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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed May 18, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments do not correct the §112(d) issue. Messages were left with the Applicants’ representative to attempt to fix this without having to issue another office action, but they were not returned.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 4-5 and 7: Independent claim 1 explicitly omits claiming the transistor switch as part of the electronic circuit. The claim 1 transistor switch is only mentioned as an intended use of the clamp voltage. Further support for this can be found in claim 20, which recites that a transistor switch exists in addition to the electronic circuit of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 4-5 and 7, which describe the doping and terminal connections of the transistor switch, are not further limiting to claim 1.
Claim 8: this claim is descriptive of what the claim 1 electronic circuit is “part of”. The eFuse circuit has no defining structure – it is made entirely of the claim 1 electronic circuit. The only defining functionality of the eFuse circuit is its configuration to be switched on/off and that the overvoltage comparator is always active. But these features are already recited in claim 1. Claim 1 already recites that the voltage regulator and further comparator are switched off when the switch is turned off – the absence of the overvoltage comparator from this wherein clause indicates that it is not to be turned off and remain active.
Claim 8 is not further limiting because it does not recite any narrowing structure or functionality and only names the claim 1 electronic circuit as an eFuse circuit. Assigning a new name to the same structure and functionality does not further limit the independent claim.
Claims 11-12 and 14: the transistor switch is explicitly omitted from this claim tree. Claims 11-12 and 14 depend from claims 1-2, which do not recite the transistor switch as a distinct claimed limitation (see above). The transistor switch is only explicitly introduced in claims 20-21.
Claim 16: like claim 8, renaming parts of the claim 2 circuit is not further limiting.
Claims 17-18: the transistor switch is explicitly omitted from this claim tree. Claims 11-12 and 14 depend from claims 1 and 3, which do not recite the transistor switch as a distinct claimed limitation (see above). The transistor switch is only explicitly claimed in claims 20-21, from which claim 3 does not depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The Applicants’ representative was contacted on multiple occasions to try to resolve these issues without the need for a Non-Final Office Action (the independent claims are allowable). The voice mail messages (2/4/26, 2/10/26) were not returned.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 9-10, 13 and 19-21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not teach or suggest an electronic device comprising, inter alia: a further comparator configured to detect an input voltage of the transistor switch and output an off signal when the input voltage is below a threshold; wherein the switch is further configured to be switched off by the off switch; and wherein the voltage regulator and the further comparator are switched off when the switch is switched off. The prior art teaches an overvoltage comparator to switch on a transistor switch, but does not expressly disclose a further comparator to turn the transistor switch off when the overvoltage is over and the input voltage is below a threshold.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, 13 and 19-21 are allowable as they depend from, or include all the limitations of [see claims 20-21], claim 1. The remaining dependent claims are not allowable, as they are subject to at least one rejection (see above).
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
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 ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 5712722800 x36. 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.
/ADI AMRANY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights