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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 6/29/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a device that meets claim 1 contains the first electrical connection, and any process that yields that device forms that connection. This is not found persuasive because the connection step in the process claims requires the acts of connecting, forming and bonding, whereas the device claims do not. Moreover, the two inventions are classified in different classes. Rejoinder of the process claims will be considered upon indication of allowability for the device claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-5, 7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nuebling (US 2021/0265994).
With respect to Claim 1, Nuebling discloses an isolator device (Figures 1- 3) comprising a first die (Figure 3, Chip 1) comprising an isolator having a primary side (Lp), a secondary side (Ls) and an isolation barrier (Figure 1, between Ls and Lp) formed between the primary side and the secondary side; a second die (Figure 3, Chip 2) comprising an impedance element (Figure 3, resistors Rsym) and a tap coupling (Figure 3, center tap between resistors Rsym coupled to GND2) a portion of the impedance element to a reference potential; and a first electrical connection (Figure 3, B) coupling the secondary side of the isolator of the first die to the impedance element of the second die. See Figures 1- 3 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 18-30 of Nuebling.
With respect to Claim 2, Nuebling discloses further comprising a second electrical connection (Figures 1 and 3, second B) further coupling the secondary side of the isolator of the first die to the impedance element of the second die, wherein the first and second electrical connections are configured to support differential signals.
With respect to Claim 3, Nuebling discloses wherein the first and second electrical connections include bond wires. See Figures 1 and 3 and corresponding text.
With respect to Claim 4, Nuebling discloses wherein the first die and the second die have different cross sectional layer arrangements. See Figures 1 and 3 of Nuebling.
With respect to Claim 5, Nuebling discloses wherein the first die comprises an isolation material (Figure 1, isolation) and the second die lacks isolation materials. See Figure 1 and corresponding text of Nuebling.
With respect to Claim 7, and the limitation “wherein the second die is manufactured using a 12-inch wafer and the first die is manufactured using a 8-inch wafer”, the limitation is a product by process limitation, and there would be no structural difference between a die made from different wafer sizes.
With respect to Claim 11, Nuebling discloses an isolator device (Figures 1 and 3) comprising: an isolator die (Figures 1 and 3, Chip 1) forming an isolation barrier (Figure 1) between a primary side (Lp) and a secondary side (Ls); a barrierless die (Figure 1, Chip 2) comprising a tapped impedance element (Figure 3, resistors Rsym) and center tap between resistors Rsym coupled to GND2); and a first electrical connection (Figures 1 and 3, bond wire) coupling the secondary side of the isolator die to the tapped impedance element of the barrierless die. See Figures 1- 3 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 18-30 of Nuebling.
With respect to Claim 12, Nuebling discloses further comprising a second electrical connection (Figures 1 and 3, second one of two bond wires) further coupling the secondary side of the isolator die (Ls) to the tapped impedance element of the barrierless die, wherein the first and second electrical connections are configured to support differential signals. See Figures 1 and 3 and corresponding text.
With respect to Claim 13, Nuebling discloses wherein the first die and the second die have different cross sectional layer arrangements. See Figures 1 and 3 of Nuebling.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuebling (US 2021/0265994).
Nuebling is relied upon as discussed above.
With respect to Claims 6 and 14, Nuebling does not disclose wherein the first die comprises polyimide and the second die lacks polyimide, as the isolation material.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that polyimide is a well known isolation material in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use polyimide as the isolation material of Nuebling, as the use of a known material for its known purpose would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 8 and 15, Nuebling does not disclose “wherein the second die is rated to provide larger electric currents than the first die” or “ wherein the barrierless die and the isolator die have different current ratings”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to optimize the currents of the device, as where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See Allen et al v Coe, 57 USPQ 136. Moreover, the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. See In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 contains the phrase “the second die lacks isolation materials”. It is unclear how a semiconductor die can operate without isolation materials which insulate the electric components. Are isolation materials different from insulators? Further clarification and/or correction are required as the metes and bounds of the Claims have not been properly set forth.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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.
With respect to Claim 9, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious “wherein the impedance element comprises a first inductor and a second inductor, wherein the first and second inductors are coupled to a common node, and wherein the tap couples the common node to the reference potential”.
With respect to Claim 10, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious “wherein the impedance element comprises a barrierless transformer having a primary side and a second side, wherein the tap couples the secondary side of the barrierless transformer to the reference potential”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
August 19, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights