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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse species B corresponding to Fig. 2 that includes claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 01/08/2026, is acknowledged.
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 1-10 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 is indefinite because it recites an incomplete structural limitation of a functional circuit. For example, based on the below-referenced graph of Claim 1. The recited structural limitations of the circuit cannot perform the function such as an isolated digital input circuit with sink/source mode detector to determine, responsive to the voltage provided at the first I/O terminal, that the circuit is in the source mode or sink mode, which is the principle of operation of the circuit of the present invention, as being disclosed in the abstract, the specification (see paragraphs [0025] – [0030]) and in conjunction with Fig. 2. Furthermore, claims 2-10 are rejected due to their dependencies on the base claim 1.
The following drawing is a graph of Claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
341
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is indefinite because the structural recitation such as “further comprising a multiplexer having an output terminal, a select terminal, and first and second input terminals, the first input terminal of the multiplexer coupled to the output terminal of the source threshold detector, the second input terminal of the multiplexer coupled to the output terminal of the sink threshold detector, the select terminal of the multiplexer coupled to the output terminal of the sink/source mode detector, and the output terminal of the multiplexer coupled to a third I/O terminal of the circuit” is unclear. It is unclear what is being claimed here because this recited structural limitation is neither described in the specification nor shown in Figure 2 of the instant application (the elected species). Clarification and appropriate correction are required.
Furthermore, claims 4-5 are rejected due to their dependencies on the base claim 3.
Claim 11 is indefinite because the limitation “a sink/source mode detector having an input terminal and an output terminal, the input terminal of the sink/source mode detector coupled to a first input/output (I/O) terminal of the circuit, the sink/source mode detector configured to: compare a voltage provided at the first I/O terminal of the circuit to a first reference signal; determine, responsive to the voltage provided at the first I/O terminal exceeding the first reference signal, that the circuit is in a source mode; determine, responsive to the voltage provided at the first I/O terminal not exceeding the first reference signal, that the circuit is in a sink mode; responsive to determining that the circuit is in the source mode and an input signal of the circuit has a value less than a second reference signal, control a first switch to form a first current path between a voltage supply terminal and the first I/O terminal of the circuit; and responsive to determining that the circuit is in the sink mode and the input signal has a value greater than the second reference signal, control a second switch to form a second current path between a ground terminal and the first I/O terminal of the circuit.” (emphasis added) is unclear. It is not clear how the recited sink/source mode detector can perform the above recited functions due to the sink/source mode detector (i.e. simply a black box) does not comprises any specific component/structure for supporting the claimed functions such as “compare a voltage provided at the first I/O terminal of the circuit to a first reference signal; determine, responsive to the voltage provided at the first I/O terminal exceeding the first reference signal, that the circuit is in a source mode; determine, responsive to the voltage provided at the first I/O terminal not exceeding the first reference signal, that the circuit is in a sink mode; responsive to determining that the circuit is in the source mode and an input signal of the circuit has a value less than a second reference signal, control a first switch to form a first current path between a voltage supply terminal and the first I/O terminal of the circuit; and responsive to determining that the circuit is in the sink mode and the input signal has a value greater than the second reference signal, control a second switch to form a second current path between a ground terminal and the first I/O terminal of the circuit.”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Note that if applicants believe there are many ways known in the art that the sink/source mode detector can perform those above functions then the applicants should provide them in response to this office action.
Furthermore, Claims 12-13 are rejected due to their dependencies on the base Claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention lacks patentable utility. The recited circuit is inoperative and therefore it lacks patentable utility. For example, the claims recite a structure of several logic circuits, several switches and a sink/source mode detector which are partially connected together, but they do not adequately form any operative circuit. The recited circuit is inoperative due to missing many essential elements to the practice of the operative invention such as an isolated digital input circuit with sink/source mode detector to determine, responsive to the voltage provided at the first I/O terminal, that the circuit is in the source mode or sink mode, which is the principle of operation of the circuit of the present invention, as being disclosed in the abstract, the specification (see paragraphs [0025] – [0030]) and in conjunction with Fig. 2.
Therefore, the recited circuit is considered inoperative because it is totally incapable of achieving a useful result as claimed in the patent application, the recited circuit of the invention is inherently inoperative and cannot achieve the claimed useful result. Therefore, the claimed invention lacks patentable utility.
The following drawing is a graph of Claim 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
341
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholders that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a sink/source mode detector having an input terminal and an output terminal, the input terminal of the sink/source mode detector coupled to a first input/output (I/O) terminal of the circuit, the sink/source mode detector configured to: compare a voltage provided at the first I/O terminal of the circuit to a first reference signal; determine, responsive to the voltage provided at the first I/O terminal exceeding the first reference signal, that the circuit is in a source mode; determine, responsive to the voltage provided at the first I/O terminal not exceeding the first reference signal, that the circuit is in a sink mode; responsive to determining that the circuit is in the source mode and an input signal of the circuit has a value less than a second reference signal, control a first switch to form a first current path between a voltage supply terminal and the first I/O terminal of the circuit; and responsive to determining that the circuit is in the sink mode and the input signal has a value greater than the second reference signal, control a second switch to form a second current path between a ground terminal and the first I/O terminal of the circuit.” (emphasis added) as recited in the base Claim 11. The mentioned claim limitation(s) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use generic placeholder “the sink/source mode detector” coupled with functional languages “compare a voltage provided at the first I/O terminal of the circuit to a first reference signal; determine, responsive to the voltage provided at the first I/O terminal exceeding the first reference signal, that the circuit is in a source mode; determine, responsive to the voltage provided at the first I/O terminal not exceeding the first reference signal, that the circuit is in a sink mode; responsive to determining that the circuit is in the source mode and an input signal of the circuit has a value less than a second reference signal, control a first switch to form a first current path between a voltage supply terminal and the first I/O terminal of the circuit; and responsive to determining that the circuit is in the sink mode and the input signal has a value greater than the second reference signal, control a second switch to form a second current path between a ground terminal and the first I/O terminal of the circuit” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by structural modifiers. Since that term is not recognized as the name of the specified of circuit for perform those functions but are merely a substitute for the term “means”. Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 11-13 has/have been treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (Paragraphs [0025] – [0030] and in conjunction with Fig. 2) as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 09:00am to 06:00pm Eastern time.
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 on 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.
/HAI L NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 January 23, 2026