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 .
This Office Action is made in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 11/03/2025. Claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 12-18 are currently pending in the application. An action follows below:
Response to Arguments to the previous Office action
The objections of claims 1 and 16 in the previous Office action dated 08/11/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to these claims.
The rejections of claims 3, 6, 7, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims and the cancellation of claim 20.
The rejection of claim 1 (and dependent claims as depending on claim 1) and the additional rejections of claims 8 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claim 1 and the cancellation of claims 8 and 21. However, see the new ground of rejection the currently amended claim 1 made below.
In response to the additional rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant has asserted ¶ 77 of the specification providing a support for the limitation, “wherein the data driver is configured to output the touch driving signal or a signal having a same phase as the touch driving signal to each of the plurality of data lines in the touch driving section” in claim 4 (see page 8 of the current amendment. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 4, when read together with independent claim 1, recites (i) “a touch driver configured to provide the touch driving signal to the touch electrodes in the touch driving section” in lines 10-11 and (ii) “wherein the data driver is configured to output the touch driving signal or a signal having a same phase as the touch driving signal to each of the plurality of data lines in the touch driving section,” i.e., claim 4 is construed to include both the data driver and the touch driver providing the same touch driving signal to the same touch electrode. First, the original disclosure does not explicitly disclose a need of both the data driver and the touch driver providing the same touch driving signal to the same touch electrode and there is no reason and/or benefit of using both the data driver and the touch driver to provide the same touch driving signal to the same touch electrode. Moreover, the original disclosure, specifically ¶ 77 indicated by the Applicant on page 8 of the current amendment, does not explicitly discuss in detail a display device comprising both the data driver and the touch driver to provide the same touch driving signal to the same touch electrode, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and a reason and/or benefit of using both the data driver and the touch driver to provide the same touch driving signal to the same touch electrode. Furthermore, as noted in the previous Office action and repeated below that, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”.)
Second, one skilled in the electronic art would have readily recognized that the two output signals generated/provided by two different elements/circuitries are different at least in terms of timing and magnitude of voltage/current/power and these two output signal cause the malfunction and/or damage of the element(s) which receives both these two output signals. Moreover, one skilled in the electronic art would have readily recognized that at least one disadvantage of using two different elements/circuitries to generate/provide the same signal is to increase the manufactured cost and complicate the structure and timings.
Therefore, this rejection is maintained.
In response to the additional rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant has asserted ¶ 77 of the specification providing a support for the limitation, “wherein the data driver is configured to output the touch driving signal or a signal having a same phase as the touch driving signal to each of the plurality of data lines in the touch driving section” in claim 4. See page 8 of the current amendment. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 5, when read together with independent claim 1, recites (i) “a touch driver configured to provide the touch driving signal to the touch electrodes in the touch driving section” in lines 10-11 and (ii) “wherein the gate driver is configured to output the touch driving signal or a signal having a same phase as the touch driving signal to each of the plurality of gate lines in the touch driving section,” i.e., claim 5 is construed to include both the gate driver and the touch driver providing the same touch driving signal to the same touch electrode. See the above response to claim 4 for the gate driver of claim 5. Therefore, this rejection is maintained.
The additional rejection of claims 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) on page 11 of the previous Office action is maintained because there is no response to this rejection.
In response to the additional rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant has asserted the paragraphs 62 and 68 of the specification providing a support for the limitation of this claim. See page 8 of the current amendment. Examiner respectfully disagrees because these indicated paragraphs discuss another embodiment in which, e.g., for repeating every three consecutive LHB sections of nine LHBs in a frame section, LHB#1, LHB#2, and LHB#3 having different horizontal time periods, LHB#4, LHB#5, LHB#6 having different horizontal time periods, and LHB#7, LHB#8, and LHB#9, LHB#1, LHB#4 and LHB#7 having same horizontal time periods (as repeated), LHB#2, LHB#5 and LHB#8 having same horizontal time periods, and LHB#3, LHB#6, and LHB#9 having same horizontal time periods; while the limitations of claim 13 include features, (i) “wherein the controller unit is further configured to: adjust the horizontal synchronization signal to set some LHB sections of the plurality of LHB sections provided in a plurality of frame sections to have horizontal time periods that are different from each other and other LHB sections of the plurality of LHB sections provided in a plurality of frame sections to have horizontal time periods that are same from each other,” e.g., LHB#1, LHB#2, and LHB#3 having different horizontal time periods and LHB#4-LHB#9 having the same horizontal time period, which were different from the above paragraphs 62 and 68 of the specification. Therefore, this rejection is maintained.
In response to the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Applicant has asserted the paragraph 62 of the specification providing a support for the limitation of this claim. See page 8 of the current amendment. Examiner respectfully disagrees because this indicated paragraph discusses only the different horizontal time periods of some of the LHB sections, but does not explicitly discuss in detail a feature, “the lengths of all of the LHB sections being the same” included in at least the limitation “wherein lengths of the LHB sections are the same” of claim 18. Therefore, this rejection is maintained.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 in the previous Office action have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to claims 1 and 16.
In response to the double patenting rejection of claims 16-18 and 20, Applicant has amended independent claim 16 and provided on page 9 of the amendment an argument, “… This rejection is respectfully traversed. In particular, as claim 20 is canceled and independent claim 16 is amended to incorporate the content of claim 11, which is not included in this rejection, Applicant asserts that the rejection is moot …” Examiner respectfully disagrees because the limitations of the previous claim 11 are not in any previous claims 16-18 and 20. See the below double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the first LHB section” in line 2 and “the second LHB section” in last two lines should be changed to -- a first LHB section of the plurality of LHB sections -- and -- a first LHB section of the plurality of LHB sections --, respectively, because there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
As per claim 1, this claim recites a limitation, “wherein the controller unit is further configured to adjust a period of the touch driving section to be different from each other” in lines 18-19. Since it is unclear whether the above underlined limitation requires (i) “wherein the controller unit is further configured to adjust a period of the touch driving section to be different from each of other periods of the same touch driving section,” (ii) “wherein the controller unit is further configured to adjust a period of the touch driving section to be different from a period of another touch driving section,” (iii) “wherein the controller unit is further configured to adjust a period of the touch driving section to be different from each period of periods of other touch driving sections,” or (iv) other, it is considered that the invention is not clearly defined.
As per claims 2-7, 9, 10 and 12-15, these claims are therefore rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 1 above.
As per claim 16, this claim recites a limitation, “wherein the controller unit is further configured to adjust a period of the display driving section to be different from each other” in lines 18-19. Since it is unclear whether the above underlined limitation requires (i) “wherein the controller unit is further configured to adjust a period of the display driving section to be different from each of other periods of the same display driving section,” (ii) “wherein the controller unit is further configured to adjust a period of the display driving section to be different from a period of another display driving section,” (iii) “wherein the controller unit is further configured to adjust a period of the display driving section to be different from each period of periods of other display driving sections,” or (iv) other, it is considered that the invention is not clearly defined.
As per claims 17-18, these claims are therefore rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 16 above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Note that, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”.)
Further, note that this application contains various different embodiments including some embodiments which are merely disclosed one or more features without explicitly discussed in detail. Some claims are combined features of different embodiments.
As per claim 1, this claim recites limitation, “wherein the controller unit is further configured to adjust a period of the touch driving section to be different from each other” in lines 18-24 of claim 1. Due to the above rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and in order to further consider the issue of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the above underlined limitation is construed to include at least one of features, (i) “wherein the controller unit is further configured to adjust a period of the touch driving section to be different from each of other periods of the same touch driving section,” (ii) “wherein the controller unit is further configured to adjust a period of the touch driving section to be different from a period of another touch driving section,” and/or (iii) “wherein the controller unit is further configured to adjust a period of the touch driving section to be different from each period of periods of other touch driving sections,” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
First, the original disclosure does not explicitly disclose or provide adequate information regarding to the controller unit configured to adjust or change a period of the touch driving section in a frame section, specifically the above underlined limitation or any of the above features, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Moreover, see the above bolded note.
Second, the original disclosure, specifically paragraph [0061] of the specification, discloses: “[0061] According to another embodiment, a period of a horizontal time can be set to be changed for each two consecutive LHB sections in each frame section (e.g., the next two consecutive LHB sections can be made longer or shorter than the previous two consecutive LHB sections). For example, a horizontal time of LHB#1 and LHB#2 can be VH1_1. A horizontal time of LHB#3 and LHB#4 can be VH1_2. As a result, LHB#1 and LHB#2 can have same horizontal time (VH1_1). LHB#3 and LHB#4 can have same horizontal time (VH1_2). LHB#1 and LHB#2 can have a horizontal time (VH1_1) which is different than a horizontal time (VH1_2) of LHB#3 and LHB#4.” This disclosure explicitly discusses, in according to another embodiment, to adjust a period of the horizontal time of the LHB section, but does not explicitly discuss in detail to adjust a period of the touch driving section, specifically the above underlined limitation or any of the above features, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 2-7, 9, 10 and 12-15, these claims are therefore rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 1 above.
In addition to claim 3, this claim, when read together with independent claim 1 recites, limitations, (i) “wherein the controller unit is further configured to adjust a horizontal synchronization signal by varying a horizontal time period corresponding to a time period interval for individual cycles of the horizontal synchronization signal” in lines 22-25 of claim 1 and (ii) “wherein lengths of the LHB sections are the same” in claim 3.
The original disclosure, specifically paragraph [0061] of the specification indicated by the Applicant on page 8 of the amendment, discloses: “[0061] According to another embodiment, a period of a horizontal time can be set to be changed for each two consecutive LHB sections in each frame section (e.g., the next two consecutive LHB sections can be made longer or shorter than the previous two consecutive LHB sections). For example, a horizontal time of LHB#1 and LHB#2 can be VH1_1. A horizontal time of LHB#3 and LHB#4 can be VH1_2. As a result, LHB#1 and LHB#2 can have same horizontal time (VH1_1). LHB#3 and LHB#4 can have same horizontal time (VH1_2). LHB#1 and LHB#2 can have a horizontal time (VH1_1) which is different than a horizontal time (VH1_2) of LHB#3 and LHB#4.” This disclosure explicitly discusses, in according to another embodiment, to adjust a period of the horizontal time of the LHB section and the length of each of the LHB sections being different from the length of each of others of the LHB sections.
Furthermore, the paragraph [0063] of the specification further discloses: “ [0063] … According to an embodiment, each time the LHB section is changed, the period of the horizontal time of the corresponding LHB section can be set to be increased by a constant size (e.g., the period of the horizontal time of each subsequent LHB section made longer by a constant amount, such as by adding an additional 0.167us each time) from the period of the horizontal time of the previous LHB section …” This disclosure explicitly discusses to increase the period of the horizontal time of the LHB section by adding an additional constant time amount while maintaining the period of the display driving section and the period of the touch driving section.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 4, this claim, when read together with claim 1, recites limitations, (i) “a touch driver configured to provide the touch driving signal to the touch electrodes in the touch driving section” in lines 10-11 of claim 1 and “wherein the data driver is configured to output the touch driving signal or a signal having a same phase as the touch driving signal to each of the plurality of data lines in the touch driving section” in claim 4.
(i) First, the above underlined limitations require “a touch driver configured to provide the touch driving signal to the touch electrodes in the touch driving section and the data driver is configured to output the touch driving signal”, i.e., both a touch driver and a data driver providing and outputting the touch driving signal to the touch electrode.
Although the original claim is a part of the original disclosure, however, the original claim 4 itself does not explicitly provide adequate information regarding to “both a touch driver and a data driver providing and outputting the touch driving signal to the touch electrodes” of the above underlined limitations, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, the original disclosure, specifically paragraph [0036] of the specification, discloses “… The data driver 130 can generate a data signal … provide the generated data signals to the pixels PXs through the data lines DL1 to DLm …” and, specifically paragraph [0045] of the specification, discloses “… The touch driver 150 is connected to the touch electrodes TEs through the touch lines TL. The touch driver 150 outputs the touch driving signal to the touch electrode TE …”, i.e., only the touch driver providing/ outputting the touch driving signal to the touch electrodes.
Furthermore, one skilled in the art would not understand why both a touch driver and a data driver are needed to generate and provide/output the touch driving signal to the touch electrodes and would recognize that two signals generated from two different sources may not be same. Moreover, see the above bolded note.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(ii) Second, the above underlined limitations require “a touch driver configured to provide the touch driving signal to the touch electrodes in the touch driving section and the data driver is configured to output a signal having a same phase as the touch driving signal to each of the plurality of data lines in the touch driving section”, i.e., a signal, which is outputted from the data driver having a same phase as the touch driving signal.
Although the original claim is a part of the original disclosure, however, the original claim 4 itself does not explicitly provide adequate information regarding to “a signal, which is outputted from the data driver having a same phase as the touch driving signal” of the above underlined limitations, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, the original disclosure, specifically Fig. 2, discloses the output signal on the data line DL not having a same phase with the touch driving signal on the touch electrode. Moreover, see the above bolded note.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 5, this claim, when read together with claim 1, recites limitations, (i) “a touch driver configured to provide the touch driving signal to the touch electrodes in the touch driving section” in lines 10-11 of claim 1 and “wherein the gate driver is configured to output the touch driving signal or a signal having a same phase as the touch driving signal to each of the plurality of gate lines in touch driving section” in claim 5.
(i) First, the above underlined limitations require “a touch driver configured to provide the touch driving signal to the touch electrodes in the touch driving section and the gate driver is configured to output the touch driving signal”, i.e., both a touch driver and a gate driver providing and outputting the touch driving signal to the touch electrodes.
Although the original claim is a part of the original disclosure, however, the original claim 4 itself does not explicitly provide adequate information regarding to “both a touch driver and a gate driver providing and outputting the touch driving signal to the touch electrodes” of the above underlined limitations, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, the original disclosure, specifically paragraph [0035] of the specification, discloses “… The gate driver 120 generates a gate signal … The gate driver 120 can provide the generated gate signals to the pixels PXs through the gate lines GL1 to GLn …” and, specifically paragraph [0045] of the specification, discloses “… The touch driver 150 is connected to the touch electrodes TEs through the touch lines TL. The touch driver 150 outputs the touch driving signal to the touch electrode TE …”, i.e., only the touch driver providing/ outputting the touch driving signal to the touch electrodes.
Furthermore, one skilled in the art would not understand why both a touch driver and a gate driver are needed to generate and provide/output the touch driving signal to the touch electrodes and would recognize that two signals generated from two different sources may not be same. Moreover, see the above bolded note.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(ii) Second, the above underlined limitations require “a touch driver configured to provide the touch driving signal to the touch electrodes in the touch driving section and the gate driver is configured to output a signal having a same phase as the touch driving signal to each of the plurality of gate lines in the touch driving section”, i.e., a signal, which is outputted from the gate driver having a same phase as the touch driving signal.
Although the original claim is a part of the original disclosure, however, the original claim 4 itself does not explicitly provide adequate information regarding to “a signal, which is outputted from the gate driver having a same phase as the touch driving signal” of the above underlined limitations, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, the original disclosure, specifically Fig. 2, discloses the output signal on the gate line Gate not having a same phase with the touch driving signal on the touch electrode. Moreover, see the above bolded note.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claims 6-7, these claims recite limitations, “wherein a length of a period of the second level of the touch enable signal in the first LHB section is different from a length of a period of the second level of the touch enable signal in the second LHB section, the first LHB section and the second LHB section being in a same frame section” in claim 6, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Although the original claim is a part of the original disclosure, however, the original claim 6 itself does not explicitly provide adequate information regarding to the above underlined limitations, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 2 and the original claim 2, discloses, in a same frame section, a length of a period of the second/ high level of the touch enable signal in the first LHB section is T1 and a length of a period of the second/ high level of the touch enable signal in the second LHB section is T2. However, the original disclosure does not explicitly disclose in detail the length of a period of the second/ high level of the touch enable signal in the first LHB section being different from the length of the period of the second/ high level of the touch enable signal in the second LHB section in a same frame section, of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, there is no drawing to show the above underlined limitations. Moreover, see the above bolded note.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 13, this claim recites limitations, “wherein the controller unit is further configured to: adjust the horizontal synchronization signal to set at least some LHB sections of the plurality of LHB sections provided in a plurality of frame sections to have horizontal time periods that are different from each other,” which include features, (i) “wherein the controller unit is further configured to: adjust the horizontal synchronization signal to set some LHB sections of the plurality of LHB sections provided in a plurality of frame sections to have horizontal time periods that are different from each other and other LHB sections of the plurality of LHB sections provided in a plurality of frame sections to have horizontal time periods that are same from each other” (e.g., LHB#1, LHB#2, and LHB#3 having different horizontal time periods and LHB#4, LHB#5, LHB#6 …, and LHB#N having the same horizontal time period),” which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Although the original claim is a part of the original disclosure, however, the original claim 13 itself does not explicitly provide adequate information regarding to the above features of the above underlined limitations, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 3, discloses that, the horizontal synchronization signal is set all LHB sections of the plurality of LHB sections [LHB#1 to LHB#8] provided in a first frame section “Frame#1” to have horizontal time periods that are same from each other and the horizontal synchronization signal is set all LHB sections of the plurality of LHB sections [LHB#1 to LHB#8] provided in a second frame section “Frame#2” to have horizontal time periods that are different from each other. However, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail the above features of the of the above underlined limitations, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, there is no drawing to show the above features of the above underlined limitations. Moreover, see the above bolded note.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claim 18, this claim, when read together with claim 16, recites limitations, “wherein the controller unit is further configured to: adjust a horizontal synchronization signal by varying a horizontal time period corresponding to a time period interval for individual cycles of the horizontal synchronization signal, and generate the touch enable signal based on the horizontal synchronization signal” in last 4 lines of claim 16 and “wherein lengths of the LHB sections are the same” in claim 18. These limitations require a feature, “length of the first LHB section, length of the second LHB section, length of the third LHB section, and length of the fourth LHB section are the same,” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure, specifically paragraph [0061] of the specification indicated by the Applicant on page 8 of the amendment, discloses: “[0061] According to another embodiment, a period of a horizontal time can be set to be changed for each two consecutive LHB sections in each frame section (e.g., the next two consecutive LHB sections can be made longer or shorter than the previous two consecutive LHB sections). For example, a horizontal time of LHB#1 and LHB#2 can be VH1_1. A horizontal time of LHB#3 and LHB#4 can be VH1_2. As a result, LHB#1 and LHB#2 can have same horizontal time (VH1_1). LHB#3 and LHB#4 can have same horizontal time (VH1_2). LHB#1 and LHB#2 can have a horizontal time (VH1_1) which is different than a horizontal time (VH1_2) of LHB#3 and LHB#4.” This disclosure explicitly disclose the length of the first LHB section being the same as the length of the second LHB section and different from both the length of the third LHB section and the length of the fourth LHB section being the same as the length of the third LHB section. However, the original disclosure does not explicitly disclose in detail the above feature, “length of the first LHB section, length of the second LHB section, length of the third LHB section, and length of the fourth LHB section are the same” of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Furthermore, there is no drawing to show the above underlined limitations. Moreover, see the above bolded note.
Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the patent claims 1-3 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,995,268 B2 (hereinafter Pat268.)
As per claims 16-18, all limitations of these claims are contained in the patent claims 1-3 and 7 of Pat268. These claims of the instant application therefore are not patentable distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jimmy H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-7675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached at (571) 272-3017. 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.
/Jimmy H Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626