Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/786,120

ANALOG TO DIGITAL CONVERTER WITH VCO-BASED AND PIPELINED QUANTIZERS

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jul 26, 2024
Examiner
MAI, LAM T
Art Unit
2845
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
96%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 9m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 96% — above average
96%
Career Allow Rate
963 granted / 1003 resolved
+28.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+0.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 9m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
1023
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
14.2%
-25.8% vs TC avg
§103
17.4%
-22.6% vs TC avg
§102
30.6%
-9.4% vs TC avg
§112
13.9%
-26.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1003 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No.USP 11,438,007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,438,007 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: receiving an analog input signal at an input terminal; converting the analog input signal to a digital signal in a frequency domain by a Delta-Sigma ADC circuit that includes a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO); converting the digital signal in the frequency domain to an analog output signal by a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) circuit; extracting an error component of the analog output signal; converting the error component of the analog output signal to a digital error signal; and summing the digital signal in the frequency domain and the digital error signal to produce a digital output signal corresponding to the analog input signal. Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No.USP 11,438,007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,438,007 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein converting the analog input signal to the first digital signal in the frequency domain includes applying the analog input signal to a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO). Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No.USP 11,438,007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,438,007 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: applying a first gain factor to a negative of the error component by a transimpedance amplifier; and applying an inverse of the first gain factor to the digital error signal. Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No.USP 11,438,007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,438,007 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: delaying the first digital signal before summing the first digital signal and the digital error signal. Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No.USP 11,438,007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,438,007 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: amplifying (amplify function is part of converting error component) a negative of the error component. Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No.USP 11,438,007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,438,007 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: filtering (filtering function is part of converting error component) before summing. Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No.USP 11,438,007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,438,007 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: an input terminal configured to receive an analog input signal; a Delta-Sigma ADC circuit coupled to the input terminal, wherein the Delta- Sigma ADC is configured to convert the analog input signal to a digital signal in a frequency domain, and wherein the Delta-Sigma ADC circuit comprises a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO); a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) circuit connected to the Delta-Sigma ADC, wherein the DSC circuit is configured to convert the digital signal in the frequency domain to an analog output signal; a first summation circuit configured to extract an error component of the analog output signal; a first ADC circuit connected to the first summation circuit, wherein the second ADC circuit is configured to convert the error component of the analog output signal to a digital error signal; and a second summation circuit connected to the first ADC circuit, wherein the second summation circuit is configured to determine a sum of the digital signal in the frequency domain and the digital error signal to produce a digital output signal corresponding to the analog input signal. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No.USP 11,438,007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,438,007 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: first ADC circuit is a pipelined ADC. Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No.USP 11,438,007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,438,007 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a digital filter coupled to receive an output of the first ADC circuit, wherein the digital signal includes a noise transfer function, and wherein the digital filter comprises a digital filter function matching the noise transfer function to remove harmonic distortion from the digital signal. Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No.USP 11,438,007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,438,007 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a transimpedance amplifier connected to an output terminal of the summation block, and wherein the first ADC is connected to an output of the transimpedance amplifier. Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No.USP 11,438,007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,438,007 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the transimpedance amplifier is configured to apply a first gain factor to a negative of the error component, and wherein the ADC further comprises: a second amplifier coupled between the first ADC circuit and the second summation circuit, the second amplifier configured to apply an inverse of the first gain factor to the second digital signal. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No.USP 11,438,007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,438,007 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a delay circuit coupled between the Delta-Sigma ADC circuit and the second summation circuit. Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No.USP 11,438,007. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,438,007 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: the error component is filtered (filtering function is part of first ADC function) before summing. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No.USP 12,143,126. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12,143,126 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: receiving an analog input signal at an input terminal; converting the analog input signal to a digital signal in a frequency domain by a Delta-Sigma ADC circuit that includes a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO); converting the digital signal in the frequency domain to an analog output signal by a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) circuit; extracting an error component of the analog output signal; converting the error component of the analog output signal to a digital error signal; and summing the digital signal in the frequency domain and the digital error signal to produce a digital output signal corresponding to the analog input signal. Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No.USP 12,143,126. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12,143,126 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein converting the analog input signal to the first digital signal in the frequency domain includes applying the analog input signal to a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO). Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No.USP 12,143,126. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12,143,126 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: applying a first gain factor to a negative of the error component by a transimpedance amplifier; and applying an inverse of the first gain factor to the digital error signal. Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No.USP 12,143,126. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12,143,126 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: delaying the first digital signal before summing the first digital signal and the digital error signal. Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No.USP 12,143,126. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12,143,126 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein converting the error component of the analog output signal to the digital error signal comprises converting the error component of the analog output signal to the digital error signal using a pipelined ADC. Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No.USP 12,143,126. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,438,007 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: amplifying (amplify function is part of converting error component) a negative of the error component. Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No.USP 12,143,126. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,438,007 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: filtering (filtering function is part of converting error component) before summing. Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No.USP 12,143,126. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12,143,126 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: an input terminal configured to receive an analog input signal; a Delta-Sigma ADC circuit coupled to the input terminal, wherein the Delta- Sigma ADC is configured to convert the analog input signal to a digital signal in a frequency domain, and wherein the Delta-Sigma ADC circuit comprises a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO); a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) circuit connected to the Delta-Sigma ADC, wherein the DSC circuit is configured to convert the digital signal in the frequency domain to an analog output signal; a first summation circuit configured to extract an error component of the analog output signal; a first ADC circuit connected to the first summation circuit, wherein the second ADC circuit is configured to convert the error component of the analog output signal to a digital error signal; and a second summation circuit connected to the first ADC circuit, wherein the second summation circuit is configured to determine a sum of the digital signal in the frequency domain and the digital error signal to produce a digital output signal corresponding to the analog input signal. Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No.USP 12,143,126. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12,143,126 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a digital filter coupled to receive an output of the first ADC circuit, wherein the digital signal includes a noise transfer function, and wherein the digital filter comprises a digital filter function matching the noise transfer function to remove harmonic distortion from the digital signal. Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No.USP 12,143,126. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12,143,126 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a transimpedance amplifier connected to an output terminal of the summation block, and wherein the first ADC is connected to an output of the transimpedance amplifier. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No.USP 12,143,126. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 12,143,126 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a delay circuit coupled between the Delta-Sigma ADC circuit and the second summation circuit. Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No.USP 12,143,126. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,438,007 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: filtering (filtering function is part of converting error component) before summing. Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No.USP 10,931,299. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 10,931,299 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: an input terminal configured to receive an analog input signal; a Delta-Sigma ADC circuit coupled to the input terminal, wherein the Delta- Sigma ADC is configured to convert the analog input signal to a digital signal in a frequency domain, and wherein the Delta-Sigma ADC circuit comprises a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO); a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) circuit connected to the Delta-Sigma ADC, wherein the DSC circuit is configured to convert the digital signal in the frequency domain to an analog output signal; a first summation circuit configured to extract an error component of the analog output signal; a first ADC circuit connected to the first summation circuit, wherein the second ADC circuit is configured to convert the error component of the analog output signal to a digital error signal; and a second summation circuit connected to the first ADC circuit, wherein the second summation circuit is configured to determine a sum of the digital signal in the frequency domain and the digital error signal to produce a digital output signal corresponding to the analog input signal. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No.USP 10,931,299. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 10,931,299 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the first ADC circuit is a pipelined ADC. Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No.USP 10,931,299. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 10,931,299 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a digital filter coupled to receive an output of the first ADC circuit, wherein the digital signal includes a noise transfer function, and wherein the digital filter comprises a digital filter function matching the noise transfer function to remove harmonic distortion from the digital signal. Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No.USP 10,931,299. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 10,931,299 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a transimpedance amplifier connected to an output terminal of the summation block, and wherein the first ADC is connected to an output of the transimpedance amplifier. Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No.USP 10,931,299. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 10,931,299 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a second amplifier coupled between the first ADC circuit and the second summation circuit, the second amplifier configured to apply an inverse of the first gain factor to the second digital signal. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No.USP 10,931,299. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 10,931,299 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a delay circuit coupled between the Delta-Sigma ADC circuit and the second summation circuit. Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No.USP 10,931,299. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 11,438,007 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: filtering (filtering function is part of converting error component) before summing. Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.USP 10,931,299. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 10,931,299 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: an input terminal configured to receive an analog input signal; a first ADC circuit coupled to the input terminal, wherein the first ADC is configured to convert the analog input signal to a digital signal in a frequency domain, and wherein the first ADC circuit comprises a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO);a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) circuit connected to the first ADC, wherein the DAC circuit is configured to convert the digital signal in the frequency domain to an analog output signal; a loop filter (act as same first summation circuit) connected to the DAC circuit, wherein the loop filter is configured to extract an error component of the analog output signal; a second ADC circuit connected to the loop filter, wherein the second ADC circuit is configured to convert the error component of the analog output signal to a digital error signal; and a summation circuit connected to the second ADC circuit, wherein the summation circuit is configured to determine a sum of the digital signal in the frequency domain and the digital error signal to produce a digital output signal corresponding to the analog input signal. Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No.USP 10,931,299. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 10,931,299 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the second ADC circuit is a pipelined ADC. Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No.USP 10,931,299. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 10,931,299 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a digital filter coupled to receive an output of the second ADC circuit, wherein the digital signal includes a noise transfer function, and wherein the digital filter comprises a digital filter function matching the noise transfer function to remove harmonic distortion from the digital signal. Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No.USP 10,931,299. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 10,931,299 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a transimpedance amplifier connected to an output terminal of the first summation block, and wherein the second ADC is connected to an output of the transimpedance amplifier. Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No.USP 10,931,299. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 10,931,299 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a second amplifier coupled between the second ADC circuit and the second summation circuit, the second amplifier configured to apply an inverse of the first gain factor to the second digital signal. Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No.USP 10,931,299. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of USP 10,931,299 discloses similar function and limitations as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a delay circuit coupled between the Delta-Sigma ADC circuit and the second summation circuit. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM T MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-2pm 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, Dameon Levi can be reached at 571 272-2105. 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. /LAM T MAI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 26, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603659
DEVICE AND METHODS FOR RECONFIGURABLE ANALOG INPUT MONITORING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603661
ANALOG-TO-DIGITAL CONVERTER, ADC, A METHOD FOR CONTROLLING SAID ADC, AND A METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A DIGITAL-ANALOG-CONVERTER FOR SAID ADC
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597944
TOP-DOWN RELATIVE DAC CALIBRATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597945
MACHINE LEARNING ENHANCED RESOLVER SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597942
ANALOG-TO-DIGITAL CONVERTER, TOUCH SENSING CHIP AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
96%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+0.6%)
1y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1003 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month