DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action responsive to the instant application filed 13 September 2024, which is a broadening reissue of US application 17/172,375 (US Patent 11,468,845 B2 to Kim et al., hereinafter “the ‘845 patent”, published 11 October 2022).
The instant application includes pending claims 1-40, of which claims 21-40 are newly presented. Claims 1, 11, 19, 21, 33, 36, 38, and 40 are independent claims.
Claims 1-40 are rejected herein.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions.
Reissue
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 US Patent 11,468,845 B2 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 mate-rial 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).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 13 September 2024, 18 June 2025, and 25 June 2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 1-40 are rejected under 35 USC § 251 based upon a defective reissue declaration.
The reissue declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR § 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) 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. The oath or declaration must identify a specific error to be relied upon.
As per MPEP § 1414(II)(B):
(B) Applicant need only specify in the reissue oath/declaration one of the errors upon which reissue is based.
…
…What is needed for the oath/declaration statement as to error is the identification of “at least one error” relied upon.
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 in the identification of the error that is relied upon to support the reissue application. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement. In specifically identifying the error as required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify the claim being broadened and 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. The corresponding corrective action which has been taken to correct the original patent need not be identified in the oath/declaration. If the initial reissue oath/declaration "states at least one error" in the original patent, and, in addition, recites the specific corrective action taken in the reissue application, the oath/declaration would be considered acceptable, even though the corrective action statement is not required. (emphasis added)
The instant declaration attempts to identify the error upon which the reissue is based as: “The original patent (US 11,468,845) is believed to be wholly or partially invalid, by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had the right to claim in the patent. Specifically, patent claim 19 does not recite specified details, for example, ‘the first node is electrically connected to the fourth node.’” This statement fails to specify whether the instant reissue application is a “narrowing” or “broadening” reissue. The declaration states that claim 19 “does not recite specified details”, but does not discuss the particular error the newly provided details are correcting.
Furthermore, the 13 September 2024 “Statement of Status and Support Under 37 C.F.R. 1.173(c)” states that the instant reissue application “is filed to add new claims 21-40 to pursue broader claim scope than the original patent claims covered. It is respectfully submitted that Applicant is entitled to broader claims than what was issued in U.S. Patent No. 11,468,845.” For a broadening reissue, as cited from MPEP 1414(II)(B) above “it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify the claim being broadened and 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”. No “word, phrase, or expression” from the specification or an original claim, and how it renders the patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, has been disclosed in the declaration.
Accordingly, claims 1-40 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 USC § 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR § 1.175.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-8 and 13-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The instant reissue application claim set filed 13 September 2024 lists the status of claims 1-20 as (Original), and the 13 September 2024 “Statement of Status and Support Under 37 C.F.R. 1.173(c)” states that “[c]laims 1-20 remain unchanged.” However, claims 3-8 and 13-16 do not reflect the identical content of the ‘845 Patent, and instead appear to have been copied from the claim set filed 19 April 2022 in US Application 17/172,375. As Applicant has listed the status of such claims as (Original) and has stated an intention to not amend such claims, in an effort to advance prosecution the Examiner will refer to claims 3-8 and 13-16 as they appear in the ‘845 Patent for the purposes of analysis herein.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
The instant application is a reissue of the ‘845 patent, resulting from prosecution of US Application 17/172,375. The prosecution history of the ‘375 Application indicates that independent claims 1 and 11 were rejected in view of prior art to Tian in a Non-Final Office Action dated 20 September 2021, and such rejection was maintained in a 25 February 2022 Final Office Action. By virtue of the 20 September 2021 Non-Final Office Action, independent claim 19 and dependent claim 20 were allowed, and dependent claims 2-10 and 12-18 were objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claims 1-20 were allowed in a Notice of Allowability mailed 10 June 2022, in which the examiner stated “Tian does not fairly suggests [sic] either alone or in combination the features as now recited in independent claims 1 and 11 and does not appear to further disclose features of claim 19. Further prior arts of record also do not appear to fairly suggest either alone or in combination the features recited in the independent claims.” The examiner failed to indicate any particular limitations of the claims which were not found to be explicitly disclosed by the cited prior art.
In a 19 April 2022 response, Applicant argued that, with respect to Tian and the “first signal processing circuit” of claims 1 and 11 of the ‘375 Application, “the first control sub-circuit 31 cannot read on the first signal processing circuit of claim 1 that includes ‘a second transistor connected between the second input terminal and the second node and a third transistor connected between the first power and the second node.’”
However, the Examiner notes that no detailed analysis of the limitations of independent claim 19 with respect to the prior art could be found in the prosecution history of the ‘375 Application. Upon consideration of Tian and the limitations of the claims, the Examiner agrees that Tian does not disclose the explicit configurations of independent claims 1, 11, 19, 21, 33, 36, 38, and 40.
In addition to Tian, newly cited prior art to Chung (US Publication 2013/0321032), Jeong (US Publication 2010/0039423), and Lee (US Publication 2012/0050251) disclose scan drivers similar to those of the ‘845 Patent. However, Chung, Jeong, and Lee do not disclose the particular configuration of elements of the scan driver(s) claimed by the ‘845 Patent.
A stage of the scan driver of the ‘845 Patent is illustrated in exemplary Fig. 3, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
654
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jeong at [0030]-[0037] and Fig. 3 discloses a scan driver similar to that of the ‘845 Patent. Fig. 3 illustrates:
PNG
media_image2.png
644
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Structural differences exist between the scan driver stages of the ‘845 Patent and Jeong. For example, it can be seen that the scan driver stages of Jeong require the use of four clock signals to output scan signals S1 and S2, whereas the scan driver of the ‘845 Patent requires only three.
Similarly, the scan driver stages of Lee requires the use of two clock signals. As such, Jeong, and Lee do not disclose the explicit configuration of elements as required by the claims of the ‘845 Patent.
Chung discloses a scan driver stage in which three clock signals are utilized. However, such stage only outputs one scan signal, as shown below, and similarly does not disclose the explicit configuration of elements as required by the claims of the ‘845 Patent.
PNG
media_image3.png
650
558
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Subsequently, claims 1-40 would be allowed were the rejections enumerated supra to be overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R ROSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4055. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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 J KOSOWSKI can be reached on (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.
/MICHAEL ROSWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ADAM L BASEHOAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights