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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15 are currently pending in the application. An action follows below:
Response to Arguments
The objection of claim 6 in the previous Office action dated 01/28/2026 has been withdrawn in light of the cancellation of this claim.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the previous Office action have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to claim 1 and the cancellation of claims 2-7, 13 and 16-18.
The additional rejections of claims 3-7 and 13 and the rejections of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the previous Office action have been withdrawn in light of the cancellation of claims 2-7, 13 and 16-18.
In response to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the previous Office action, Applicant has amended claim 1 and provided on pages 6-7 of the amendment a support for the limitation, “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.” Examiner respectfully disagrees because the original disclosure does not explicitly define term “LHB” being a period of one touch driving section, as indicated by the Applicant (see the paragraph on page 7 of the amendment.) Instead, the paragraph [0056] of the specification, indicated by the Applicant on page 6 of the amendment, discloses: “[0056] The period for one display driving section and one touch driving section can be referred to as 1 LHB section,” i.e., the total period of a period for one display driving section [D] and a period for one touch driving section [T] is 1 LHB section. Therefore, a period of one LHB section being different from a period of another LHB section does not inherently render a period of one touch driving section being different from a period of another touch driving section, e.g., a period of one LHB section being different from a period of another LHB section may render a period of one display driving section being different from a period of another display driving section while maintaining a period of one touch driving section being same as a period of another touch driving section. Furthermore, Fig. 4 explicitly shows that a period of one LHB section [e.g., LHB#1] being different from a period of another LHB section [e.g., LHB#2/ LHB#3] renders a period of one display driving section [D1] being different from a period of another display driving section [D2/ D3] while maintaining a period of one touch driving section [T1] being same as a period of another touch driving section [T2/ T3 …]. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not explicitly provide a support for the above underlined limitation of claim 1. See the below detailed rejection.
The double patenting rejection of claims 16-18 in the previous Office action has been withdrawn in light of the cancellation of these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 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, 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 a limitation, “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” in lines 16-17, 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 paragraph [0056] of the specification discloses: “[0056] The period for one display driving section and one touch driving section can be referred to as 1 LHB section,” i.e., the total period of a period for one display driving section [D] and a period for one touch driving section [T] is 1 LHB section. Furthermore, Fig. 4 explicitly shows that a period of one LHB section [e.g., LHB#1] being different from a period of another LHB section [e.g., LHB#2/ LHB#3] renders a time/period of one display driving section [D1] being different from a time/period of another display driving section [D2/ D3] while maintaining a time/period of one touch driving section [T1] being same as a period of another touch driving section [T2/ T3 …]. However, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail a period of the touch driving section to be different from a period of another touch driving section in the same frame section and, specifically the above underlined limitation, 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.
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, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15, these claims are therefore rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 1 above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights