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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/22/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 2, 6-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. 11,705,930 (this patent is cited in the 8/22/2024 IDS). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of U.S. 11,705,930 claims the subject matter claimed by claims 2, 6-7.
The calibration signal of claim 6 of U.S. 11,705,930 corresponds to the first signal
of claim 2 and the diagnostic signal of claim 6 of U.S. 11,705,930 corresponds to the second signal of claim 2.
Claims 2, 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. 11,705,930. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 16 of U.S. 11,705,930 claims the subject matter claimed by claims 2 and 5.
The calibration signal of claim 16 of U.S. 11,705,930 corresponds to the first
signal of claim 2 and the diagnostic signal of claim 16 of U.S. 11,705,930 corresponds to the second signal of claim 2.
Claims 2-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. 12,107,610. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-4 of U.S. 12,107,610 respectively claim the subject matter claimed by claims 2-5.
The calibration signal of claim 1 of U.S. 12,107,610 corresponds to the first
signal of claim 2 and the digital diagnostic signal of claim 1 of U.S. 12,107,610 corresponds to the second signal of claim 2.
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 2-8 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, lines 6 the recited “the first signal” lacks antecedent basis in the
claim. Claim 2 does not previously claim “a first signal”.
Dependent claims 3-8 are also rejected since they depend on rejected claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 are allowed.
The prior art of the record does not teach or suggest alone or in combination: An isolator device comprising: second circuitry configurable, in response to the second signal, to program the receiver signal path based on the second signal, as recited in claim 9 and in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 9.
Claims 16-21 are allowed.
The prior art of the record does not teach or suggest alone or in combination: An isolator product comprising: a receiver signal path including a first gain stage and a second gain stage, circuitry coupled to the receiver signal path, when the isolator product is in a normal mode of operation, to operate one or more of the first gain stage and the second gain stage based on a value of the second signal measured while the isolator product was configured in the diagnostic mode of operation, as recited in claim 16 and in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shrestha (U.S. 9,680,528) refer to at least Fig. 2 Common Mode Suppression blocks used in receivers.
Candage (U.S. 9,998,076) refer to at least Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.
Rehman et al. (U.S. 2020/0136869) (cited in the 8/22/2024 IDS) disclose compensation operations in the state diagram of Fig. 7 performed in the system of Fig. 5. Cross-talk (error) between isolation channels compensation adjusts capacitors CT1 and CT2 using CTUNE signal. The compensation is not performed in a receiver signal path of a first integrated circuit die or a second integrated circuit die. Fig. 3 discloses a cross-talk suppression block 340. A DC offset calibration is also performed “in the circuit 500, disabling the buffer 532 to block external input signals and then adjusting a threshold of the detector 536 to cancel a residual DC offset input signal (e.g., to compensate for capacitor mismatch, or other circuit and/or signal variations.)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA VLAHOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M 8:00-4:00, TWRF 8:00-2:00.
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, SAM K AHN can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
SOPHIA VLAHOS
Examiner
Art Unit 2633
/SOPHIA VLAHOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633 12/4/2025