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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 2-12, in the reply filed on 04/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The newly added limitation “wherein the body bias ladder comprises a sequence of body inductors, each coupled across body terminals of adjacent FETs, the sequence of body inductors configured to reduce a de-biasing effect by equalizing a body voltage distribution across the switch stack” is not described in the application as originally filed. At the time of filing, this recited feature in the above limitation were not defined as a critical feature of the present invention. Therefore, this limitation in the claims is seen as new matter. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The newly added limitation “wherein at least one of the body bias ladder and the drain bias ladder comprises a sequence of alternating resistors and inductors arranged serially.” is not described in the application as originally filed. At the time of filing, this recited feature in the above limitation were not defined as a critical feature of the present invention. Therefore, this limitation in the claims is seen as new matter. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action.
Claims 25-30 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Note the above rejections with regard to claims 11 and 24.
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 2-11, 22 and 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 5, 10-14 and 16-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,923,838. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they can be interpreted to describe substantially identical, very similar claimed limitations, or being obvious which are shown below:
Instant application 18/963,987
U.S. Patent No. 11,923,838
Claim 2: A switch stack comprising: a plurality of field-effect transistors (FETs) arranged in series and connected at one end to a first node and at another end to a second node (1); and a body bias ladder comprising one or more body inductors, wherein each of the one or more body inductors is coupled across body terminals of a corresponding pair of first adjacent FETs (2).
Claim 22: The switch stack of claim 2, further comprising a drain bias ladder comprising one or more drain inductors coupled across drain and source terminals of corresponding one or more first FETs of the plurality of FETs (3).
Claim 23: The switch stack of claim 22, wherein the drain bias ladder further comprises one or more drain-source resistors in series with the one or more drain inductors (4).
Claim 5: A switch stack comprising: a plurality of field-effect transistors (FETs) arranged in series and connected at one end to a first node and at another end to a second node (1); a drain bias ladder comprising one or more drain inductors coupled across drain and source terminals of corresponding one or more first FETs of the plurality of FETs (3), and a body bias ladder comprising one or more body inductors, wherein each of the one or more body inductors is coupled across body terminals of a corresponding pair of first adjacent FETs (2).
Claim 12: The switch stack of claim 5, further comprising one or more drain resistors in series with the one or more drain inductors, the one or more drain resistors coupled across drain and source terminals of corresponding one or more second FETs of the plurality of FETs, the one or more second FETs being different from the one or more first FETs (4).
Claims 3-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18, 19, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,923,838; respectively, because they are substantially identical.
With regard to claim 11, the base claim 2 of this claim are substantially identical to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,923,838. Therefore, recitation such as “wherein the body bias ladder comprises a sequence of body inductors, each coupled across body terminals of adjacent FETs, the sequence of body inductors configured to reduce a de-biasing effect by equalizing a body voltage distribution across the switch stack” is also rendered obvious and rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,923,838.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 09:00am to 06:00pm Eastern time.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached on 571-27. 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.
/HAI L NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 April 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights