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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s amendments, filed May 19, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC §112(b) rejection of claims 5 and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §112(b) rejections of February 19, 2026 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach each and every element of claims 1 and 6.
Applicant argues the prior art of Stroberger that “nothing in Fig. 2 or the accompanying text describes a feedback enable/disable is triggered after a one-shot shifting is achieved.” Additionally, the applicant argues the prior art of Stroberger “shows a gradually adjusting voltage and current, not a state change one-shot shifting.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in amended claim 1, “the feedback component is configured for feeding back the third voltage level only after the feedforward component has achieved the one-shot shifting”, and in amended claim 6, “feeding back the third voltage level is performed only after the one-shot shifting has been achieved”, Stroberger discloses, as shown in Fig. 2, the feedback occurs after the feedforward path (Vin thru Q0 to Vo) provides an immediate control in response to an input command. Stroberger does not disclose any "gradual" or continuous transition in the feedforward path. The feedforward signal applies directly to the switching element Q0 resulting in the one-time shift in the output voltage. The feedback occurs after the one-shot feedforward shift.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 (line 4) recites "opposite to an input signal, IN". It appears the "an" should be a "the" since this claim now depends on claim 4.
Claim 12 (line 4) recites "opposite to the input signal, IN". It appears the "the" should be an "a" since this claim depends on claim 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant is reminded that claim mapping is provided as a courtesy to the applicant, but applicant should consider a reference as a whole, as the entire reference gives context to mapped sections.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stroberger (US 4700087 A); hereinafter Stroberger.
Regarding Claim 1, Stroberger discloses an electronic device for shifting a voltage level [Fig. 2], the device comprising: a feedforward component [20] configured for one-shot shifting a first voltage level [Vin] of a first domain [-Vee/ground] to a third voltage level [Vo] of a third domain [Vcc/ground] via at least one second voltage level [the voltage at the node between R4 and Q3] of at least one second domain [Vcc/-Vee], wherein the third voltage level is different from the first voltage level [column 4, lines 6-18], wherein the at least one second voltage level is different from the first voltage level and from the third voltage level; and a feedback component [R5/R6] configured for feeding back the third voltage level from the third domain to the at least one second domain, wherein the feedback component is configured for feeding back the third voltage level only after the feedforward component has achieved the one-shot shifting [column 4, lines 35-63].
Regarding Claim 3, Stroberger discloses the claimed invention except for the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one second voltage level comprises a plurality of intermediate voltage levels so that the feedforward component spans at least four voltage levels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to comprise a plurality of intermediate voltage levels so that the feedforward component spans at least four voltage levels, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 6, Stroberger discloses a method for shifting a voltage level [Fig. 2], the method comprising: in a feedforward operation [Fig. 20]: one-shot shifting a first voltage level [Vin] of a first domain [-Vee/ground] to a third voltage level [Vo] of a third domain [Vcc/ground] via at least one second voltage level [the voltage at the node between R4 and Q3] of at least one second domain [Vcc/-Vee], wherein the third voltage level is different from the first voltage level [column 4, lines 6-18], wherein the at least one second voltage level is different from the first voltage level and from the third voltage level; and in a feedback operation [R5/R6]: feeding back the third voltage level from the third domain to the at least one second domain, wherein feeding back the third voltage level is performed only after the one-shot shifting has been achieved [column 4, lines 35-63].
Regarding Claim 8, Stroberger discloses the claimed invention except for the method according to claim 6, wherein the at least one second voltage level comprises a plurality of intermediate voltage levels so that the feedforward operation spans at least four voltage levels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to comprise a plurality of intermediate voltage levels so that the feedforward operation spans at least four voltage levels, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 9-12 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 4 and 9 are allowed because the prior art of the record does not disclose nor render obvious the structure and method of wherein the feedforward component comprises a first controllable current path controlled by: a set signal, SET, corresponding to an input signal, IN; and a primary output signal, OUTP2, supplied from the second domain, wherein the first controllable current path is configured to impose the set signal, SET, onto a primary voltage signal, OUTP3, of the third domain, and wherein the feedback component comprises a second controllable current path controlled by the primary voltage signal, OUTP3, and configured to feed the primary voltage signal, OUTP3, back to the primary output signal, OUTP2, of the second domain, as cited with the rest of the claimed limitation. Dependent claims are allowed.
Claims 11 and 12 are allowed because the prior art of the record does not disclose nor render obvious the structure and method of wherein the feedforward component comprises a controllable current path controlled by: a reset signal, RESET, opposite to an input signal, IN; and a secondary output signal, OUTN2, supplied from the second domain, wherein the controllable current path is configured to impose the reset signal, RESET, onto a secondary voltage signal, OUTN3, of the third domain, and wherein the feedback component comprises another controllable current path controlled by the secondary voltage signal, OUTN3, and configured to feed the secondary voltage signal, OUTN3, back to the secondary output signal, OUTN2, of the second domain, as cited with the rest of the claimed limitation.
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 Amit Bhatia whose telephone number is (571)272-4410. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm EST.
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.
/Amit R Bhatia/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
/REGIS J BETSCH/SPE, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights