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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 1, “primary stage” should correctly be “the primary stage”.
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 3 and 4 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.
Regarding claim 3, which stated “wherein the first common mode feedback circuit senses the common mode voltage of the differential output signals, and feeds the common mode voltage of the differential output signals back to a gate electrode of the transistor”. This is unclear since first common mode feedback is a part of a primary stage (110), wherein the differential output signals (Vout+ and Vout-) are a part of second stage (120). Therefore, it is not clear how “the first common mode feedback circuit senses the common mode voltage of the differential output signals (Vout+ and Vout-) and feeds the common mode voltage of the differential output signals back to a gate electrode of the transistor (118)” as claimed. The drawing (Fig. 1) discloses gate of transistor (118) receives output/feedback signals from inverters (112 and 114) of the primary stage (110) via respective capacitors (C1 and C2). Clarification is needed.
Regarding claim 4, also rejected due to its dependency of rejected claim 3.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maloberti et al. (5,281,924), hereafter called MALOBERTI.
Regarding claim 1, MALOBERTI (Fig. 2) discloses an amplifier circuit comprising: a differential input stage (A1) can be read as a primary stage, configured to receive differential input signals (IN+, IN-) to generate amplified signals, wherein the primary stage comprises a first common mode feedback circuit (CMF1) configured to sense and control a common mode voltage of the amplified signals; and a differential input stage (A2) can be read as a secondary stage, coupled to the primary stage (A1), configured to receive the amplified signals to generate differential output signals (OUT+, OUT-), wherein the secondary stage comprises a second common mode feedback circuit (CMF2) configured to sense and control a common mode voltage of the differential output signals.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MALOBERTI in view WANG et al. (20210013834), hereafter called WANG.
Regarding claim 2, MALOBERTI discloses claimed invention except the primary stage is an inverter-based amplifier. WANG (Fig. 1) discloses a fully differential amplifier having common mode feedback, wherein the differential amplifier is formed by inverters (2 and 3).
MALOBERTI and WANG are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely fully differential amplifier having feedback. Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the reference, taken as a whole, to have modified the circuit of MALOBERTI to have included inverter-based amplifier, as taught by WANG. Such a modification would have imparted the advantageous benefit of stabilizing an output common mode level in low voltage and low power, see para. [0006], as taught by WANG, to MALOBERTI reference, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5-8, prior art(s) does not disclose the secondary stage is a floating inverter amplifier, and the secondary stage comprises: a third inverter and a fourth inverter, configured to receive the amplified signals to generate the differential output signals; the second common mode feedback circuit, coupled to output terminals of the third inverter and the fourth inverter, configured to sense the common mode voltage of the differential output signals to generate a common mode feedback signal; and a first reservoir capacitor and a second reservoir capacitor, wherein the second common mode feedback circuit generates the common mode feedback signal to control the third inverter and the fourth inverter through the first reservoir capacitor and the second reservoir capacitor.
Claims 9-12 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 9-12, among other subject matters claimed, prior art(s) does not disclose a first reservoir capacitor and a second reservoir capacitor, wherein the common mode feedback circuit generates the common mode feedback signal to control the first inverter and the second inverter through the first reservoir capacitor and the second reservoir capacitor.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ali (7,253,686), which is considered to be the closest prior art to the subject matters of claim 1, first and second stages, wherein each stage has a common-mode feedback circuit.
Sun et al. (11,539,336) discloses floating inverter amplifier having reservoir capacitor. However, it does not disclose two reservoir capacitors, wherein the common mode feedback circuit generates the common mode feedback signal to control the first inverter and the second inverter through the first reservoir capacitor and the second reservoir capacitor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Khanh V. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1767. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, JESSICA HAN can be reached on (571) 272-2078. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application lnformation Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHANH V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights