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 .
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) and 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper dependent form because each depends from a claim that does not precede it. Specifically, claim 1 depends from claim 37, claim 8 depends from claim 38 and claim 15 depends from claim 39. A dependent claim must contain a reference to claim previously set forth and further limit the subject matter of the claim. Applicant is required to amend the dependencies so that each of these claims depends from a preceding claim or to rewrite them in independent form.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 24-36 in the reply filed on 07/08/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “examination of all pending claims would not be a burden, much less a “serious burden,” on the Examiner”
Applicant’s traverse of the restriction and election of species requirement has been fully considered but is not persuasive for the reasons set forth below:
a. Serious Burden
The restriction between (i) claims 1-14 (specific pixel configuration, G09G3/3233), (ii) claims 15-23 (level shifters, G09G2310), and (iii) claims 24-36 (emission timing controllers, G09G3/3611) is maintained because examination of all inventions would require separate classifications and distinct prior-art searches in different technical fields, constituting a serious search and examination burden under 35 U.S.C. §121 and MPEP §§803, 808.02. Applicant’s assertion that there is “no serious burden” is not persuasive in view of the necessity to perform multiple non-overlapping searches and apply distinct prior-art considerations for each group.
b. Election of Species
Within the elected invention (emission timing controllers, claims 24-36), the requirement for election between Species A (Fig. 13, claims 1-7) and Species B (Fig. 14, claims 8-14) is also maintained. As set forth in the original action, Species A requires a same sampling capacitor coupled to at least two pairs of cascode transistors, whereas Species B requires a different sampling capacitor for each transistor in a cascode configuration. These limitations are mutually exclusive (the required circuit connections in particular) and not obvious variants on the present record. MPEP §§806.04(f) and 806.05 expressly permit an election of species where claims recite mutually exclusive limitations, and applicant’s citation to these same sections supports the propriety of the requirement.
c. Applicant’s Statement on Overlapping Scope
Applicant relies on specification language stating that “the specific embodiments described above have been shown by way of example, and it should be understood that these embodiments may be susceptible to various modifications and alternative forms.” This disclosure of potential modifications does not negate the distinct structural limitations recited in the claims that form the basis for the restriction. The fact that embodiments may be modified does not render the mutually exclusive species obvious variants, nor does it overcome the separate search requirements.
Furthermore, The Office respectfully submits that Applicant’s assertion that “the specific embodiments described above have been shown by way of example, and it should be understood that these embodiments may be susceptible to various modifications and alternative forms” seems to suggest that Species B may be considered a structural variation of Species A. While this does not affect the propriety of the restriction requirement, it may be noted that, for purposes of examination on the merits, evidence of obviousness for one species may be relevant in evaluating the other species. Examination will proceed on the elected species, with any appropriate consideration of prior art and applicant disclosures applied to the evaluation of all claims.
d. Piecemeal Examination
Applicant cites MPEP §707.07(g) regarding avoidance of piecemeal examination. That section concerns prosecution of rejections and does not limit the Office’s authority to require a proper restriction where serious search and examination burden exists. See MPEP §803.
e. Reference to “Cited References”
Applicant’s statement that new claims 37-39 recite features “not disclosed by the cited references” is noted. No prior-art references have been applied in this case. The remark is therefore not relevant to the present restriction/election requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-23 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected inventions I and II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 13 and 23 have been canceled by the applicant and will not be considered. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 07/08/2025; the traverse has been considered but is not persuasive as addressed above.
Newly added claims 37–39 are drawn to subject matter generic to both the elected and nonelected species. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP §§ 821.03-821.04, these claims are withdrawn from consideration as directed to a nonelected invention.
Examination will proceed on the elected claims 24–36 (except canceled claim 27).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,319,278 to Nho et al..
