DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 10 March 2025.
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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an earlier application filed 3 November 2022.
Response to Arguments
The 112(b) rejecitons have bene withdrawn.
Applicant was silent with respect to the double patenting rejections, so they are presently sustained.
Applicant’s remarks on the merits have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Krishman does not teach a “first adjust reference circuit coupled to the DAC and configured to provide a first reference signal to a DAC” or “a second reference signal coupled to the DAC and configured to provide a second reference signal to a DAC”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First the two reference signals are the PTAT and CTAT potentials respectively. As such, “first adjust reference circuit coupled to the DAC and configured to provide a first reference signal to a DAC” and “a second reference signal coupled to the DAC and configured to provide a second reference signal to a DAC” appear to be directly taught by Krishnan. As such, this argument is not persuasive. As to the argument of the DAC referring to the same DAC receiving the code, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As to the remarks about control circuitry, by adjusting the DAC to compensate for temperature, this will adjust the target voltage and consequent offset trimming. As to the references being not properly combinable, applicant has not shown sufficient proof for that to be the case. Item 312 in Krishman is outright referred to as a DAC, and the combination was to provide temperature compensation to the DAC of Raithatha. Even were that not the case, a judgment on obviousness that takes into account knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In short, there appears to be too much evidence and case law to withdraw 103 rejections at the time of writing. The obviousness-based rejection is unfortunately sustained.
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 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.
For method claims, note that under MPEP 2112.02, the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated. (The claims have been condensed.)
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.
(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.
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 of this title, 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 1-6, 8-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raithatha (US 20210135679) in view of Krishnan (US 20180292852).
As to claim 1, Raithatha discloses (see image below) A voltage conversion system with trimming capability, comprising: a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) configured to convert an input code to a reference voltage; a voltage converter configured to generate an output voltage in response to an input voltage and the reference voltage;
PNG
media_image1.png
621
978
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Raitha does not disclose a first adjustable reference circuit coupled to the DAC and configured to provide a first reference signal to the DAC; a second adjustable reference circuit coupled to the DAC and configured to provide a second reference signal to the DAC; and control circuitry configured to: adjust the first adjustable reference circuit; and adjust the second adjustable reference circuit to perform offset trimming of the output voltage.
Krishnan teaches a first adjustable reference circuit coupled to the DAC and configured to provide a first reference signal to the DAC; a second adjustable reference circuit coupled to the DAC and configured to provide a second reference signal to the DAC; and control circuitry configured to: adjust the first adjustable reference circuit; and adjust the second adjustable reference circuit to perform offset trimming of the output voltage.
PNG
media_image2.png
491
815
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device above to use the reference as disclosed in Krishnan to reduce temperature variaton.
As to claim 2, Raithatha in view of Krishan teaches wherein the first adjustable reference circuit comprises a resistive network with multiple selectable taps (Krishana, Fig. 2).
As to claim 3, Raithatha in view of Krishan teaches wherein the control circuitry sets a resistance value for adjusting the first adjustable reference circuit by selecting among the multiple selectable taps (Krishana, Fig. 2).
As to claim 4, Raitha in view of Krishan teaches wherein the second adjustable reference circuit comprises a resistive network with multiple selectable taps (Krishan Fig. 2).
As to claim 5, Raitha in view of Krishnan teaches wherein the DAC comprises a resistive ladder network coupled to the second reference signal (Krishan Fig. 2).
As to claim 6, Raitha in view of Krishnan teaches wherein the control circuitry adjust the first adjustable reference circuit until the output voltage reaches a given voltage range; and adjusts the second adjustable reference circuit until the output voltage reaches a given offset (the PTAT ensures the value has a gain proportional to the temperature and the CTAT generates the offset for the reference).
As to claim 8, Raitha in view of Krishan teaches further comprising a feedback circuit coupled between an output of the voltage converter and the voltage converter, wherein thefeedback circuit generates a feedback signal in response to the output voltage and the reference voltage (see image above).
As to claim 9, Raitha in view of Krishan wherein the first adjustable reference circuit is adjustable to provide multiple operating ranges for the output voltage (Krishan, Fig. 2).
As to claim 10, Raitha in view of Krishan teaches further comprising a buffer circuit coupled between the DAC and the voltage converter, the buffer circuit configured to buffer the reference voltage (See op amp in annotated image above).
As to claims 11-14, 16-20 these are similar to claims 1-6, 8-10 above and are obvious per MPEP 2112.02.
Double Patenting
The case law and reasoning for the nonstatutory double patenting rejection may be foundin a prior action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12267084 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented document has more limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 would be allowable if a disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) is filed, in addition to the claim is rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15 would be allowable if a disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) is filed and the claim is rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 7, the prior art fails to disclose: “wherein the control circuitry is further configured to, when the output voltage reaches a positive offset relative to a given offset: adjust the input code to create a negative offset; and adjust the second adjustable reference circuit until the output voltage reaches the given offset..” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
As to claim 15, the prior art fails to disclose: “further comprising: determining whether the output voltage has a negative offset or a positive offset relative to a given offset; when the output voltage has a negative offset, adjusting the second reference signal until the output voltage reaches the given offset; and when the output voltage has a positive offset: adjusting the input code to create a negative offset; and adjusting the second reference signal until the output voltage reaches the given offset” in combination with the additionally claimed features, as are claimed by the Applicant.
Please note: while objected or allowed claims have been indicated, only the presented claims have been examined for compliance with form and 35 USC 112 consideration. As a reminder, claims that are dependent upon objected claims still require examination for form and 35 USC 112 issues even if they overcome 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections. Similarly, amendments incorporating allowable subject matter into independent claims requires reconsideration for dependent claim form and any possible 35 USC 112 issues that arise through amendments even if the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are overcome. As such, applicant is advised that while examiner can enter previously allowed claims or previously objected claims rewritten into independent form after final rejection, any other claims may not be entered.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular column, paragraph, and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their 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. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1375. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM,Monday through Thursday, EST.
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 on 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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/PETER M NOVAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2839
Prosecution Insights