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 .
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 8-10 and 17-18 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 10 recites “a third pad of the pads”, but claim 10 does not introduce “a first pad” or “a second pad” or any other pads to which the “second pad” could correspond.
Therefore, the term “a third pad” lack antecedent basis in the claim. Because the claim recites "third" a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a corresponding "first" and “second” pad to have been previously introduced. The absence of such an antecedent renders the scope of the claim unclear. Accordingly, claim 10 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C §112(b).
Claim 8 recites the limitation “A0”, “A1” and “X1” and further recites “A0 = A1 ≦ X1”. Although the specification define A0 as a thickness of an isolation barrier material of the isolation device, A1 as a distance between a first coil and a third coil of the coils, and X1 as a distance between the third pad and the metal layer, the specification does not describe how this distance are measured (i.e., perpendicular, center to center, edge to edge or along any particular axis or reference point). Because multiple reasonable measurement method exist for each of these distance, the scope of the limitation “A0 = A1 ≦ X1” cannot be determine with reasonable certainty. Drawing alone do not provide sufficient clarity to define the measurement for A0, A1 and X1. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “A0”, “X3” and “B3” and further recites “A0 = X3 ≦ B3”. Although the specification define A0 as a thickness of an isolation barrier material of the isolation device, X3 as a distance between the third pad and the metal layer and B3 as distance between a first coil of the coils and the magnetic field sensing circuit, the specification does not describe how this distance are measured (i.e., perpendicular, center to center, edge to edge or along any particular axis or reference point). Because multiple reasonable measurement method exist for each of these distance, the scope of the limitation “A0 = X3 ≦ B3” cannot be determine with reasonable certainty. Drawing alone do not provide sufficient clarity to define the measurement for A0, X3 and B3. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “A0”, “A2” and “X2” and further recites “A0 = A2 ≦ X2”. Although the specification define A0 as a thickness of an isolation barrier material of the isolation device, A2 as a distance between a first coil and a third coil of the coils, and X2 as a distance between the third pad and the metal layer, the specification does not describe how this distance are measured (i.e., perpendicular, center to center, edge to edge or along any particular axis or reference point). Because multiple reasonable measurement method exist for each of these distance, the scope of the limitation “A0 = A2 ≦ X2” cannot be determine with reasonable certainty. Drawing alone do not provide sufficient clarity to define the measurement for A0, A2 and X2. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “A0”, “X4” and “B4” and further recites “A0 = X4 ≦ B4”. Although the specification define A0 as a thickness of an isolation barrier material of the isolation device, X4 as a distance between the third pad and the metal layer and B4 as distance between a first coil of the coils and the magnetic field sensing circuit, the specification does not describe how this distance are measured (i.e., perpendicular, center to center, edge to edge or along any particular axis or reference point). Because multiple reasonable measurement method exist for each of these distance, the scope of the limitation “A0 = X4 ≦ B4” cannot be determine with reasonable certainty. Drawing alone do not provide sufficient clarity to define the measurement for A0, X4 and B4. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Appropriate clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Candage (TW I636682B) in view of Gruber et al. (US 2024/0038696 and Gruber hereinafter) further in view of Messier et al (US 2023/0333147 and Messier hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Candage discloses an isolation device [160, fig, 1], receiving a differential signal [SIGA/SIGB] from a transmission terminal [150 terminal], the isolation device comprising: a plurality of pads [278-1~278-3]; a noise sensing circuit [262] electrically coupled to pad, sensing a capacitor current [capacitive pad 278-3] generated by the pad to convert into a first electrical signal [262] and wherein a capacitor [278-1~278-3] to sense a total voltage change of the differential signal. Candage does not explicitly disclose a plurality of coils generating magnetic fields responsive to the received differential signal; a plurality of metal layers, wherein a first metal layer of the metal layers is located at a junction of the coils, and a second metal layer of the metal layers is positioned below the first metal layer, the first and the second metal layers forming a capacitor to sense a total voltage change of the differential signal; a noise sensing circuit, electrically coupled to the second metal layer, sensing a capacitor current generated by the second metal layer to convert into a first electrical signal; and a magnetic field sensing circuit, coupled to the coils, sensing the magnetic fields generated by the coils and converting into a second electrical signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gruber discloses a plurality of coils [15A/15B, fig. 1B] generating a magnetic field [par. 0037, fig. 4C] in response to received differential signal, a plurality of pads [12A/12B/13A/13B, fig. 1B] coupled to the coils [15A/15B, fig. 1B]; a plurality of metal layer [14A/14B/12/13, fig. 1B], wherein a first metal layer [12] of the metal layers is located at a junction of the coils [15A/15B], and a second metal layer [14, a first layer, in which an electrically conductive element 14 is arranged, par. 0022, fig. 1A] of the metal layers is positioned below the first metal layer, the first and the second metal layers forming a capacitor [e.g., Cg1, fig. 1A]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Candage by incorporating plurality of coils to pads of Candage [fig. 1] as taught in Gruber in order to a ensure common-mode rejection. Candage in view of Gruber does not explicitly disclose a magnetic field sensing circuit coupled to the coils, sensing the magnetic field generated by the coils and converting into a second electrical signal.
However, Messier discloses a magnetic field sensing circuit [820b, fig. 8] coupled to a coils [106b], sensing the magnetic field generated by the coils and converting into a second electrical signal [electrical signal at 116]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Candage in view of Gruber by incorporating a magnetic field sensing circuit as taught in Messier in order to generate an output signal having a magnitude proportional to the difference in magnetic fields induced by two currents.
Regarding claim 10, Candage discloses an isolation device [160, fig. 1], receiving a differential signal [SIGA/SIGB] transmitted by a transmission terminal [150 terminal], comprising: a plurality of pads [278-1~278-3]; a noise sensing circuit [262] electrically coupled to pad, sensing a capacitor current [capacitive pad 278-3] generated by the pad to convert into a first electrical signal [262] and wherein a capacitor [278-1~278-3] to sense a total voltage change of the differential signal. Candage does not explicitly disclose a plurality of coils generating a magnetic field in response to the received differential signal and the plurality of pads coupled to the coils; wherein a first metal layer of the metal layers is located at a junction of the coils, and a second metal layer of the metal layers is positioned below the first metal layer, the first and the second metal layers forming a capacitor to sense a total voltage change of the differential signal; a noise sensing circuit, electrically coupled to the second metal layer, sensing a capacitor current generated by the second metal layer to convert into a first electrical signal; and a magnetic field sensing circuit, coupled to the coils, sensing the magnetic fields generated by the coils and converting into a second electrical signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gruber discloses a plurality of coils [45A/45B, fig. 4B] generating a magnetic field [par. 0037, fig. 4C] in response to received differential signal, a plurality of pads [13A/13B, fig. ] coupled to the coils [45A/45B, fig. 4B]; a metal layer [a first layer, in which an electrically conductive element 14 is arranged, par. 0022, fig. 1A] located beneath a third pad [pad 13, fig. 1] of the pads, the metal layer and the third pad forming a capacitor [Cg2, fig. 1A]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Candage by incorporating plurality of coils to pads of Candage [fig. 1] as taught in Gruber in order to to a ensure common-mode rejection. Candage in view of Gruber does not explicitly disclose a magnetic field sensing circuit coupled to the coils, sensing the magnetic field generated by the coils and converting into a second electrical signal.
However, Messier discloses a magnetic field sensing circuit [820b, fig. 8] coupled to a coils [106b], sensing the magnetic field generated by the coils and converting into a second electrical signal [electrical signal at 116]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Candage in view of Gruber by incorporating a magnetic field sensing circuit as taught in Messier in order to generate an output signal having a magnitude proportional to the difference in magnetic fields induced by two currents.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Candage in view of Gruber further in view of Messier discloses all the features with respect to claims 1 and 10 as outlined above. Candage in view of Gruber further in view of Messier further discloses the number of the coils is an even number [2 coils, fig. 1B]. Candage in view of Gruber further in view of Messier does not explicitly disclose the coils are substantially of the same size. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have used the claimed range since such a size, absent any criticality (i.e. unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), is generally achievable through routine optimization/experimentation, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, involves only routing skill in the art, In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e. unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 12-16 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.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 7 and 12, Candage in view of Gruber and Messier does not disclose wherein the isolation device is coupled to a third recovery circuit, the third recovery circuit comprising: a subtraction circuit coupled to the noise sensing circuit and the magnetic field sensing circuit, the subtraction circuit generating a subtraction result based on the first electrical signal from the noise sensing circuit and the second electrical signal from the magnetic field sensing circuit; and a demodulation circuit coupled to the subtraction circuit, the demodulation circuit demodulating the subtraction result of the subtraction circuit to generate an output voltage.
Regarding claim 13, Candage in view of Gruber and Messier further discloses the magnetic field sensing circuit comprises a magnetic field sensing element, comprising a coil or a Hall element, but silent with wherein the noise sensing circuit is a current-to-voltage conversion circuit, the current-to-voltage conversion circuit comprising a resistor or a transimpedance amplifier.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Candage in view of Gruber and Messier does not disclose wherein the isolation device is coupled to a first recovery circuit, the first recovery circuit comprising: a comparison circuit electrically coupled to the noise sensing circuit, the comparison circuit generating a comparison result based on the first electrical signal; a demodulation circuit electrically coupled to the magnetic field sensing circuit, the demodulation circuit demodulating the second electrical signal into a demodulated signal; and an adjustment circuit electrically coupled to the comparison circuit and the demodulation circuit, the adjustment circuit determining whether an output signal of the adjustment circuit follows the demodulated signal or discards the demodulated signal based on the comparison result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KAERIYAMA (US 20140325322 A1), Latham (US 9958482 A1), and Chang et al. (US 20170207655 A1) teach features similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to METASEBIA T RETEBO whose telephone number is (571)272-9299. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30 - 5.
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 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.
/METASEBIA T RETEBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights