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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz et al. (USPN 2011/0134021 A1) in view of Hudson et al. (USPN 2021/0256901 A1).
As to claim 1, Schmitz teaches a display panel comprising:
a plurality of pixel groups (see at least figs. 4 and 6: the LED array 615 typically including LED strings of color sub-pixel elements is arranged in alignment with the LC array 619), a pixel group of the plurality of pixel groups including:
a plurality of light emitters of different colors (see at least figs. 4, 6-7: LED strings (red, green, blue));
a single current source that is multiplexed to activate light emitters of the plurality of light emitters sequentially using a first plurality of selector switches (see at least figs. 4, 6-7 and [0010] “The present invention provides a way to reduce the costs of construction and size of the color-sequential scan displays by simplifying the scan display circuitry by reducing the current sources in a three color string (such as RGB) by two thirds, so that one current source rather than three current sources are used. In cases where there are more than three strings of colors used, the present invention's use of a single current source in place of multiple current sources also provides a savings that can be even greater than the reduction using the RGB strings of LEDs and the common current source.”; [0014] “the sole current source 440 in FIG. 4 according to a preferred mode of the present invention would operate at about 180 mA, and the control signals (PWM signals in this case) that cause the switches to open and close ….. the single current source in FIG. 4 (color sequential)….”; [0035] “At step 703, a current source is switchably coupled to a selected one of the plurality of switches, respectively and sequentially via action of respective control signals so as to provide connection of the associated one of the respective LED strings to the current source to output light at the times it is desired to display a particular predetermined color (corresponding to that LED string) in a sequence.”);
a driver for coupling the single current source with the first plurality of selector switches based on an input from a circuit configured to select a color (see at least fig. 6 and [0033] “the first driving unit 613 having a current source according to the present invention for driving the LED array 615 ... The driving unit 613 opens and closes switches to activate selected LED strings via PWM signals.”); and
a memory for controlling the driver (see at least figs. 4, 6-7, [0039] “the computer, the processor or the programmable hardware include memory components, e.g., RAM, ROM, Flash, etc. that may store or receive software or computer code that when accessed and executed by the computer, processor or hardware implement the processing methods described herein.”).
Schmitz does not directly teach a single driver switch and a single memory for controlling the single driver switch.
Hudson teaches a single driver switch for coupling a single current source with light emitter(s) (see at least figs. 2A/C: current source 215/326, emissive device/element 235/355) and a single memory for controlling the single driver switch (see at least fig. 2A: SRAM 201, driver switch 230; fig. 2C: driver switch 334, [0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display panel of Schmitz to incorporate the single driver switch and memory architecture of Hudson by positioning Hudson’s single driver switch between Schmitz’s single current source and Schmitz’s plurality of selector switches. This modification would allow: the current source to be gated by a single upstream driver switch as taught by Hudson, while retaining Schmitz’s selector switches for color-sequential multiplexing. The motivation to combine arises from the desire to simplify pixel drive circuitry, reduce component count, and apply a known pixel drive architecture (Hudson) to a known color-sequential display system (Schmitz), yielding predictable results. Such a combination merely substitutes one known element (a single driver switch with local memory control) for another known arrangement and does not change the principle of operation of Schmitz’s display.
As to claim 10, Schmitz teaches a pixel circuit comprising:
a red light emitter; a green light emitter; a blue light emitter (see at least figs. 4, 6-7: LED strings (red, green, blue));
a single current source coupled with a power supply (see at least figs. 4: Vbus, 180mA, figs. 6-7: single current source);
a driver coupled with the single current source (see at least fig. 6 and [0033] “the first driving unit 613 having a current source according to the present invention for driving the LED array 615 ... The driving unit 613 opens and closes switches to activate selected LED strings via PWM signals.”);
a plurality of selector switches including:
a first selector switch coupled between the red light emitter and the driver (see at least fig. 4: PWMred switch; fig. 6: driving unit 613);
a second selector switch coupled between the green light emitter and the driver (see at least fig. 4: PWMgreen switch; fig. 6: driving unit 613);
a third selector switch coupled between the blue light emitter and the driver (see at least fig. 4: PWMblue switch; fig. 6: driving unit 613); and
a selection circuit configured to sequentially multiplex the red light emitter, the green light emitter and the blue light emitter with the driver via the plurality of selector switches based on an input associated with selection of a color (see at least figs. 4, 6-7 and [0033] “the first driving unit 613 having a current source according to the present invention for driving the LED array 615 ... The driving unit 613 opens and closes switches to activate selected LED strings via PWM signals.”; [0035] “At step 703, a current source is switchably coupled to a selected one of the plurality of switches, respectively and sequentially via action of respective control signals so as to provide connection of the associated one of the respective LED strings to the current source to output light at the times it is desired to display a particular predetermined color (corresponding to that LED string) in a sequence.”).
Schmitz does not directly teach a single driver switch.
Hudson teaches a single driver switch for coupled with a single current source (see at least fig. 2A: SRAM 201, current source 215, driver switch 230, emissive device 235; fig. 2C: current source 326, driver switch 334, emissive element 355, [0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pixel circuit of Schmitz to include the single driver switch taught by Hudson by positioning Hudson’s driver switch between Schmitz’s single current source and Schmitz’s plurality of selector switches. In this combined arrangement: Hudson’s single driver switch gates the output of the single current source; Schmitz’s selector switches remain responsible for selectively coupling the gated current to the red, green, or blue light emitter; and Schmitz’s selection circuit continues to sequentially multiplex the selector switches based on color selection. Such a modification represents the substitution of a known current-gating topology (Hudson) into a known color-sequential pixel circuit (Schmitz) to simplify circuitry and provide predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 14, Schmitz teaches a method for operating a pixel circuit, the method comprising:
receiving, at the pixel circuit, pixel data for a plurality of colors (see at least figs. 4, 6-7: LED strings (red, green, blue));
coupling a first voltage with a current source (see at least fig. 4: Vbus, 180mA and [0026] “LED strings can be connected to ground or to a supply (bus) voltage; 4) in the case of a supply (bus) voltage, the bus voltages can be different for different colors”);
coupling a first light emitter of a first color with a driver via a first selector switch of a plurality of selector switches based on a first input from a circuit configured to select the first color, the driver being coupled with the current source and the plurality of selector switches (see at least fig. 4: PWMred, 180mA and [0033] “the first driving unit 613 having a current source according to the present invention for driving the LED array 615 ... The driving unit 613 opens and closes switches to activate selected LED strings via PWM signals.”, [0035] “At step 703, a current source is switchably coupled to a selected one of the plurality of switches, respectively and sequentially via action of respective control signals so as to provide connection of the associated one of the respective LED strings to the current source to output light at the times it is desired to display a particular predetermined color (corresponding to that LED string) in a sequence.”);
operating, based on the pixel data, the first light emitter via the first selector switch (see at least figs. 4, 6-7: LED strings (red));
uncoupling the first light emitter from the driver (see at least fig. 4: PWMred and [0033] “The driving unit 613 opens and closes switches to activate selected LED strings via PWM signals.”);
uncoupling the first voltage from the current source (see at least fig. 4: Vbus, PWMred, 180mA and [0026] “LED strings can be connected to ground or to a supply (bus) voltage; 4) in the case of a supply (bus) voltage, the bus voltages can be different for different colors”; [0033] “the first driving unit 613 having a current source according to the present invention for driving the LED array 615 ... The driving unit 613 opens and closes switches to activate selected LED strings via PWM signals.”);
coupling a second voltage with the current source (see at least fig. 4: Vbus, 180mA and [0026] “LED strings can be connected to ground or to a supply (bus) voltage; 4) in the case of a supply (bus) voltage, the bus voltages can be different for different colors”);
coupling a second light emitter of a second color with the driver via a second selector switch of the plurality of selector switches based on a second input from the circuit configured to select the second color (see at least fig. 4: PWMgreen and [0033] “The driving unit 613 opens and closes switches to activate selected LED strings via PWM signals.”);
operating, based on the pixel data, the second light emitter via the second selector switch (see at least figs. 4, 6-7: LED strings (green));
uncoupling with second light emitter from the driver (see at least fig. 4: PWMgreen and [0033] “The driving unit 613 opens and closes switches to activate selected LED strings via PWM signals.”); and
uncoupling the second voltage from the current source (see at least fig. 4: Vbus, PWMgreen, 180mA and [0026] “LED strings can be connected to ground or to a supply (bus) voltage; 4) in the case of a supply (bus) voltage, the bus voltages can be different for different colors”; [0033] “the first driving unit 613 having a current source according to the present invention for driving the LED array 615 ... The driving unit 613 opens and closes switches to activate selected LED strings via PWM signals.”);
Schmitz does not directly teach a driver switch and a bias voltage generator.
