banc) has significantly restricted the infringement defense of inequitable conduct. A defendant must show that the patent in question would not have been issued but for undisclosed information, and that the patentee had the intent to deceive. Examiner suggests that future Information Disclosure Statements cite only the most relevant/inclusive references or portions thereof.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (lines 11-12) - the text of the reference variables within the parentheses are illegible.
Claim 8 (line 1) - per multiple amended claims, appears that this claim should be going back to claim 1, instead of any previous claim.
Claim 15 (lines 5-6) - the text of the reference variables within the parentheses are illegible.
Claim 17 (line 7) - the text of the reference variables within the parentheses are illegible.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 2, 7, 11, and 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.
Claim 1 (lines 7-9) recites "a sense device ... configured to generate a sense device leakage current that is correlated with the switch component leakage current". It is unclear how the sense device will regulate the switch component leakage current, and how it is essential for the compensation circuit to know this current.
Claims 2-14 inherit the defects of the independent claim 1.
Claim 2 (lines 1-5) recites "compensation circuit is configured to: detect a voltage level at the drain terminal of the MOSFET; and apply the voltage level to the sense device in order to generate the sense device leakage current". It is unclear how the results of this will be achieved.
Claim 7 (line 4) recites "based on non-idealities of the ESD diode". It is unclear what non-idealities the applicant is referring to.
Claim 11 (line 5) recites "based on non-idealities of the second MOSFET". It is unclear what non-idealities the applicant is referring to.
Claim 15 (lines 2-3) recites "a sense device ... of a switch component leakage current of a switch component, and configured to generate a sense device leakage current". It is unclear how the sense device will regulate the switch component leakage current, and how it is essential for the compensation circuit to know this current.
Claim 16 inherits the defects of the independent claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant is reminded that claim mapping is provided as a courtesy to the applicant, but applicant should consider a reference as a whole, as the entire reference gives context to mapped sections.
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.
(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, 8, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yan et al. (WO 2022205764 A1); hereinafter Yan.
Regarding Claim 1, Yan discloses a solid state switch device [paragraphs 0002-0006], comprising: a switch component comprising a metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor, MOSFET [Fig. 3, M10; Fig. 4, M11; paragraph 0003], comprising a drain terminal [M10-drain/M11-drain], a source terminal [M10-source/M11-source], a gate terminal [M10-gate/M11-gate], and configured to generate a switch component leakage current based on non-idealities of the MOSFET [paragraphs 0005-0007]; a compensation circuit [Fig. 1, 20; Fig. 2, 20] comprising: a sense device for compensating current leakage of the switch component, and configured to generate a sense device leakage current that is correlated with the switch component leakage current [Fig. 2/3/4, 21]; and a current amplifier [Fig. 2/3/4, 22] configured to: generate an estimated switch component leakage current based on the sense device leakage current [Fig. 2/3/4, 22]; output the estimated switch component leakage current to the drain terminal of the MOSFET in order to compensate for the switch component leakage current [paragraphs 0005-0007, 0028-0031].
Regarding Claim 8, Yan discloses the solid state switch device of any previous claim, wherein the current amplifier is a current mirror [Fig. 3/4, 22] comprising: a first transistor device [M221] coupled to the sense device; and a second transistor device [M222] coupled to the drain terminal of the MOSFET of the switch component, wherein the second transistor device has a first scale greater than a second scale of the first transistor device [paragraphs referring to Fig. 4].
Regarding Claim 11, Yan discloses the solid state switch device of claim 1, wherein the switch component is a first switch component, the MOSFET is a first MOSFET [M10], and the sense device is a second switch component, wherein the second switch component comprises a second MOSFET [M21] comprising: a drain terminal [M21-drain], a source terminal [M21-source], a gate terminal [M21-gate], wherein the sense device leakage current is based on non-idealities of the second MOSFET, wherein the first MOSFET has a first scale greater than a second scale of the second MOSFET [paragraphs referring to Fig. 4].
Regarding Claim 15, Yan discloses a compensation circuit [Fig. 1, 20; Fig. 2, 20; Fig. 3, 22] comprising: a sense device for leakage compensation of a switch component leakage current of a switch component, and configured to generate a sense device leakage current [Fig. 2, 21; Fig. 3, 21]; and a current amplifier [Fig. 2, 22, Fig. 3, 22] configured to: generate an estimated switch component leakage current based on the sense device leakage current [Fig. 2, 22, Fig. 3, 22]; output the estimated switch component leakage current to the switch component in order to compensate for the switch component leakage current [paragraphs 0005-0007, 0028-0031].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant is reminded that claim mapping is provided as a courtesy to the applicant, but applicant should consider a reference as a whole, as the entire reference gives context to mapped sections.
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.
Claims 2, 13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan, in view of Stadlmair et al. (EP 3832323 A1); hereinafter Yan, in view of Stadlmair.
Regarding Claim 2, Yan discloses the solid state switch device of claim 1, wherein the compensation circuit is configured to: apply the voltage level to the sense device in order to generate the sense device leakage current correlated with the switch component leakage current [Fig. 3, paragraphs referring to Fig. 3]. Yan does not explicitly disclose wherein the compensation circuit is configured to: detect a voltage level at the drain terminal of the MOSFET.
However, Stadlmair discloses wherein the compensation circuit [Fig. 1, 120] is configured to: detect a voltage level [130a] at the drain terminal of the MOSFET [141]. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yan, in view of Stadlmair, by modifying Yan's compensation circuit with Stadlmair's compensation circuit, for the purpose of regulating the voltage.
Regarding Claim 13, Yan does not explicitly disclose the solid state switch device of claim 1, wherein the sense device is coupled to the voltage source supply, via a switch, wherein the switch is configured to be open when the switch component is closed.
However, Stadlmair discloses wherein the sense device [Fig. 1] is coupled to the voltage source supply [ground], via a switch [discharge switch], wherein the switch is configured to be open when the switch component is closed. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yan, in view of Stadlmair, by adding the switch, for the purpose of controlling current flow.
Regarding Claim 17, Yan discloses a method of compensating for a switch component [Fig. 1/2/3/4, 10] leakage current of a switch component, the method comprising: applying the voltage level to a sense device [Fig. 3, paragraphs referring to Fig. 3]; determining a sense device leakage current of the sense device that is correlated with the switch component leakage current [Fig. 3, paragraphs referring to Fig. 3]; generating an estimated switch component leakage current based on the sense device leakage current [Fig. 2, 22, Fig. 3, 22]; outputting the estimated switch component leakage current to the output of the switch component in order to compensate for the switch component leakage current [paragraphs 0005-0007, 0028-0031]. Yan does not explicitly disclose wherein the method of compensating for a switch component comprises determining a voltage level at an output of the switch component.
However, Stadlmair discloses wherein the compensating for a switch component [Fig. 1, 120] is method comprising: determining a voltage level at an output of the switch component [130a at 141]. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yan, in view of Stadlmair, by modifying Yan's compensation method with Stadlmair's compensation method, for the purpose of regulating the voltage.
Regarding Claim 18, Yan, in view of Stadlmair, discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the estimated switch component leakage current is a sense device leakage current [paragraph referring to Fig. 3].
Although, Yan, in view of Stadlmair, does not explicitly disclose, wherein the estimated switch component leakage current is a multiple of the sense device leakage current, these are just different quantities and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the N factor for the other in the absence of unexpected results in order to have an optimum working condition for the circuit since this practice is well known in the art.
Claims 3-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan.
Regarding Claim 3, although Yan does not explicitly disclose which MOSFET transistor is used, these are just different types of transistors and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one type of transistor for the other in the absence of unexpected results in order to have an optimum working condition for the circuit since this practice is well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 4, Yan discloses the solid state switch device of claim 1, wherein the estimated switch component leakage current is a sense device leakage current [paragraph referring to Fig. 3].
However, Yan does not explicitly disclose, wherein the estimated switch component leakage current is a multiple of the sense device leakage current, these are just different quantities and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the N factor for the other in the absence of unexpected results in order to have an optimum working condition for the circuit since this practice is well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 5, although Yan does not explicitly disclose the solid state switch device of claim 1, wherein the sense device leakage current is correlated with the switch component leakage current [paragraph referring to Fig. 3] such that the sense device leakage current is N times less than the switch component leakage current, these are just an N factor design choice and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the N factor for the other in the absence of unexpected results in order to have an optimum working condition for the circuit since this practice is well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 6, Yan discloses the solid state switch device of claim 1, wherein the estimated switch component leakage current is a sense device leakage current [paragraph referring to Fig. 3].
Although Yan does not explicitly disclose, wherein the estimated switch component leakage current is a multiple of the sense device leakage current, wherein the sense device leakage current is correlated with the switch component leakage current such that the sense device leakage current is N times less than the switch component leakage current, wherein the multiple is N, these are just an N factor design choice and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the N factor for the other in the absence of unexpected results in order to have an optimum working condition for the circuit since this practice is well known in the art.
Regarding Claim 16, Yan discloses the compensation circuit of claim 15, wherein the estimated switch component leakage current is a sense device leakage current [paragraph referring to Fig. 3].
However, Yan does not explicitly disclose, wherein the estimated switch component leakage current is a multiple of the sense device leakage current, these are just different quantities and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the N factor for the other in the absence of unexpected results in order to have an optimum working condition for the circuit since this practice is well known in the art.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan, in view of Stadlmair, further in view of Okushima (US 20110180874 A1); hereinafter Yan, in view of Stadlmair, further in view of Okushima.
Regarding Claim 7, Yan does not explicitly disclose the solid state switch device of claim 1, wherein the MOSFET is a buried oxide isolated device, and the switch component further comprises an electrostatic discharge (ESD) diode, wherein the switch component leakage current is further based on non-idealities of the ESD diode.
Regarding, the type of MOSFET transistor to be used, these are just different types of transistors and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one type of transistor for the other in the absence of unexpected results in order to have an optimum working condition for the circuit since this practice is well known in the art.
However, Stadlmair discloses wherein the switch component [Fig. 1, 100] further comprises an electrostatic discharge (ESD) component [paragraph 0002], wherein the switch component leakage current is further based on non-idealities of the ESD component [paragraphs 0002]. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yan, in view of Stadlmair, by modifying Yan by adding the ESD component of Stadlmair, for the purpose of protecting the circuitry from sudden electrical shocks. Yan, in view of Stadlmair, does not explicitly disclose that the electrostatic discharge (ESD) component is a diode.
However, Okushima discloses a diode for ESD protection [Fig. 3, D1; paragraph 0009]. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yan, in view of Stadlmair, further in view of Okushima, by adding the ESD diode of Okushima for the ESD component of Stadlmair, for the purpose of protecting the circuitry from sudden electrical shocks.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan, in view of Hasegawa (US 20060097774 A1); hereinafter Yan, in view of Hasegawa.
Regarding Claim 9, Yan does not explicitly disclose the solid state switch device of claim 8, wherein the second transistor device comprises more transistors than the first transistor device.
However, Hasegawa discloses wherein the second transistor device comprises more transistors than the first transistor device [Abstract; Fig. 2, 2]. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yan's current mirror, in view of Hasegawa's multiple transistor current mirror, for the purpose of controlling the currents.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan, in view of Rooran (JP H077400 A); hereinafter Yan, in view of Rooran.
Regarding Claim 10, Yan does not explicitly disclose the solid state switch device of claim 1, wherein the current amplifier comprises an operational amplifier comprising a first output and a second output, wherein the first output sources a first current, wherein the second output sources a second current, wherein the first output is coupled to the sense device, wherein the second output is coupled to the drain terminal of the MOSFET of the switch component.
Although, Yan does not explicitly disclose, wherein the second current is a multiple of the first current, these are just different quantities and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the N factor for the other in the absence of unexpected results in order to have an optimum working condition for the circuit since this practice is well known in the art.
However, Rooran discloses the solid state switch device [Fig. 1], wherein the current amplifier comprises an operational amplifier [45] comprising a first output and a second output [output of 45], wherein the first output sources a first current [current to 2], wherein the second output sources a second current [current to 50], wherein the first output is coupled to the sense device, wherein the second output is coupled to the drain terminal of the MOSFET of the switch component. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yan, in view of Rooran, for the purpose of providing amplification to current signals.
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan, in view of Gammie et al. (US 6667650 B2); hereinafter Yan, in view of Gammie.
Regarding Claim 12, Yan does not explicitly disclose the solid state switch device of claim 1, wherein the sense device comprises a cathode coupled to the current amplifier and an anode coupled to the voltage source supply.
However, Gammie discloses wherein the sense device [Fig. 4, 402] comprises a cathode coupled to the current amplifier [404; column 4, lines 25-38] and an anode coupled to the voltage source supply [negative supply voltage; column 4, lines 25-38]. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yan, in view of Gammie, by replacing Yan's sense device with Gammie's leakage compensation region, for the purpose of determining the amount of leakage current loss.
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan, in view of Namuduri et al. (US 20210143811 A1); hereinafter Yan, in view of Namuduri.
Regarding Claim 14, Yan does not explicitly disclose the solid state switch device of claim 1, further comprising a temperature sensor configured to activate the compensation circuit upon sensing a temperature above a temperature threshold.
However, Namuduri discloses the solid state switch device [Fig. 1, 102], further comprising a temperature sensor [thermistor 134] configured to activate the compensation circuit upon sensing a temperature above a temperature threshold [paragraphs 0003-0018]. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yan, in view of Namuduri, by adding the temperature sensor, for the purpose of preventing overheating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amit Bhatia whose telephone number is (571)272-4410. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm 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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at (571) 272-1988. 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.
/Amit R Bhatia/Examiner, Art Unit 2842
/LINCOLN D DONOVAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2842