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 statements submitted on 11/24/2024 and 7/07/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-13 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 1, the phrase current-mirror "like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-13 inherit the same from claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "V1I1" in line 4. Is this supposed to be a mathematical operation or a parameter or just a name or label?
Claim 4 recites the limitation "R11M" in line 2. Is this supposed to be a mathematical operation or a parameter or just a name or label?
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation "its stable region" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What stable region?
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayahsi et al. (US 8476967) in view of Lakshmikumar et al. (US 5646518).
Claim 1, 2, 7 and 10; Kobayahsi et al. disclose a current-mirror voltage source comprises: a first NMOS (13) and a second NMOS (14), having drains coupled to a first voltage source; and an operational amplifier (111), having an output terminal coupled to gates of the first NMOS and the second NMOS (13, 14), a negative input terminal coupled (211) to a source of the first NMOS (13) to form a negative feedback loop, and a positive input terminal coupled (102) to a source of the second NMOS (14) to form a positive feedback loop; wherein the operational amplifier (111) is powered by a second voltage source, to operate the first NMOS (13) and the second NMOS (14), and thereby the current-mirror voltage source outputs a load current mirrored from a first current.
However, Kobayahsi et al. does not disclose the operational amplifier (111) is powered by a second voltage source that is greater than the first voltage source, to operate the first NMOS (13) and the second NMOS (14) in their saturation region.
Lakshmikumar et al. teach that a power supply for an operational amplifier 120 should provide sufficient power so that operational amplifier 120 may provide sufficient feedback to circuit 300 so that components 180, 160 and 170 are operating in their saturation region and components 140 and 150 are operating in their active region during circuit operation over a range of operating conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Kobayahsi et al. to include a second voltage source that is greater than the first voltage source, to operate the first NMOS and the second NMOS in their saturation region as explicitly taught by Lakshmikumar et al.
Claims 3 and 4; V=IR; thus, R221=V221/I221; M=ratio of 13 to 14. Load connected to 222 and NMOS 14 source.
Claim 5; it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (e.g. providing power to a load device such as a ring oscillator) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1674 (1987).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Kobayahsi et al. and Lakshmikumar et al. to include a ring oscillator as a load in order to provide the oscillator with the proper power requirements that it requires for operation.
Claim 11; the source of NMOS 14 is directly coupled to the load without passing through any transistors.
Claim 12; current mirror 112.
Claim 13; MOS 12.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayahsi et al. and Lakshmikumar et al. in view of Capici et al. (US 5939867) and further in view of McDonald et al. (US 20040160281)
Kobayahsi et al. and Lakshmikumar et al. disclose the claimed subject matter in regards to claim 1 supra, except for a charge pump for pumping the first voltage source to the second voltage source; and a low-pass filter at an output terminal of the charge pump, to filter the second voltage source and to couple the filtered second voltage source to the operational amplifier.
Capici et al. teaches that it is known in the art to use a charge pump circuit 2 for supplying a boosted voltage VCP to an operational amplifier OP in order to supply a higher voltage to the amplifier than the input supply voltage can deliver.
McDonald et al. that it is known in the art that a low pass filter that usually follows a charge pump in order to automatically reduce switching noise, generated by the charge pump, by the operation of the low pass filter.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Kobayahsi et al. and Lakshmikumar et al. to include a charge pump for pumping the first voltage source to the second voltage source; and a low-pass filter at an output terminal of the charge pump, to filter the second voltage source and to couple the filtered second voltage source to the operational amplifier in order to supply a boosted voltage VCP to an operational amplifier OP in order to supply a higher voltage to the amplifier than the input supply voltage can deliver, as taught by Capici et al. and to automatically reduce switching noise, generated by the charge pump, by the operation of the low pass filter as taught by McDonald et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 GARY L LAXTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2079. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 am-4 pm.
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, Crystal Hammond can be reached at 571-270-1682. 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.
/GARY L LAXTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 9/03/2026
Prosecution Insights