DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-6 and 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/9/2026. Applicant traverses the Requirement for Restriction on the grounds that both inventions function cooperatively with the product. While this may be true, the inventions each have patentably distinct features not required by the other, and as such, the inventions are patentably distinct apparatuses that are properly restricted. Applicant traverses the Requirement for Election of Species seemingly on the basis that claim could refer to more than on species. While Applicant is correct that claim 1 is, in fact, generic to more than one species, this does not negate the fact that there are numerous, mutually exclusive species present in the figures and the claims, and having to examine each would result in a serious search burden. The Requirements are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the other one” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “unit” in all claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1, 2, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (2005/0073351) in view of Kasai et al. (2021/0187941).
Regarding claim 1, Ko teaches an electronic device comprising:
a sampling and holding circuit (fig. 1, whole circuit), comprising:
a sampling unit (fig. 1, S12) configured to receive a data signal (fig. 1, Vin);
a register unit (fig. 1, item A11) having an input terminal (fig. 1, unlabeled node between S12 and C13) and an output terminal (fig. 1, Vout), the input terminal being coupled to the sampling unit (see fig. 1, note that the two are coupled via C13, S14), and the output terminal being configured to output a first signal (see fig. 1); and
a feedback unit (fig. 1, item S16) coupled to the input terminal and the output terminal of the register unit (see fig.1);
wherein when the feedback unit is turned on, the feedback unit feeds back the first signal to the input terminal (see fig. 1).
(Note that the term “register unit” can mean almost anything as any number of basic circuits contain registers. Further, even if a circuit did not contain a register, any given circuit could be called a register unit as the claim does not specify that the register unit contains a register).
Ko does not teach a heater coupled to the sampling and holding circuit. Kasai teaches wherein the output of a buffer amplifier of a circuit similar to that disclosed by Ko is used to operate heaters of a thermal liquid ejection head (Kasai, [0062], see fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the circuit disclosed by Ko with the heaters disclosed by Kasai because doing so would amount to the simple combination of one known drive circuit with a known load to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Ko in view of Kasai teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein:
the sampling unit comprises a control terminal (fig. 1, terminal connected to sample clock), a first terminal (fig. 1, terminal of S12 connected to Vin), and a second terminal (fig. 1, terminal of S12 connected to C13) coupled to the input terminal;
the feedback unit comprises a control terminal (fig. 1, terminal connected to sample clock), a first terminal (fig. 1, terminal connected to node between S12, C13) and a second terminal (fig. 1, terminal connected to Vout); and
the control terminal of the feedback unit is coupled to the control terminal of the
sampling unit (see fig. 1), the first terminal of the feedback unit is coupled to the input terminal (see fig. 1), and the second terminal of the feedback unit is coupled to the output terminal (see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Ko in view of Kasai teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the register unit is a buffer amplifier (Ko, see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Ko in view of Kasai teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the heater is a thermal inkjet (Kasai, see fig. 1).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Kasai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nathan et al. (2007/0080908).
Regarding claim 3, Ko in view of Kasai teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Ko in view of Kasai does not teach wherein the sampling unit comprises a first-type thin film transistor, the feedback unit comprises a second-type thin film transistor, and the first type is either an N-type or P-type, the second type is the other one of N-type and P-type. Nathan teaches wherein a circuit can have several obvious variants, each with different configurations of n-type and p-type thin-film transistors (Nathan, [0051]-[0055], see figs. 5-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a combination of both n and p-type thin film transistors, as disclosed by Nathan, in the circuit disclosed by Ko in view of Kasai because doing so would amount to applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results. Upon combination of the references, it would have been obvious to design the circuit to have one p-type and one n-type transistor for each of the feedback and sample and hold transistors because doing so would be a simple matter of design choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO VALENCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at 571-202-5960. 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.
/ALEJANDRO VALENCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights