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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0001]: the title of the provisional application, “Systems and Methods for Extended Proximate Sensing in a Vehicle” is incorrect.
[0027]: the specification says, “The circuits of FIGS. 8A and 8B implement a comparator embodiment 100 of FIG. 1A but add enough of the linear gain of the amplifier 115 of FIG. 1B to enable subthreshold operation when the gain values are achieved between the drain and gate terminals as shown in FIG. 7.” The transistors in Fig 5 are able to operate at sub-threshold levels, not on their own, but because of the amplification by the comparator/gain circuit that amplifies the signal going into the output transistors. There is no passage in the specification that says that the output transistors are able to operate at sub-threshold levels on their own, without the attached comparator/gain circuits.
Reference character 200 is used twice; first in [0027] as a prior art comparator in Fig 2, and later in [0037] as a computer/ECU in Fig 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a low side comparator connected between a common voltage source and a ground terminal; a high side comparator connected between the common voltage source and the ground terminal” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Fig 5 shows the top comparator connected to Vdd through the MOSFET’s bulk connector, and the inverting terminals of both comparators connected to the input device. The bottom comparator is connected to ground through the non-inverting terminal, the bottom MOSFET’s bulk connection or through the MOSFET’s source. Another possibility for “common voltage source” and “ground terminal” are the implied power and ground connections that are required for a comparator to operate but are rarely shown in schematics, and also do not appear in these drawings. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “200” has been used to designate both “prior art comparator 200 of FIG. 2” in [0027] and “ECU 200” in [0031/5/7] and depicted in Fig 9. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figures 2, 3, & 6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because Figs 1-8 do not include any reference numerals related to the claimed rectifier circuit mentioned in the description (e.g. 100, 115, comparator 200, 300, etc). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because:
Figs 8A & 8B are illegible.
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: the limitation “respective inverting input terminals and non-inverting input terminals connected to each of the low side comparator and the high side comparator” is unclear because the phrase “connected to” implies that there is a separate circuit element coupled to the comparator, but Fig 5 only shows two comparators, where each one includes an inverting input and a non-inverting input. The specification does not provide clarity as [0005] only repeats identical claim language.
i. Claims 2-6: are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 1.
Claim 1: the limitation “respective output transistors” is unclear because it is ambiguous as to whether there is one output transistor for each of the comparators, or if there are multiple transistors connected to each comparator, and how they are connected to the comparator.
Claims 2-6: are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 1.
Claim 1: the limitation “respective amplifier circuits connected to the low side comparator and the high side comparator” is unclear because it is ambiguous as to whether there is one amplifier circuit for each of the comparators, or if there are multiple amplifier circuits connected to each comparator, and how they are connected to each the comparator.
Claims 2-6: are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 1.
Claim 2: the limitation “the low side comparator inverting input terminal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-4 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 2.
Claim 2: the limitation “the non-inverting input terminal of the low side comparator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-4 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 2.
Claim 2: the limitation “ground” is unclear because it is ambiguous as to whether it is a generic term referring to the “ground terminal” of claim 1, or if this is a different ground that would require another descriptor to ensure it is clearly defined as a separate element.
Claims 3-4 are objected to on the basis of their dependency to Claim 2.
Claim 3: the limitation “the high side comparator inverting input terminal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is objected to on the basis of its dependency to Claim 3.
Claim 3: recites the limitation “the non-inverting input terminal of the high side comparator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is objected to on the basis of its dependency to Claim 3.
Claim 3: recites the limitation “the respective high side comparator output transistor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is objected to on the basis of its dependency to Claim 3.
Claim 4: recites the limitation “the high side comparator output transistor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4: recites the limitation “the non-inverting terminal of the high side comparator”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6: the limitation “the low side comparator and the high side comparator are implemented with operative transistors” is ambiguous. It is unclear whether these transistors are internal to the comparators or they are an alternate/redundant way of referring back to the “output transistors” of claim 1. The specification does not use this term at all. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the above phrase to mean internal transistors of the comparator circuits.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Feng (US 20210135593 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Feng discloses a rectifier for converting an alternating current input to a direct current output (rectifier circuit 100, Fig 3, [0025]), comprising: a low side comparator connected between a common voltage source and a ground terminal (106/150 connected between Vrec and ground, Fig 3-4); a high side comparator connected between the common voltage source and the ground terminal (108/150 connected between Vrec and ground, Fig 3-4); respective inverting input terminals and non-inverting input terminals connected to each of the low side comparator and the high side comparator (106 & 108 have + and - terminals, Fig 3); respective output transistors connected to the low side comparator and the high side comparator (106 is connected to MN1 and 108 is connected to MN2, Fig 3); respective amplifier circuits providing gain values to voltage signals between the respective drain terminals and gate terminals of the respective output transistors ("the typical telescopic common gate structure amplifier with sub-threshold operating region is adopted, such that each comparator consumes ultra-low quiescent bias current (e.g., about 40 nA or less), which has attained enough DC gain and nearly 10 kHz unit gain band-width (UGBW) in a wide supply voltage range to guarantee the turn-off of the NMOS on-time.", Fig 4, [0037]);
at least one energy storage component connected to respective output terminals of the respective output transistors (Cfilter is connected to the outputs of MN1-2, Fig 3), wherein the energy storage component receives a rectified output from the respective output terminals ("capacitor C.sub.filter that is configured to smooth the rectified voltage V.sub.REC", Fig 3, [0026]).
Regarding Claim 2, Feng discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses further comprising an input signal comprising alternating current, wherein the input signal is connected to the low side comparator inverting input terminal, and the non-inverting input terminal of the low side comparator is connected to ground (106's - terminal is connected to the Vac and the + terminal is connected to ground, Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Feng discloses all of the limitations of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the input signal is further connected to the high side comparator inverting input terminal, and the non-inverting input terminal of the high side comparator is connected to a source terminal of the respective high side comparator output transistor (108's - terminal is connected to the Vac and the + terminal is connected to the source terminal of MN2, Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Feng discloses all of the limitations of claim 3, and further discloses further comprising a positive feedback signal from the high side comparator output transistor to the non-inverting terminal of the high side comparator (108's + terminal is connected to the source terminal of MN2, Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Feng discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the low side comparator and the high side comparator are implemented with operative transistors that operate at sub-threshold values due to amplifier gain between associated gate terminals and drain terminals of the operative transistors ("comparator circuit 150, such as corresponding to the comparator 106, 108…amplifier with sub-threshold operating region is adopted", Fig 3/4, [0037]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (US 20210135593 A1) in view of Mandal (US 7167090 B1).
Regarding Claim 5, Feng discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Feng does not disclose wherein the respective output transistors operate at a sub-threshold voltage.
Mandal teaches conventional MOSFETs for use in a rectifier (see Fig 5) including wherein the respective output transistors operate at a sub-threshold voltage ("MOS devices operate in the sub-threshold region", Fig 5, Col 5[29]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the MOSFET that operate in sub-threshold voltage in Feng, as taught by Mandal, as it provides the advantage of operating at voltages lower than the normal threshold voltage required for typical MOSFETs, which would be advantageous in low power applications (Col 1 [21-33] of Mandal).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sells (US 20090273959 A1) discloses an active bridge rectifier with a comparator connected to each MOSFET.
Ho (US 20100046259 A1) discloses a rectifier with two comparators, each one connected to a MOSFET.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C CAULK whose telephone number is (571)270-0623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30, every other Fri off.
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.
/J.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2838
/GARY L LAXTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838 6/26/2026
Prosecution Insights