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
Newly submitted claims 1, 6, 8-11, 14-19 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The originally filed claims required the examination of a mutually distinct inventions drawn to Figs. 3-6 or the instant drawings. This is because originally filed claim 7 required the limitation of “further comprising a second DC-DC converter coupled to the switching network”. The only figures that disclose such imitations/an invention are figures 3-6 of the original disclosure. Furthermore, Applicant states that the present claims are drawn to a mutually distinct invention that includes the circuitry as disclosed in Fig. 2. For instance, see the second paragraph of the “Overview” section of page 5 of Applicant’s arguments which state that “Figure 2 of the Application as filed shows charge pumps 208(1), 208(2) coupled to DC-DC converter 204”. Moreover, in the section of the arguments filed 5/15/2026 under the title of “112(a) Rejection – Claims 1, 6-11 and 14-19”, Applicant states “Applicant acknowledges the apparent tension between claim 7 and Fig. 2” (see page 6). Therefore the originally filed claims required the examination of the invention drawn to claim 7 and Figs. 3-6. No other originally filed claim required the mutually exclusive differences of the invention disclosed in Fig. 2. In the other sections drawn to the rejections under 112(b), the objection to the drawings and the issues of new matter Applicant points to Figure 2 providing evidence for such claimed limitations. However, such limitations were not required to be examined in the originally filed claims. Furthermore, such limitations are mutually exclusive from the elements disclosed in Figs. 3-6.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1, 6, 8-11, 14-19 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 16-19 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.
With respect to claims 16-19, assuming, arguendo, that claims 16-19 are not part of the originally claimed invention, the limitation of “switches in the switching network to couple at least one of the at least charge pump to a front-end module (FEM)” cannot be understood. With respect to Applicant’s arguments that the claims are now exclusively drawn to Figure 2 of the originally filed drawings (see pages 5-7 of Applicant’s arguments filed 5/15/2026), the above limitation cannot be understood. This is because the switching network (e.g., 214, 216 and 218) does not connect the charge pumps (208(1) and 208(2)) to the front-end module (I.e., VCC1 to FEM). Rather, the switching network of (214, 216 and 218) connects the DC-DC converter 204 to the front-end module (FEM). Therefore, the above recitation cannot be understood.
Furthermore, assuming, that claims 16-19 are part of the originally claimed invention, the recitation of “providing a power signal from at least two charge pumps to a direct current (DC-DC) converter” in claim 16 cannot be understood for similar reasons as discussed in the Office Action mailed 3/24/2026. For instance, it cannot be understood because the DC-DC converter of Figs. 3-6 is only capable of receiving power from one the first charge pump. The first and second charge pumps are disclosed in Figs. 3-6 (i.e., 304(1) and 304(M), respectively). As can be seen only the DC-DC converter (i.e., 304(1)) is powered by the first charge pump (i.e., 306(1)) and the second charge pump (i.e., 306(M)) is not powering the DC-DC converter (i.e., 304(1)). Rather, a second DC-DC converter (i.e., 304(M)) is powered by the second charge pump (i.e., 306(M)). Furthermore, Figs. 3-6 are the only figures that show the specific details of the powering of the DC-DC converter(s) and active/inactive operations of the circuitry. Additionally, Applicant admits that the claim 16 is drawn to the invention as disclosed in Fig. 2 the originally filed drawings. Thus, the limitations cannot be understood in light of Applicant’s arguments, since it cannot be determined if claims 16-19 belong to the originally claimed invention of Figs. 3-6 or the newly claimed invention of Fig. 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, since they are drawn to a distinct invention (invention of Figure 2 of the original disclosure) that was not the originally examined invention (inventions of Figures 3-6 as required by claim 7 of the original disclosure). Thus, the arguments are made in respect to withdrawn claims and are not found persuasive. Furthermore, it is unclear as to which invention claims 16-19 belong to due to the issues as indicated above with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. section 112 (b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Allowable subject matter cannot be determined due to the presentation of a new invention in the claimed subject matter. Additionally, with respect to claims 16-19, allowable subject matter could not be determined due to the issues as indicated above with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. section 112 (b).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Thomas J. Hiltunen whose telephone number is (571)272-5525. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at (571)270-3684. 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.
/THOMAS J. HILTUNEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights