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 .
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,174. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, the U.S. Patent discloses a dual low-dropout circuit configuration including: (a) a first low-dropout circuit including a first transistor circuit configured to be coupled between a first voltage source and a target circuit, the first low-dropout circuit configured to selectively apply a first voltage to a voltage input node of the target circuit; and (b) a second low-dropout circuit including a second transistor circuit configured to be coupled between a second voltage source and the target circuit, the second low-dropout circuit configured to selectively apply a second voltage to the voltage input node of the target circuit (see claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (US 10,019,022), hereinafter Hu.
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses (see figures 1-9) a dual low-dropout circuit (figure 7) configuration including: (a) a first low-dropout circuit (figure 7, part 21) including a first transistor circuit (figure 7, part M3) configured to be coupled between a first voltage source (figure 7, part first voltage source BTV1 connected to M3) and a target circuit (figure 7, part 24), the first low-dropout circuit (figure 7, part 21) configured to selectively apply (figure 7, part through M3) a first voltage (figure 7, part first voltage at SPS2) to a voltage input node (figure 7, part node at DVS) of the target circuit (figure 7, part 24) (columns 5 and 6; lines 53-67 and 1-8; The LDO power circuit 21); and (b) a second low-dropout circuit (figure 7, part 22) including a second transistor circuit (figure 7, part M5) configured to be coupled between a second voltage source (figure 7, part second voltage source BTV1 connected to M5) and the target circuit (figure 7, part 24), the second low-dropout circuit (figure 7, part 22) configured to selectively apply (figure 7, part through M5) a second voltage (figure 7, part second voltage SPS6) to the voltage input node (figure 7, part node at DVS) of the target circuit (figure 7, part 24) (column 6; lines 8-67; the LDO power circuit 22).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos O. Rivera-Pérez, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2432 and fax is (571) 273-2432. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thienvu V. Tran can be reached on (571) 270-1276. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.O.R. /
Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/THIENVU V TRAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2838
Prosecution Insights