Hudson teaches coupling a first voltage bias generator with a current source; a driver switch being coupled with the current source; uncoupling the first voltage bias generator from the current source; coupling a second voltage bias generator with the current source; and uncoupling the second voltage bias generator from the current source (see at least fig. 2A: SRAM 201, current source 215, bias FET 220, driver switch 230, emissive device 235; fig. 2C: current source 326, bias FET 330, driver switch 334, emissive element 355, [0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hudson’s bias voltage generator and driver switch control into Schmitz’s color-sequential operating method in order to provide controlled biasing and gating of the current source for each color operation. Other pixel drive elements are known in the art and are equally suitable to form a pixel drive element of the present invention (see Hudson at least [0054]). Further rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination yields nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 2, the combination of Schmitz and Hudson teach the display panel of claim 1 (see above rejection), further comprising a color selection circuit configured to provide a color select signal for multiplexing the single current source to the plurality of light emitters via the single driver switch and the first plurality of selector switches (see Schmitz at least figs. 4: PWMred, PWMgreen, PWMblue, 6: driving unit 613 controlling selection, 7 and [0010] “The present invention provides a way to reduce the costs of construction and size of the color-sequential scan displays by simplifying the scan display circuitry by reducing the current sources in a three color string (such as RGB) by two thirds, so that one current source rather than three current sources are used. In cases where there are more than three strings of colors used, the present invention's use of a single current source in place of multiple current sources also provides a savings that can be even greater than the reduction using the RGB strings of LEDs and the common current source.”; [0014] “the sole current source 440 in FIG. 4 according to a preferred mode of the present invention would operate at about 180 mA, and the control signals (PWM signals in this case) that cause the switches to open and close ….. the single current source in FIG. 4 (color sequential)….”; [0035] “At step 703, a current source is switchably coupled to a selected one of the plurality of switches, respectively and sequentially via action of respective control signals so as to provide connection of the associated one of the respective LED strings to the current source to output light at the times it is desired to display a particular predetermined color (corresponding to that LED string) in a sequence.”; and Hudson figs. 2A/C: current source 215/326 driver switch 230/334, emissive device 235/355; [0054]: pixel drive circuits suitable for use in arrays – therefore Hudson teaches current routing is gated via the single driver switch).
As to claim 3, the combination of Schmitz and Hudson teach the display panel of claim 2 (see above rejection), wherein the color selection circuit is further configured to provide a bias select signal for multiplexing a plurality of voltage bias generators with the single current source (see Schmitz at least figs. 4, 6-7 and Hudson at least fig. 2A: bias FET 220, current source 215; fig. 2C: bias FET 330, current source 326).
As to claim 4, the combination of Schmitz and Hudson teach the display panel of claim 3 (see above rejection), wherein: the color select signal is a first multi-bit signal; and the bias select signal is a second multi-bit signal that is complementary to the first multi-bit signal (see Schmitz at least figs. 4, 6-7 and Hudson at least fig. 2A: bias FET 220; fig. 2C: bias FET 330).
As to claim 5, the combination of Schmitz and Hudson teach the display panel of claim 2 (see above rejection), further comprising: a second plurality of selector switches for multiplexing a plurality of voltage bias generators with the single current source. (see Schmitz at least figs. 4, 6-7 and Hudson at least fig. 2A: bias FET 220, current source 215; fig. 2C: bias FET 330, current source 326).
As to claim 6, the combination of Schmitz and Hudson teach the display panel of claim 5 (see above rejection), wherein multiplexing the plurality of voltage bias generators with the single current source is based on the color select signal (see Schmitz at least figs. 4, 6-7 and Hudson at least fig. 2A: bias FET 220, current source 215; fig. 2C: bias FET 330, current source 326).
As to claim 7, the combination of Schmitz and Hudson teach the display panel of claim 5 (see above rejection), wherein the plurality of voltage bias generators are multiplexed with the single current source based on multi-bit signal that is a complement of the color select signal (see Schmitz at least figs. 4, 6-7 and Hudson at least fig. 2A: bias FET 220, current source 215; fig. 2C: bias FET 330, current source 326).
As to claim 8, the combination of Schmitz and Hudson teach the display panel of claim 5 (see above rejection), wherein the plurality of voltage bias generators includes: a first voltage bias generator corresponding with a red light emitter of the pixel group; a second voltage bias generator corresponding with a green light emitter of the pixel group; and a third voltage bias generator corresponding with a blue light emitter of the pixel group (see Schmitz at least figs. 4, 6-7: LED strings (red, green, blue) and Hudson at least fig. 2A: bias FET 220; fig. 2C: bias FET 330).
As to claim 9, the combination of Schmitz and Hudson teach the display panel of claim 2 (see above rejection), wherein the color select signal is a multi-bit signal (see at least figs. 4, 6-7 and [0010] “The present invention provides a way to reduce the costs of construction and size of the color-sequential scan displays by simplifying the scan display circuitry by reducing the current sources in a three color string (such as RGB) by two thirds, so that one current source rather than three current sources are used. In cases where there are more than three strings of colors used, the present invention's use of a single current source in place of multiple current sources also provides a savings that can be even greater than the reduction using the RGB strings of LEDs and the common current source.”; [0014] “the control signals (PWM signals in this case) that cause the switches to open and close.”; [0035] “At step 703, a current source is switchably coupled to a selected one of the plurality of switches, respectively and sequentially via action of respective control signals so as to provide connection of the associated one of the respective LED strings to the current source to output light at the times it is desired to display a particular predetermined color (corresponding to that LED string) in a sequence.” and Hudson at least figs. 2A, 2C)
As to claim 11, the combination of Schmitz and Hudson teach the pixel circuit of claim 10 (see above rejection), further comprising: a memory configured to store pixel data for controlling the single driver switch (see Hudson at least fig. 2A: SRAM 201, current source 215, driver switch 230, emissive device 235; fig. 2C: current source 326, driver switch 334, emissive element 355).
As to claim 12, the combination of Schmitz and Hudson teach the pixel circuit of claim 10 (see above rejection), further comprising: a fourth selector switch coupled between the single current source and a first voltage bias generator; a fifth selector switch coupled between the single current source and a second voltage bias generator; and a sixth selector switch coupled between the single current source and a third voltage bias generator, the selection circuit being further configured to sequentially multiplex the first voltage bias generator, the second voltage bias generator, and the third voltage bias generator with the single current source (see Schmitz at least figs. 4, 6-7: LED strings (red, green, blue)) and Hudson at least fig. 2A: SRAM 201, current source 215, bias FET 220, driver switch 230, emissive device 235; fig. 2C: current source 326, bias FET 330, driver switch 334, emissive element 355).
As to claim 13, the combination of Schmitz and Hudson teach the pixel circuit of claim 12 (see above rejection), wherein the selection circuit: generates a first multi-bit signal for multiplexing the red light emitter, the green light emitter and the blue light emitter with the single driver switch via the plurality of selector switches based on the input; and generates a second multi-bit signal for multiplexing the first voltage bias generator, the second voltage bias generator, and the third voltage bias generator with the single current source, the second multi-bit signal being a complement of the first multi-bit signal (see Schmitz at least figs. 4, 6-7: LED strings (red, green, blue)), driver 613 controls which LED string is coupled, [0035] “a current source is switchably coupled to a selected one of the plurality of switches, respectively and sequentially”; and Hudson at least fig. 2A: SRAM 201, current source 215, bias FET 220, driver switch 230, emissive device 235; fig. 2C: current source 326, bias FET 330, driver switch 334, emissive element 355).
As to claim 15, the combination of Schmitz and Hudson teach the method of claim 14 (see above rejection), further comprising: coupling a third voltage bias generator with the current source; coupling a third light emitter of a third color with the driver switch via a third selector switch of the plurality of selector switches based on a third input from the circuit configured to select a third color; operating, based on the pixel data, the third light emitter via the third selector switch; uncoupling with third light emitter from the driver switch; and uncoupling the third voltage bias generator from the current source (see Schmitz at least fig. 4: Vbus, PMWblue, 180mA, figs. 6-7: driver 613, LED strings (blue) and [0026] “LED strings can be connected to ground or to a supply (bus) voltage; 4) in the case of a supply (bus) voltage, the bus voltages can be different for different colors”; [0033] “the first driving unit 613 having a current source according to the present invention for driving the LED array 615 ... The driving unit 613 opens and closes switches to activate selected LED strings via PWM signals.”; [0035] “switchably coupled to a selected one of the plurality of switches, respectively and sequentially” and Hudson fig. 2A: current source 215, bias FET 220, driver switch 230, emissive device 235; fig. 2C: current source 326, bias FET 330, driver switch 334, emissive element 355).
As to claim 16, the combination of Schmitz and Hudson teach the method of claim 15 (see above rejection), wherein: the first color is red; the second color is green; and the third color is blue (see Schmitz at least figs. 4, 6-7: LED strings (red, green, blue)).
As to claim 17, the combination of Schmitz and Hudson teach the method of claim 14 (see above rejection), wherein: receiving the pixel data includes storing the pixel data in a memory of the pixel circuit; and operating the first light emitter and the second light emitter is based on pixel data stored in the memory (see Schmitz at least figs. 4, 6-7: LED strings (red, green, blue)), driver 613; and Hudson at least fig. 2A: SRAM 201, current source 215, bias FET 220, driver switch 230, emissive device 235; fig. 2C: current source 326, bias FET 330, driver switch 334, emissive element 355).
As to claim 18, the combination of Schmitz and Hudson teach the method of claim 15 (see above rejection), further comprising: generating a first multi-bit signal that controls coupling the first voltage bias generator, the second voltage bias generator, and the third voltage bias generator with the current source; and generating a second multi-bit signal that controls coupling the first light emitter, the second light emitter, and the third light emitter with the driver switch (see Schmitz at least figs. 4, 6-7: Vbus, LED strings (red, green, blue)), driver 613; and Hudson at least fig. 2A: SRAM 201, current source 215, bias FET 220, driver switch 230, emissive device 235; fig. 2C: current source 326, bias FET 330, driver switch 334, emissive element 355).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argues –
“The Office Action states that claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz et al. (USPN 2011/0134021 A1 - "Schmitz") in view of Hudson et al. (USPN 2021/0256901 A1 - "Hudson"). Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
The Office relies on Schmitz to disclose "single driver switch" of claim 1. Applicant respectfully submits that Schmitz mandates at least two driver switches (See FIG. 6 - 613 and 617 of Schmitz) to operate LED array. According to MPEP 2142 -
"To support the conclusion that the claimed invention is directed to obvious subject matter, either the references must expressly or impliedly suggest the claimed invention or the examiner must present a convincing line of reasoning as to why the artisan would have found the claimed invention to have been obvious in light of the teachings of the references." Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter, 1985)." The Applicant respectfully submits that the Office has not demonstrated how Schmitz operates the LED array with a single driver switch and, therefore, it is improper to combine Schmitz and Hudson to disclose the claimed elements of claim
1. For the purpose of advancing the prosecution, the Applicant respectfully submits amended claims. In particular, the Schmitz-Hudson combination fails to teach, suggest, or disclose the following element of amended claim 1:
"a single driver switch for coupling the single current source with the first plurality of selector switches based on an input from a circuit configured to select a color" In view of amended claim 1, the Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn. Independent claims 10 and 14 recite similar limitations as noted above for claim 1.
Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that Independent claims 10 and 14 are in allowable conditions for the same reasons as independent claim 1.
Each of claims 2-9, 11-13 and 15-18 depends, directly or indirectly, on one of claims 1, 10 and 14 and therefore includes, by dependency, the subject matter of claims 1, 10 and 14 that distinguishes from the cited references (Schmitz-Hudson) for the same reasons stated above. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 2-9, 11-13 and 15-18 are in allowable condition.”
Examiner disagrees –
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Schmitz fails to disclose “a single driver switch” and therefore the combination of Schmitz and Hudson is improper. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s argument is premised on the assertion that the Office relies on Schmitz alone to disclose the “single driver switch.” This premise is incorrect.
The rejection expressly relies on Hudson et al. for teaching: a single current source, a single driver switch coupling the current source to downstream circuitry, and local memory controlling the operation of the driver switch.
Schmitz is relied upon for teaching: a plurality of pixel groups, color-sequential driving, and a plurality of selector switches used to sequentially activate different color light emitters using a single current source.
Thus, the Office does not assert that Schmitz alone teaches a “single driver switch,” but rather that the missing limitation is taught by Hudson and would have been obvious to incorporate into Schmitz.
Applicant asserts that Schmitz “mandates at least two driver switches.” However, Schmitz does not require any particular internal topology for the driving circuitry beyond switchably coupling a single current source to selected LED strings.
Schmitz explicitly teaches that:
“a current source is switchably coupled to a selected one of the plurality of switches, respectively and sequentially” ([0035]).
Schmitz is therefore unknown as to whether the current source is gated by: multiple distributed switching elements, or a single upstream driver switch feeding a selector network.
There is no disclosure in Schmitz that criticizes, discourages, or teaches away from using a single driver switch upstream of the selector switches.
Hudson teaches a pixel driving circuit including: a single current source (215, 326), a single driver switch (230, 334) coupling the current source to downstream emissive circuitry, and local memory (SRAM 201) storing control data for operating the driver switch. Hudson further teaches that such pixel drive circuits are suitable for use in arrays of pixel circuits (see [0054]), directly addressing Applicant’s display-panel-level claim.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hudson’s single driver switch architecture into Schmitz’s color-sequential display panel in order to: simplify pixel driving circuitry, reduce transistor count, reduce area and power consumption, and implement a known, reliable pixel drive topology in a multiplexed display environment. Such substitution represents the use of a known circuit technique to improve a known device, yielding predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Independent claims 10 and 14 are rejected for at least the same reasons as independent claim 1. Each of claims 2-9, 11-13 and 15-18 depends, directly or indirectly, on one of claims 1, 10 and 14 and therefore includes, by dependency, the subject matter of claims 1, 10 and 14 and therefore are rejected for at least the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER L ZUBAJLO whose telephone number is (571)270-1551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10 am - 8 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, KE XIAO can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/JENNIFER L ZUBAJLO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2627 2/2/2026
/KE XIAO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2627