As per claim 24, Nho et al. teach an electronic device, comprising:
a display pixel (Fig. 5, pixels 80) configured to emit light;
an emission timing controller (Figs. 6 and 11) configured to generate an extended emission pulse signal (Figs. 6 and 7, emission control signal 110) to drive the display pixel, the emission timing controller comprising:
a plurality of delay cells (Fig. 11, inverters 168 and 170) configured to receive a bias signal from a bias block (Fig. 11, signal on terminal of capacitor CD1, column 10, lines 34-47, “Depending on the value of the capacitor CD1, the amount of delay between receipt of the high pulse and the passing on of the high pulse may be tuned.”) and output a programmable delay (Fig. 11, output of inverter 170);
a first gate (Fig. 11, 166 and 134) configured to receive the programmable delay (Fig. 11, output of 164) and an emission clock signal (Fig. 11, output of comparator 162) and configured to generate an extension signal (Figs. 6 and 11, EM_CLK); and
a second gate (Fig. 6, comparator 108 and counter 102) configured to receive the extension signal (Figs. 6 and 11, EM_CLK) and an emission pulse signal (Figs. 6 and 7, data signal 104) and configured to generate the extended emission pulse signal (Figs. 6 and 7, emission control signal 110).
As per claim 30, Nho et al. teach the electronic device of claim 24, wherein the first gate (Fig. 11, 166 and 134) comprises an exclusive or (XOR) gate (Fig. 11, 166) configured to generate the extension signal (Figs. 6 and 7, output from counter 106) based at least in part on the programmable delay and the emission clock signal.
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 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,319,278 to Nho et al.; in view of US 2009/0207118 to Lee et al..
As per claim 29, Nho et al. teach the electronic device of claim 24, wherein the second gate is configured to generate the extended emission pulse signal based at least in part on the extension signal and the emission pulse signal (Figs. 6 and 7, emission control signal 110 is generated based on extension signal (Figs. 6 and 11, EM_CLK) and emission pulse signal (data signal 104)).
Nho et al. do no teach wherein the second gate comprises a not and (NAND) gate.
Lee et al. teach wherein the second gate comprises a not and (NAND) gate (Fig. 3, paragraph 39, “The comparator 443 may be implemented using a logic gate, (e.g., a NAND gate or a NOR gate).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Nho et al., so that the second gate comprises a not and (NAND) gate, such as taught by Lee et al., because it performs the same predictable function of generating a signal that indicates whether a group of signals are equal to each other.
Claims 31 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,319,278 to Nho et al.; in view of US 11,404,494 to Barel et al..
As per claim 31, Nho et al. teach a method to extend an emission pulse of a display pixel of an electronic display, the method comprising:
receiving, via processing circuitry, an emission clock signal (Fig. 11, output of comparator 162) from an emission timing controller (Figs. 6 and 11);
receiving, via the processing circuitry, a programmable delay (Fig. 11, output of inverter 170) from a plurality of delay cells (Fig. 11, inverters 168 and 170); and
generating, via the processing circuitry, an extended emission pulse signal (Figs. 6 and 7, emission control signal 110) based in part on the programmable delay (Fig. 11, output of inverter 170) and an emission pulse signal (Figs. 6 and 7, data signal 104) from the emission timing controller.
Nho et al. do not teach determining, via the processing circuitry, operation in a calibration mode based at least in part on the emission clock signal.
Barel et al. teach determining, via the processing circuitry, operation in a calibration mode based at least in part on the emission clock signal (column 5, line 54 – column 6, lines 7, the emission signal of Barel is analogous to the claimed extended emission pulse signal, which depends, at least in part, on the emission clock signal, said emission signal determines the operation of a display panel in a calibration mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Nho et al, by determining, via the processing circuitry, operation in a calibration mode based at least in part on the emission clock signal, such as taught by Barel et al., for the purpose of improving display quality.
As per claim 36, Nho et al. teach the method of claim 31, wherein generating, via the processing circuitry, the extended emission pulse signal comprises:
receiving the emission clock signal (Fig. 11, output of comparator 162) from the emission timing controller (Figs. 6 and 11) and the programmable delay (Fig. 11, output of inverter 170) from the plurality of delay cells (Fig. 11, inverters 168 and 170) at an XOR gate (Fig. 11, 166);
generating, via the XOR gate, an extension signal (Figs. 6 and 11, EM_CLK) based at least in part on the emission clock signal (Fig. 11, output of comparator 162) and the programmable delay (Fig. 11, output of inverter 170); and
generating, the extended emission pulse signal (Figs. 6 and 7, emission control signal 110) based at least in part on the extension signal (Figs. 6 and 11, EM_CLK) and the emission pulse signal (Figs. 6 and 7, data signal 104).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25, 26, 28 and 32-35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 JOSE R SOTO LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, from 8 am - 5 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at (571) 272-7603. 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.
/JOSE R SOTO LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622