DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “…a comparator configured to produce the switching control by comparing a voltage of the capacitors at the inputs of the comparator to a preset threshold voltage, a trimmable resistor connecting the inputs of the comparator, the resistor controlling the frequency of the output of the oscillator.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “the capacitors” should be “the set of capacitors” if referring back to previously defined “a set of capacitors” according to antecedent basis requirement otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences;
(ii). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “the inputs”;
(iii). the third underlined portion of the claim limitation “connecting the inputs” should be “connected to the inputs”;
(iv). the fourth underlined portion of the claim limitation “the resistor” should be “the trimmable resistor” if referring back to previously defined “a trimmable resistor” according to antecedent basis requirement otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences;
(v). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the fifth underlined portion of the claim limitation “the outputs”; and
(vi). the sixth underlined portion of the claim limitation “the oscillator” should be “the swing-boosted differential oscillator” if referring back to previously defined “A swing-boosted differential oscillator” according to antecedent basis requirement otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences.
Dependent claims 2-9 are also rejected at least the same reason as rejected independent claim 1 as stated above because the dependent claims 2-9 are depending on the rejected independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim limitation “The oscillator of claim 1, wherein the trimmable resistor comprises an even number of resistors connected in series, the resistors forming a set of resistor pairs, outermost resistors at ends of the series forming a first, outermost resistor pair, next outermost resistors at the ends of the series forming a second, next outermost resistor pair and two middle resistors of the series forming a last, innermost resistor pair, a switch for each resistor pair except for the first resistor pair in such a manner that when a switch is closed the corresponding resistor pair is bypassed, and a switch controller for controlling the opening and closing of the switches.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “The oscillator” should be “The swing-boosted differential oscillator” according to antecedent basis requirement;
(ii). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “the resistor”; if it is referring back to previously defined “an even number of resistors” then the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “the resistor” should be “the even number of resistors” otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences;
(iii). the third underlined portion of the claim limitation “each resistor pair” should clearly define which resistor pairs are referring to;
(iv). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the fourth underlined portion of the claim limitation “the first resistor pair”;
(v). the fifth underlined portion of the claim limitation “a switch” should be “the switch” if referring back to previously defined one, otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences;
(vi). the sixth underlined portion of the claim limitation “the corresponding resistor pair” should clearly define which corresponding resistor pairs are referring to; and
(vii). the seventh underlined portion of the claim limitation “the opening and closing” should be “an opening and closing” according to antecedent basis requirement.
Regarding claim 3, the claim limitation “The oscillator of claim 2, wherein the resistors connected in series are of equal value.” should be “The swing-boosted differential oscillator of claim 2, wherein the even number of resistors connected in series are of equal value.” according to antecedent basis requirement.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation “The oscillator of claim 2, wherein a switch of the trimmable resistor is arranged to bypass the corresponding resistor pair and all inner resistor pairs of the corresponding a resistor pair when the switch is closed.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “The oscillator” should be “The swing-boosted differential oscillator” according to antecedent basis requirement;
(ii). the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “a switch” should be “the switch” if referring back to previously define “a switch” in claim 2; otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences; and
(iii). the third underlined portion of the claim limitation “all inner resistor pairs of the corresponding a resistor pair” is unclear what is meant since “the corresponding resistor pair” has only two resistors and how would that be possible to have all inner resistor pair?
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitation “The oscillator of claim 1, wherein the switch controller controls the opening and closing of the switches such that only one switch at a time is closed.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “The oscillator” should be “The swing-boosted differential oscillator” according to antecedent basis requirement; and
(ii). since claim 5 is depending on claim 1, thus there are insufficient antecedent basis for the second underlined portion “the switch controller”, the third underlined portion of “the opening and closing” and the fourth underlined portion “the switches” of the claim limitation; therefore, as best understood - the claim 5 should be depending on the claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, the claim limitation “The oscillator of claim 1, wherein the switch controller is a one-hot encoder.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “The oscillator” should be “The swing-boosted differential oscillator” according to antecedent basis requirement; and
(ii). since claim 6 is depending on claim 1, thus there are insufficient antecedent basis for the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “the switch controller”; therefore, as best understood - the claim 5 should be depending on the claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitation “…producing by a comparator the switching control by comparing a voltage of the capacitors at the inputs of the comparator to a preset threshold voltage, controlling the frequency of the output of the oscillator by a trimmable resistor connecting the inputs of the comparator.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “the capacitors” should be “the set of capacitors” if referring back to previously defined “a set of capacitors” according to antecedent basis requirement otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences;
(ii). there are insufficient antecedent basis for the second underlined portion “the inputs”, the third underlined portion “the frequency” and the fourth underlined portion “the output” of the claim limitation;
(iii). the fifth underlined portion of the claim limitation “the oscillator” should be “the swing-boosted differential oscillator” according to antecedent basis requirement; and
(iv). the sixth underlined portion of the claim limitation “connecting the inputs” should be “connected to the inputs”.
Dependent claims 8 and 9 are also rejected at least the same reason as rejected independent claim 7 as stated above because the dependent claims 8 and 9 are depending on the rejected independent claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the claim limitation “…adjusting the resistance of the trimmable resistor by a switch controller, the switch controller controlling opening and closing a set of switches for an even number of resistors connected in series, the resistors forming a set of resistor pairs, outermost resistors at ends of the series forming a first, outermost resistor pair, next outermost resistors at the ends of the series forming a second, next outermost resistor pair and two middle resistors of the series forming a last, innermost resistor pair, where the trimmable resistor comprises a switch for each resistor pair except for the first resistor pair in such a manner that when a switch is closed the corresponding resistor pair is bypassed, the switch controller controlling the opening and closing of the switches such that only one switch at a time is closed.” is being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention because –
(i). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the first underlined portion of the claim limitation “the resistance”;
(ii). the second underlined portion of the claim limitation “the resistor” should be “the even number of resistors” is referring back to previously defined “an even number of resistors” according to antecedent basis requirement, otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences;
(iii). the third underlined portion of the claim limitation “a switch” should clearly define its relationship with previously defined “a set of switches”;
(iv). the fourth underlined portion of the claim limitation “each resistor pair” should clearly define its relationship with previously defined “a set of resistor pair”;
(v). there is insufficient antecedent basis for the fifth underlined portion of the claim limitation “the first resistor pair”;
(vi). the sixth underlined portion of the claim limitation “a switch” should be “the switch” if referring back to previously defined one, otherwise the claim should clearly define the differences; and
(vi). the seventh underlined portion of the claim limitation “the corresponding resistor pair” should clearly define which corresponding resistor pairs are referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (as best understood) as being anticipated by Matsuno (2020/0343858).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuno discloses a swing-boosted differential oscillator (for example - Fig.1, and according to ¶ 46 – the oscillator in Fig.1 is provided with variable resistive element “R1” whose resistance value is adjustable and the oscillation frequency can be adjusted by adjusting the resistance value, and provides differential clock signals “CLK” and CLKB” in Fig.1, please also refer to other embodiments in the reference), comprising a switch (formed by SW1-SW6 in fIg.1) for connecting a set of capacitors (C1 and C2) alternately to poles of a direct current source (formed by VDD, CS1 and CS2) based on a switching control (switching control of SW1-SW6 by “CLK” and “CLKB”), a comparator (CMP) configured to produce the switching control by comparing a voltage of the capacitors (a voltage of capacitors “C1” and “C2” at corresponding nodes “NX” and “NY”) at the inputs of the comparator (CMP) to a preset threshold voltage (threshold voltage at node NC), a trimmable resistor (R1; ¶ 46) connecting the inputs of the comparator (connecting via SW1 and SW2), the resistor controlling the frequency of the output of the oscillator (please refer to at least ¶ 46).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuno discloses a method for trimming a swing-boosted differential oscillator (for example - Fig.1, and according to ¶ 46 – the oscillator in Fig.1 is provided with variable resistive element “R1” whose resistance value is adjustable and the oscillation frequency can be adjusted by adjusting the resistance value, and provides differential clock signals “CLK” and CLKB” in Fig.1, please also refer to other embodiments in the reference), comprising connecting by a switch (formed by SW1-SW6 in fIg.1) a set of capacitors (C1 and C2) alternately to poles of a direct current source (formed by VDD, CS1 and CS2) based on a switching control (switching control of SW1-SW6 by “CLK” and “CLKB”), producing by a comparator (CMP) the switching control by comparing a voltage of the capacitors (a voltage of capacitors “C1” and “C2” at corresponding nodes “NX” and “NY”) at the inputs of the comparator (CMP) to a preset threshold voltage (threshold voltage at node NC), controlling the frequency of the output of the oscillator by a trimmable resistor (R1; ¶ 46) connecting the inputs of the comparator.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
8. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (as best understood) as being unpatentable over Matsuno (2020/0343858) in view of Lin (2013/0033307) and Wu et al. (2022/0248515) (“Wu”).
Regarding claim 5, Matsuno is used to reject claim 1 above.
Matsuno discloses the trimmable resistor (R1) as explained in claim 1 above.
Matsuno doesn’t explicitly disclose the switch controller controls the opening and closing of the switches such that only one switch at a time is closed.
Lin discloses a trimmable resistor (30 in Figs.2 and 4), the switches of the trimmable resistor are controlled by binary value (¶ 29).
Wu discloses a trimmable resistor (formed by Rh and R1-Rn in Fig.5), the switches of the trimmable resistor are controlled by a switch controller using one-hot encoding method, which encodes binary value to switch only one at a time (please refer to at least ¶ 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsuno with the teaching of Lin to recognize that the trimmable resistor taught by Matsuno would be controlled by binary value and with the teaching of Wu to use one-hot encoding method to control the opening and closing of the switches of the trimmable resistor such that only one switch at a time is closed. The suggestion/motivation would have been to adjust the resistance value of the trimmable resistor to obtain a desired resistance value as supported by Lin and Wu.
Regarding claim 6, Matsuno is used to reject claim 1 above.
Matsuno discloses the trimmable resistor (R1) as explained in claim 1 above.
Matsuno doesn’t explicitly disclose the switch controller is a one-hot encoder.
Lin discloses a trimmable resistor (30 in Figs.2 and 4), the switches of the trimmable resistor are controlled by binary value (¶ 29).
Wu discloses a trimmable resistor (formed by Rh and R1-Rn in Fig.5), the switches of the trimmable resistor are controlled by a switch controller using one-hot encoding method, which encodes binary value to switch only one at a time (please refer to at least ¶ 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsuno with the teaching of Lin to recognize that the trimmable resistor taught by Matsuno would be controlled by binary value and with the teaching of Wu to use one-hot encoding method to control the opening and closing of the switches of the trimmable resistor. The suggestion/motivation would have been to adjust the resistance value of the trimmable resistor to obtain a desired resistance value as supported by Lin and Wu.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 2-4, 8 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second 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 RICHARD TAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7455. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached on 571-270-3684. 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.
/Richard Tan/Primary Examiner 2849