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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " supply current " in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear to the examiner the supply current in line 5 and a supply of the current are same or different. A proper antecedent basis is required for both the terms as the term current from current generator is termed in a confused way. Hence, claim 1 and depending claims are rejected.
Claim 1 further recites a limitation an array of pixels in line 2. In the same line 2, another limitation is recited as each pixel. There is no proper antecedent basis for pixel which creates confusion and hence rejected under indefiniteness. Examiner suggests to modify the claim language to take care of antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " current" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim 5 or claim 1.
Claim 15 recites the limitation " supply current " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear to the examiner the supply current in line 3 and a supply of the current (line 8) are same or different. A proper antecedent basis is required for both the terms as the term current from current generator is termed in a confused way. Hence, claim 15 and depending claims are rejected.
Claim 18 recites the limitation " supply of current " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear to the examiner the supply current in line 3 and supplying the current (line 8) are same or different. A proper antecedent basis is required for both the terms as the term current from current generator is termed in a confused way. Hence, claim 18 and depending claims are rejected.
Note: Examiner has identified few limitations only. However, there are a lots of terms used in different ways but not following the antecedent basis For example plurality of current generators, an associated current generator both are same or different. Similar confusions arise with the limitation Current too through out the claims. Examiner suggest to applicant amend the claim language and use proper antecedent basis for each limitation accordingly in order to avoid 35 USC 112 b indefiniteness rejection.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected based on 35 USC 112b indefinite limitations which lack of clarity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU whose telephone number is (571)272-4250. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5.30 PM.
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 J Betsch can be reached at 571-270-7101. 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.
/SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU/Examiner, Art Unit 2844 03/05/2026
Prosecution Insights