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 16-17 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 16 recites the limitations "an isolation circuit...a first isolation unit...a received input modulation signal...a differential signal...a second isolation unit...an output modulation signal" in lines 4-7. The claim as written is unclear. The recited limitations have been previously introduced in claim 1, of which claim 16 depends upon. It is unclear if the claim is introducing new elements or referring to the previously introduced elements. Further clarification is necessary. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted “the digital isolator according to claim 1, comprising” to read “a digital isolator, comprising”.
By virtue of its dependency on claim 16, claim 17 is also rejected.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “a signal transmitting circuit…an input modulation signal…a signal receiving circuit” in lines 2-4. The claim as written is unclear. The recited limitations have been previously introduced in claim 1, of which claim 17 ultimately depends upon. It is unclear if the claim is introducing new elements or referring to the previously introduced elements. Further clarification is necessary. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted claim 16 to be a second independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 6, 11, & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (US 11,881,901 B2), hereinafter Dong, in view of Al-Shyoukh et al. (US 2021/0033662 A1), hereinafter Shyou.
Regarding claim 1, Dong discloses, in figure 10, a digital isolator comprising:
a signal transmitting circuit (1), a signal receiving circuit (3), and an isolation circuit coupled between the signal transmitting circuit and the signal receiving circuit (isolation circuit comprised of elements 6, 2, & 4), the isolation circuit comprising:
a first isolation unit (6, L.sub.11, & L.sub.12 of isolation element 2), configured to convert a received input modulation signal into a differential signal (Col. 7, Lines 48-53, “primary winding L.sub.11 and secondary winding L.sub.21, and primary winding L.sub.12 and secondary winding L.sub.22…differential transmission structure”);
a second isolation unit (L.sub.21 & L.sub.22 of isolation element 2 and 4), configured to provide an output modulation signal in response to receiving the differential signal (output modulation signal from 4 in response to receiving the differential signal via L.sub.21, L.sub.22, and differential amplifier 4), but fails to disclose wherein the first isolation unit and the second isolation unit have symmetrical circuit structures.
However, Shyou discloses, in figure 1 & 4, wherein the first isolation unit and the second isolation unit have symmetrical circuit structures (isolation capacitors C.sub.ISO of die 106 and isolation capacitors C.sub.ISO of die 108 constitute symmetrical circuit structures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the symmetrical structure of Shyou in the digital isolator of Dong, to achieve the benefit of ensuring a common mode transient event does not cause a differential event between differential terminals of the isolation circuit (Shyou, Para [0044]).
Regarding claim 2, Dong in view of Shyou discloses the digital isolator according to claim 1, and Dong continues to disclose, in figure 10, wherein the signal transmitting circuit is configured to shape and modulate a received input signal to generate an input modulation signal (Col. 2, Lines 40-44, “Encoding circuit 1 may receive input digital signal DIN, and can generate an encoded signal according to input digital signal DIN. The encoded signal may be a pulse signal formed by encoding the rising edges, or by falling edges of input digital signal DIN”); and
the signal receiving circuit is configured to demodulate the output modulation signal to generate an output signal (Col. 7, Lines 28-31, “Decoding circuit 3 can connect with the differential amplifier, and may receive the difference signal and decode in order to generate target digital signal DOUT.”).
Regarding claim 6, Dong in view of Shyou discloses the digital isolator according to claim 1, and Shyou continues to disclose, in figure 4, wherein each of the first isolation unit and the second isolation unit comprises:
an isolation capacitor unit (isolation capacitors C.sub.ISO of die 106 and isolation capacitors C.sub.ISO of die 108), configured to transmit the differential signal in an isolated manner (transmitted via wire bonds 114 & 116 in an isolated manner).
Regarding claim 11, Dong in view of Shyou discloses the digital isolator according to claim 1, and Shyou continues to disclose, in figure 4, wherein the first isolation unit and the second isolation unit are provided in different dies (isolation capacitors C.sub.ISO of die 106 and isolation capacitors C.sub.ISO of die 108).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection made above, Dong discloses, in figure 10, a system comprising:
a digital isolator (Fig. 10) comprising:
an isolation circuit (6, 2, 4) comprising:
a first isolation unit (6, L.sub.11, & L.sub.12 of isolation element 2), configured to convert a received input modulation signal into a differential signal (Col. 7, Lines 48-53, “primary winding L.sub.11 and secondary winding L.sub.21, and primary winding L.sub.12 and secondary winding L.sub.22…differential transmission structure”);
a second isolation unit (L.sub.21 & L.sub.22 of isolation element 2 and 4), configured to provide an output modulation signal in response to receiving the differential signal (output modulation signal from 4 in response to receiving the differential signal via L.sub.21, L.sub.22, and differential amplifier 4), but fails to disclose wherein the first isolation unit and the second isolation unit have symmetrical circuit structures;
a first circuit, configured to provide an input signal, and
s second circuit, configured to receive an output signal corresponding to the output modulation signal, wherein the first circuit and the second circuit are configured to operate at different voltage levels.
However, Shyou discloses, in figure 1 & 4, wherein the first isolation unit and the second isolation unit have symmetrical circuit structures (isolation capacitors C.sub.ISO of die 106 and isolation capacitors C.sub.ISO of die 108 constitute symmetrical circuit structures);
a first circuit (102), configured to provide an input signal (Para [0039], “Isolation channel 120 facilitates safe communication of a signal received from controller 102”), and
s second circuit (110), configured to receive an output signal corresponding to the output modulation signal (Para [0039], “Isolation channel 120 allows safe communication of signals from controller 102 to load 110 via integrated circuit die 106 and integrated circuit die 108”) , wherein the first circuit and the second circuit are configured to operate at different voltage levels (Para [0038], “controller 102, which may be a microprocessor, microcontroller, or other suitable processing device, operates in a first domain (i.e., a voltage domain including V.sub.DD1, e.g., 5 Volts (V)) and communicates with load system 110 operating in a second domain (i.e., a domain including V.sub.DD4, e.g., 150V) using isolator 104”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the structure of Shyou in the digital isolator of Dong, to achieve the benefit of preserving isolation between differing voltage domains while ensuring a common mode transient event does not cause a differential event between differential terminals of the isolation circuit (Shyou, Para [0038] & [0044]).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection made above, Dong in view of Shyou discloses the system according to claim 16, and Dong continues to disclose, in figure 10, wherein the digital isolator further comprises:
a signal transmitting circuit (1), configured to shape and modulate a received input signal to generate an input modulation signal (Col. 2, Lines 40-44, “Encoding circuit 1 may receive input digital signal DIN, and can generate an encoded signal according to input digital signal DIN. The encoded signal may be a pulse signal formed by encoding the rising edges, or by falling edges of input digital signal DIN); and
a signal receiving circuit (3), configured to demodulate the output modulation signal to generate the output signal (Col. 7, Lines 28-31, “Decoding circuit 3 can connect with the differential amplifier, and may receive the difference signal and decode in order to generate target digital signal DOUT.”).
Claims 12 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong in view Shyou as applied to claims 1-2, 6, 11, & 16-17 above, and further in view of Cojocaru et al. (US 2018/0323759 A1), hereinafter Cojo.
Regarding claim 12, Dong in view of Shyou disclose the digital isolator according to claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the signal transmitting circuit comprises a shaping unit and a modulation unit; and
the signal receiving circuit comprises a demodulation unit and a driving unit.
Hpwever, Cojo discloses, in figure 1, wherein the signal transmitting circuit comprises a shaping unit (Para [0032], “block 110 also comprises digital arbitrary waveform generator 116…that is controllable to supply any of a variety of reference waveforms, for example, a sine wave, a square wave”) and a modulation unit (Para [0022], “block 110 comprises…digital modulator 118)”; and
the signal receiving circuit comprises a demodulation unit and a driving unit (Para [0018], “block 170 performs common mode noise filtering, modulated signal receiving and demodulation, analog signal reconstruction (digital-to-analog conversion, DAC), low-pass filtering and driving of an output load in the GIA 100”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the transmitting and receiving circuits of Cojo in the digital isolator of Dong and Shyou, to achieve the benefit of implementing a digital isolator capable of passing an undistorted signal across an isolation barrier when an significant change in signal occurs between the circuitry of the digital isolator (Cojo, Para [0004]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Dong, Shyou, and Cojo disclose the digital isolator according to claim 12, and Cojo continues to disclose, in figure 1, wherein the signal transmitting circuit further comprises a first high-frequency oscillator (Para [0022], “block 110 comprises…radio-frequency local oscillator 130”), which is configured to generate a first high-frequency carrier signal (Para [0026], “RF-Osc 130 generates an RF carrier signal”).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dong, Shyou, and Cojo as applied to claims 12 & 14 above, and further in view of Dong et al. (US 2009/0243028 A1), hereinafter Dong 028.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Dong, Shyou, and Cojo disclose the digital isolator according to claim 12, but fail to disclose wherein the signal receiving circuit further comprises a second high-frequency oscillator configured to generate a second high- frequency carrier signal.
However, Dong 028 discloses, in figure 6A, wherein the signal receiving circuit further comprises a second high-frequency oscillator configured to generate a second high-frequency carrier signal (Para [0065], “output of the voltage controlled oscillator 640 is connected to a second input of the discriminator 634, this being a phase locked output that is phase locked to the data clock. The discriminator circuit 634 determines the data contained within the received signal responsive to the output of the voltage controlled oscillator 640”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the oscillator of Dong 028 in the digital isolator of Dong, Shyou, and Cojo, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions [i.e., utilizing a carrier signal with the modulated signal to provide the data output of the receiver via the demodulator of receiver], and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-10, & 13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J PERENY whose telephone number is (571)272-4189. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at 571-272-1988. 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.
/TYLER J PERENY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2842