DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 (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.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/12/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 4 of paragraph [0004], "voltage reference" should be changed to --reference voltage--, note what is indicated on lines 5, 6 and 8 of this paragraph. On the penultimate line of paragraph [0023], the word "mitigate" should be changed to --compensate--. On the second line of paragraph [0025], a comma should be inserted after the word "devices". On line 5 of paragraph [0025], the word --to-- should be inserted after "referred". On the first line of paragraph [0026], "a" should be deleted. On the last line of paragraph [0034], the word --to-- should be inserted after "configured". On the penultimate line of paragraph [0035], the word --to-- should again be inserted after "configured". On line 9 of paragraph [0036], the word --the-- should be inserted at the beginning of the line before "signaling". On the penultimate line of paragraph [0036], either --a-- or --the-- should be inserted before the word "phase". On line 8 of paragraph [0038], either --a-- or --the-- should be inserted before the word "signaling". On line 10 of paragraph [0039], the word --to-- should be inserted after "configured". On line 9 of paragraph [0040], either --a-- or --the-- should be inserted before the word "signaling". On line 5 of paragraph [0042], the word --be-- should be inserted after "to". On line 10 of paragraph [0044], --voltage level-- should be inserted after "to". On line 4 of paragraph [0046], the word --and-- should be inserted after "502". On line 8 of paragraph [0055], the second occurrence of the word "that" should be deleted, and on line 12 of this paragraph, the word "controls" should be changed to --provides--. On the second line of paragraph [0057], a comma should be inserted after "804", and note that a comma should also be inserted after "806" on line 4 of this paragraph. On line 3 of paragraph [0059], --a-- should be inserted at the beginning of the line before the word "frequency". On line 4 of paragraph [0060], "voltage reference" should again be changed to --reference voltage--. On the penultimate line of paragraph [0063], the word "the" should be deleted. On line 6 of paragraph [0066], the word --the-- should be inserted before "apparatus". On line 5 of paragraph [0067], "voltage reference" should again be changed to --reference voltage--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
4. Figures 1-5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
5. The drawings are also objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the differential amplifier being configured to sum an output voltage of the amplifier with a reference voltage to provide an output of the differential amplifier, as recited in claim 9, must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 1, 8-10 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On lines 5-6 of claim 1, "voltage reference" should be changed to --reference voltage--, note what is indicated on line 7 of this claim.
On line 5 of claim 8, the word --differential-- should be inserted before "interface", note what is indicated on the first line of this claim.
On line 6 of claim 8, the word --differential-- should be inserted before "interface", note what is indicated on the first line of this claim.
On line 16 of claim 8, the second occurrence of "a" should be deleted, note that a second complementary output of the interface circuit has already been recited on line 14 of this claim.
On line 7 of claim 8, the word --differential-- should be inserted before "interface", note what is indicated on the first line of this claim.
On line 11 of claim 8, the word --differential-- should be inserted before "interface", note what is indicated on the first line of this claim.
On line 14 of claim 8, the word --differential-- should be inserted before "interface" (both occurrences), note what is indicated on the first line of this claim.
On line 17 of claim 8, the word --differential-- should be inserted before "interface", note what is indicated on the first line of this claim.
On line 21 of claim 8, the word --differential-- should be inserted before "interface", note what is indicated on the first line of this claim.
On the second line of claim 9, the word --differential-- should be inserted before "amplifier", note what is indicated on the first line of this claim.
On line 2 of claim 10, the word --differential-- should be inserted before "interface", note what is indicated on the first line of this claim.
On lines 2 and 3 of claim 13, the word --differential-- should be inserted before "interface" (both occurrences), note what is indicated on the first line of this claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The limitation in claim 9 that the differential amplifier is configured to sum an output voltage of the amplifier with a reference voltage to provide an output of the differential amplifier appears to be misdescriptive of the invention because, as noted above in the objection to the drawings, such is not shown in any of the drawing figures, i.e., claim 9 appears to be directed to the embodiment shown in figure 7 of the instant drawings, but the differential amplifier 704 shown in this figure does not appear to perform any summing operation on the output voltage of the amplifier with a reference voltage in order to provide an output of the differential amplifier.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rasmus, U.S. Patent No. 9,800,218.
As to claim 8, Rasmus discloses, in figure 5,
a differential interface circuit, comprising:
a differential amplifier (differential amplifier 520) configured to receive an input (VIP) of the differential interface circuit; and
a high-pass filter that includes:
a first capacitor (capacitor C2P) coupled between a first complementary input (first complementary input VIP) of the differential interface circuit and a first complementary output (first complementary output VOP) of the differential interface circuit;
a first resistor (resistor R2P) coupled between the first complementary output of the differential interface circuit and a first complementary output (first complementary output VCN) of the differential amplifier, wherein the first capacitor and the first resistor are configured to operate as a low-pass filter that couples the first complementary output of the differential amplifier to the first complementary output of the interface circuit (inherently in figure 5 of Rasmus, capacitor C2P and resistor R2P are configured to operate as a low-pass filter that couples the first complementary output VCN of the differential amplifier to the first complementary output VOP of the differential interface circuit, note that it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971));
a second capacitor (capacitor C2N) coupled between a second complementary input (VIN) of the differential interface circuit and a second complementary output (VON) of the differential interface circuit; and
a second resistor (resistor R2N) coupled between the second complementary output of the differential interface circuit and a second complementary output (second complementary output VCP) of the differential amplifier, wherein the second capacitor and the second resistor are configured to operate as a low-pass filter that couples the second complementary output of the differential amplifier to the second complementary output of the differential interface circuit (inherently in figure 5 of Rasmus, capacitor C2N and resistor R2N are configured to operate as a low-pass filter that couples the second complementary output VCP of the differential amplifier to the second complementary output VON of the differential interface circuit, again it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971)).
As to claim 9, as noted above this claim appears to be misdescriptive of applicant's invention, but note that differential amplifier 520 shown in figure 5 of Rasmus appears to be configured to inherently sum an output voltage of the differential amplifier with a reference voltage to provide an output of the differential amplifier, again it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971).
As to claim 10, note that a signal provided through the low-pass filter in figure 5 of Rasmus appears to inherently counteract changes to a baseline voltage level at the output of the differential interface circuit which is attributable to a signal transmitted through the high-pass filter, again it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971).
As to claim 11, reciting that the input of the differential interface circuit is configured to receive a high-frequency signal in excess of 100 MHz from a data communication link is just a statement of intended use and, as such, cannot be relied upon to distinguish over the differential interface circuit shown in figure 5 of Rasmus.
As to claim 12, note that in figure 5 of Rasmus the high-pass filter appears to inherently provide a low-impedance path from the input of the differential interface circuit to the output of the differential interface circuit for high-frequency signals, again it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971).
As to claim 13, note that in figure 5 of Rasmus the differential amplifier appears to inherently provide a unitary gain path from the input of the differential interface circuit to the output of the differential interface circuit for direct current signals, again it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971).
As to claim 14, reciting that the output of the differential interface circuit is coupled to an equalizer in a high-speed serializer-deserializer (SERDES) physical layer circuit is again just a statement of intended use and, as such, cannot be relied upon to distinguish over the differential interface circuit shown in figure 5 of Rasmus.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record, including Rasmus, supra, discloses or suggests an interface circuit comprising a high-pass filter and a feedforward loop configured as recited in independent claim 1, specifically the limitation in claim 1 that the interface circuit comprises a resistor coupled between the output of the interface circuit and a reference voltage source, which is not seen to be disclosed or suggested by Ramus, and therefore claims 1-7 are in condition for allowance. Claim 15 is allowable in view of the limitations recited on the last four lines thereof, i.e., the limitations directed to adding the filtered low-frequency signal to a reference voltage using a summer, and then combining the filtered high-frequency signal with an output of the summer to thereby provide an output of the interface circuit, which is also not seen to be disclosed or suggested by any of the prior art of record, including Rasmus.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Figure 2 of Islam et al, figure 2 of Navid, figure 5 of Kushnick and figure 4 of Dong show additional examples of interface circuits including baseline wander compensation circuits, note that each includes a high-pass filter between the input and the output of the interface circuit, and also includes a feedforward circuit between the input and the output thereof. More specifically, in figure 2 of Islam et al, the high-pass filter is formed by capacitor C1 and the feedforward circuit passes through resistors R1 and R6; in figure 2 of Navid, the high-pass filter is formed by capacitor 211 and the feedforward circuit passes through low-frequency path 220; in figure 5 of Kushnick the high-pass filter is formed by capacitor 130 and the feedforward circuit passes through the inherent resistors within circuit component 140, switch 150 and the inherent resistors within circuit component 145; and in figure 4 of Dong the high-pass filter is formed by capacitor Cp and the feedforward circuit passes through resistor R1p, buffer circuit 430 and resistor Rp. None of these four additional references discloses or suggests, however, the above-noted limitations in claims 1 and 15 and therefore no rejection under 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103 has been made based on these four additional references.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, REGIS J BETSCH, can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 June 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights