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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action of the instant application 18/398,063 (hereinafter the ‘063 application). The ‘063 application is a reissue of US Application No. 16/512,413 (hereinafter the ‘413 application), filed July 16, 2019, which has been granted as US Patent Number 11,211,016 (hereinafter the ‘016 patent) granted December 28, 2021.
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Because the instant reissue application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act ("AIA ") will govern this reissue proceeding and all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. 37 CFR 1.171 through 1.178 are rules directed to reissue.
The broadening reissue application 18/398,063, is timely filed (12/27/2023), as it was filed within two years of the issue date of US 11,211,016 B2 (12/28/2021).
Reissue Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which U.S. Patent No. 11,211,016 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Prosecution History
During initial examination, the claims had been rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable LEI (Publication number: US 2015/0035813) in view of Min et al (Publication number: US 2015/0091888) in view of Na et al (Publication number: US 2018/0190698).
On 4/22/2021, Patent Owner (then Applicant) argued that: “Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that LEI, Min, and Na, whether taken alone or in combination, fail to disclose the features of "A source driver, configured to drive an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display panel, comprising: at least one switch circuit, each of the at least one switch circuit being coupled between a pair of output terminals of a corresponding one of the at least one gain circuit, wherein each of the at least one switch circuit is configured to short the pair of output terminals of the corresponding gain circuit to pull a pair of output voltages output by the pair of output terminals of the corresponding gain circuit to a certain voltage in a reset phase."
While further presenting that: “according to para. [0252] of Na, the substrate carrier control terminal 1308 and the absorber carrier control terminal 1309 are input terminals to be applied by a control voltage through, for example, an external bias circuitry to direct photo-generated carriers, therefore, the substrate carrier control terminal 1308 and the absorber carrier control terminal 1309 of Na cannot be compared to "the pair of output terminals of the corresponding gain circuit" .
And that: “it is the bias voltage source (ex: external bias circuitry), not switches 1410 and 1420, to provide bias voltage and short the substrate carrier control terminal 1308 and the absorber carrier control terminal 1309 together according to para. [0252] and [0283] of Na, therefore, switches 1410 and 1420 of Na cannot be compared to "each of the at least one switch circuit" since "each of the at least one switch circuit is configured to short the pair of output terminals of the corresponding gain circuit"“.
On 8/11/2021, the Original Examiner allowed the claims for the reasons presented in the above arguments.
Oath / Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. It is not sufficient for an oath or declaration to merely state "broader claims", but rather the oath or declaration must identify a specific error to be relied upon.
As per MPEP 1414 II B:
For an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 that seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must also identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement. In identifying the error, it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.
As per MPEP 1414 II C:
It is not sufficient for an oath/declaration to merely state “this application is being filed to correct errors in the patent which may be noted from the changes made in the disclosure.” Rather, the oath/declaration must specifically identify an error. In addition, it is not sufficient to merely reproduce the claims with brackets and underlining and state that such will identify the error. See In re Constant, 827 F.2d 728, 729, 3 USPQ2d 1479 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 894 (1987). Any error in the claims must be identified by reference to the specific claim(s) and the specific claim language wherein lies the error.
Accordingly, Claims 1-15 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue Declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the Declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action, describing why merely stating “Applicant believes the original patent to be wholly or partly inoperative or invalid by reason of Applicant claiming less than Applicant had the right to claim in the patent” is not sufficient.
Information Disclosure Statement
Should applicants wish to ensure that all of the references which were cited in the original patent are considered and cited in the reissue application, an information disclosure statement (IDS) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 should be filed in the reissue application. See MPEP § 609. The requirement for a copy of each U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication listed in an IDS has been eliminated, unless required by the Office. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of:
(A) each foreign patent;
(B) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed, other than U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications unless required by the Office;
(C) for each cited pending unpublished U.S. application, the application specification including the claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion; and
(D) all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
Prior Art
Neither the prior art of record nor any new prior art discovered by the Examiner during updated search is shown to teach the limitations of the claims, for the same reasons as presented by the prior examiner during examination of the ‘413 application. Namely:
The prior art “whether taken alone or in combination, does not disclose the features of … [a] “switch circuit is configured to short the pair of output terminals of the corresponding gain circuit to pull a pair of output voltages output by the pair of output terminals of the corresponding gain circuit to a certain voltage in a reset phase." set forth in claim 1.”
Summary
Claims 1-15 are REJECTED.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS G BONSHOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-4047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:15 - 4:45.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at 571-272-3744. 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.
/DENNIS G BONSHOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/B. James Peikari/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights