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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-11 and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 18, 2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in South Korea on November 17, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2023-0159665 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: “330” (Fig. 3) and “t06” (Fig. 9). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference characters in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On Paragraph 78, line 6, replace “an a second input stage” with “and a second input 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 2 and 21 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 2 recites the limitation "the slew rate compensation circuit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the limitation to “the slew rate compensating circuit” is sufficient to overcome this rejection, which is how the limitation will be treated for examination purposes.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the first resistor” in lines 7 and 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the limitation to “the first resistor provided” is sufficient to overcome this rejection, which is how the limitation will be treated for examination purposes.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 discloses that the slew rate compensating circuit provides the compensation circuit based on the voltage difference between the input voltage and the output voltage. However, claim 1 discloses that the slew rate compensating circuit generates the compensation current proportional to the voltage difference between the input voltage and the output voltage. Therefore, all of the features of claim 2 are broader than the corresponding features in claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 fails to further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(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 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (Patent Publication Number US 2015/0084694 A1), as cited by applicant, hereafter referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses:
A buffer circuit (Lee, Fig. 1, 10) comprising: an operational amplifier (Fig. 1, 100) configured to output an output voltage (Fig. 1, VOUT) based on a voltage of a first output node (Fig. 1, consider voltage at connection between ICOMP_PUSH and 130) and a voltage of a second output node (Fig. 1, consider voltage at connection between ICOMP_PULL and 130) which vary in response to an input voltage of the operational amplifier (Fig. 1, consider connection between VIN and ICOMP_PUSH/ICOMP_PULL via 160); and a slew rate compensating circuit (Fig. 1, 160) configured to receive the input voltage and the output voltage (Fig. 1, see connection between 160 and VIN and VOUT), generate a compensation current (Fig. 1, consider currents ICOMP_PUSH and ICOMP_PULL) which is proportional to a voltage difference between the input voltage and the output voltage (Paragraph 65, lines 3-8), and supply the compensation current to the first output node (Fig. 1, ICOMP_PUSH) or the second output node (Fig. 1, ICOMP_PULL).
Regarding claim 2, Lee further discloses:
wherein the slew rate compensation circuit is further configured to provide the compensation current (Lee, Fig. 1, consider currents ICOMP_PUSH and ICOMP_PULL), based on the voltage difference occurring between the input voltage and the output voltage (Paragraph 65, lines 3-8).
Regarding claim 3, Lee further discloses:
wherein the operational amplifier is further configured to drop the output voltage based on the voltage of the first output node (Lee, Paragraph 97, lines 16-18, consider Fig. 6 and node NCU couples ICOMP_PUSH to 130) and raise the output voltage based on the voltage of the second output node (Paragraph 100, lines 16-18, consider Fig. 6 and node NCD couples ICOMP_PULL to 130), and based on the input voltage being greater than the output voltage, the slew rate compensating circuit is further configured to supply the compensation current to the first output node to suppress a decrease of the output voltage (Paragraph 97, lines 16-18, consider Fig. 6 and node NCU couples ICOMP_PUSH to 130), and based on the input voltage being less than the output voltage, supply the compensation current to the second output node to suppress an increase of the output voltage (Paragraph 100, lines 16-18, consider Fig. 6 and node NCD couples ICOMP_PULL to 130).
Regarding claim 4, Lee further discloses:
wherein the compensation current which is supplied to the first output node comprises a first compensation current (Lee, Fig. 1, ICOMP_PUSH) that sinks the current of the first output node to suppress the decrease of the output voltage (Paragraph 97, lines 16-18), and wherein the compensation current which is supplied to the second output node comprises a second compensation current (Fig. 1, ICOMP_PULL) provided to the second output node to suppress the increase of the output voltage (Paragraph 100, lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 5, Lee further discloses:
wherein the slew rate compensating circuit comprises: a current generator (Lee, Fig. 5, 162) configured to receive the input voltage and the output voltage (Fig. 5, see connection between 162 and VIN and VOUT) and generate a current proportional to the voltage difference between the input voltage and the output voltage (Paragraph 81, lines 1-5), and a compensation current generator (Fig. 5, 164 and 166) configured to perform an operation of a current mirror and generate the compensation current (Paragraph 81, lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 12, Lee further discloses:
wherein the operational amplifier comprises: an input stage (Lee, Fig. 1, 110) configured to receive the input voltage and the output voltage (Fig. 1, see connection between 110 and VIN and VOUT) and determine a magnitude difference between the input voltage and the output voltage (Paragraph 66, lines 2-4), a load stage (Fig. 1, 130) configured to generate load currents corresponding to the magnitude difference between the input voltage and the output voltage (Paragraph 66, lines 7-10) and supply the load currents from the first output node and the second output node to the input stage (Paragraph 66, lines 10-11), and an output stage (Fig. 1, 150) configured to generate the output voltage based on voltages of the first output node and the second output node (Fig. 1, see connection between 150 and ICOMP_PUSH and ICOMP_PULL).
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 6-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 5 above (for claims 6-8) or no above claim (for claim 21), and further in view of Levin et al. (Patent Publication Number US 2003/0146775 A1), hereafter referred to as Levin.
Regarding claim 6, Lee further discloses:
wherein the current generator comprises: a first amplifier (Lee, Fig. 6, MN16) comprising a first input stage to which the input voltage is applied (Fig. 6, see connection between gate of MN16 and VIN), a second input stage connected to a first node (Fig. 6, consider source of MN16), and an output stage configured to output the input voltage (Fig. 6, consider drain of MN16), a second amplifier (Fig. 6, MP16) which comprises a first input stage to which the input voltage is applied (Fig. 6, see connection between gate of MP16 and VIN), a second input stage connected to a second node (Fig. 6, consider source of MP16), and an output stage configured to output the input voltage (Fig. 6, consider drain of MP16), but fails to disclose a first resistor which is connected between an output node configured to output the output voltage and the first node, and a second resistor which is connected between the output node and the second node.
However, Levin teaches a first resistor (Levin, Fig. 5, 460) which is connected between an output node configured to output the output voltage and the first node (Fig. 5, see connection between 420-1 and output 440 via resistor 460), and a second resistor (Fig. 5, 450) which is connected between the output node and the second node (Fig. 5, see connection between 410-1 and output 440 via resistor 450).
Lee and Levin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving slew rate compensation of amplifiers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Levin to include the resistors of Levin in the circuit of Lee, which would have the effect of providing compensation for resistive variation of output devices (Levin, Paragraph 41, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Levin further discloses:
wherein based on the input voltage being greater than the output voltage, a current proportional to the voltage difference between the input voltage and the output voltage flows in the first resistor (Lee, Paragraph 98, lines 1-11, consider first resistor of Levin as coupled between MN16 and VOUT of Fig. 6 of Lee) and based on the input voltage being less than the output voltage, a current proportional to the voltage difference between the input voltage and the output voltage flows in the second resistor (Paragraph 101, lines 1-11, consider second resistor of Levin as coupled between MP16 and VOUT of Fig. 6 of Lee).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Levin further discloses:
wherein the operational amplifier is further configured to drop the output voltage based on the voltage of the first output node (Lee, Paragraph 97, lines 16-18, consider Fig. 6 and node NCU couples ICOMP_PUSH to 130) and raise the output voltage based on the voltage of the second output node (Paragraph 100, lines 16-18, consider Fig. 6 and node NCD couples ICOMP_PULL to 130), and the compensation current generator is further configured to perform the operation of the current mirror for the current which flows in the first resistor (Paragraph 81, lines 5-11, consider the first resistor of Levin as coupled between MN16 and VOUT of Fig. 6 of Lee), supply the compensation current to the first output node (Fig. 1, consider ICOMP_PUSH), perform the operation of the current mirror for the current which flows in the second resistor (Paragraph 81, lines 5-11, consider second resistor of Levin as coupled between MP16 and VOUT of Fig. 6 of Lee), and supply the compensation current to the second output node (Fig. 1, consider ICOMP_PULL).
Regarding claim 21, Lee discloses:
A buffer circuit (Lee, Fig. 1, 10) comprising: an operational amplifier (Fig. 1, 100) comprising an input node configured to receive an input voltage (Fig. 1, VIN) and an output node configured to receive an output voltage (Fig. 1, VOUT); and a slew rate compensating circuit (Fig. 1, 160) comprising: a first mirror circuit (Fig. 6, 164) connected to the first opposite end node (Fig. 6, see connection between 164 and MN16) and configured to mirror a rising compensation current flowing through the first resistor based on a difference between the input voltage and the output voltage (Paragraph 81, lines 5-8); and a second mirror circuit (Fig. 6, 166) connected to the second opposite end node (Fig. 6, see connection between 166 and MP16) and configured to mirror a falling compensation current flowing through the second resistor based on a difference between the input voltage and the output voltage (Paragraph 81, lines 8-11), but fails to disclose a first resistor provided and a second resistor connected in series with a common junction node between the first resistor provided and the second resistor, wherein the first resistor and the second resistor comprise a first opposite end node and a second opposite end node which are provided opposite to the common junction node, respectively.
However, Levin teaches a first resistor provided (Levin, Fig. 5, 460) and a second resistor (Fig. 5, 450) connected in series with a common junction node between the first resistor provided and the second resistor (Fig. 5, see node coupling 450 and 460), wherein the first resistor and the second resistor comprise a first opposite end node and a second opposite end node which are provided opposite to the common junction node, respectively (Fig. 5, see connections between 450 and 410-1 and 460 and 420-1).
Lee and Levin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving slew rate compensation of amplifiers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Levin to include the resistors of Levin in the circuit of Lee, which would have the effect of providing compensation for resistive variation of output devices (Levin, Paragraph 41, lines 1-5).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Levin as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wang (Patent Number US 11,081,036 B1), as cited by applicant, hereafter referred to as Wang.
Regarding claim 9, Lee and Levin fail to disclose:
wherein based on the input voltage being greater than the output voltage, the first amplifier is further configured to be enabled by a first enable signal, and based on the input voltage being less than the output voltage, the second amplifier is further configured to be enabled by a second enable signal.
However, Wang teaches wherein based on the input voltage being greater than the output voltage, the first amplifier is further configured to be enabled by a first enable signal (Col. 9, lines 60-65), and based on the input voltage being less than the output voltage, the second amplifier is further configured to be enabled by a second enable signal (Col. 10, lines 7-11).
Lee, Levin, and Wang are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving slew rate compensation of amplifiers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Wang to use enable signals to control the slew rate compensation of Lee, which would have the effect of providing a well-known implementation method for controlling the enablement of amplifiers (Wang, Col. 9, lines 60-65 and Col. 10, lines 7-11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moon et al. (Patent Publication Number KR 2022/0155170 A) discloses (Fig. 11) a slew rate compensation circuit including current mirrors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance T Bartol whose telephone number is (703)756-1267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. CT, Alternating Fridays 6:30 - 3:00.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. 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.
/LANCE TORBJORN BARTOL/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843