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 3-6 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.
The use of abbreviation “VT” in “a low VT inverter”, “a high VT PMOS” and “a high VT NMOS” in claims 3-6 is unclear and the abbreviation “VT” should be a word.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (US 2020/0327927, hereinafter “Kumar”).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar (Fig. 4) shows an integrated circuit system (memory device 50a) for management of process corners comprising:
an electronic device (71), the electronic device having one or more transistors (Fig. 1); and
a voltage management circuit (60), the voltage management circuit electrically coupled to the electronic device and having one or more transistors (62 and 63) configured to manage a behavior of a voltage of the electronic device (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 8, Kumar (Fig. 4A) shows the integrated circuit system of claim 1, wherein the electronic device comprises a memory (71).
Regarding claim 9, Kumar (Fig. 4A) shows the integrated circuit system of claim 8, wherein the memory comprises an SRAM memory (71, SRAM core).
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poon et al. (US 2006/0072258, hereinafter “Poon”).
Regarding claim 1, Poon discloses an integrated circuit system (paragraphs [0001 and [0002]) for management of process corners comprising:
an electronic device (Fig. 1, 18), the electronic device having one or more transistors (paragraphs [0005] and [0006]); and
a voltage management circuit (Figs. 1 and 5, ESD device 100), the voltage management circuit electrically coupled to the electronic device and having one or more transistors (Fig. 5, clamp circuit 100 comprising transistors 130-172) configured to manage a behavior of a voltage of the electronic device (paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 2, Poon discloses the integrated circuit system of claim 1, wherein the voltage management circuit comprises at least one of a clamp high circuit and a clamp low circuit (paragraph [0041])
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 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. in view of Badaroglu et al. (US 2023/0115373, hereinafter “Badaroglu”).
The only difference between claim 10 Kumar is that the electronic device comprises a single ended sense amplifier. However, Badaroglu discloses an SRAM device comprising a single-ended sense amplifier in each column of memory cells to sense data from the memory cell of the SRAM device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an SRAM device comprising a single-ended sense amplifier to sense data from the memory cell of the SRAM device.
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach the claimed limitation of “wherein the voltage management circuit comprises a first clamp high circuit electrically coupled to a clamp low circuit and the low clamp circuit being electrically coupled to a second clam high circuit.” in combination with the other limitations thereof as is recited in the claim.
Claims 12-17 are allowed.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach the claimed limitation of “electrically coupling a port out of the second integrated circuit cell to a port in of a third integrated circuit cell, the first integrated circuit cell being a clamp high circuit, the second integrated circuit cell being a clamp low circuit, and the third integrated circuit cell being a clamp high circuit; and electrically coupling a port out of the third integrated circuit cell to an electronic device.” in combination with the other limitations thereof as is recited in the claim. Claims 13-17 depend on claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUAN HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM-4:00PM M-F.
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, AMIR ZARABIAN can be reached at 571-272-1852. 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.
/HUAN HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2827
Prosecution Insights