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 is in response to communications filed on 10/7/24.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: horizontal line unit in claims 8, 26, 28, 30.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “horizontal line unit” in claims 8, 26, 28, 30 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification mentions horizontal line unit in [0031] [0035][0065][0080][0165][0202][0207][0211][0212], but the disclosure is devoid of any explicit structure that performs the function in the claim. Does the wire line comprise the line unit? Or, other structure?
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 9-24 depend on claim 8, Claim 27 depends on claim 26 and claim 29 depend on claim 28. Thus, claims 9-24, claims 27 and 29 carry the ambiguities of respective parent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 25-29 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 25 recites “clock signal or driving” in line 14, which should be changed to “clock signal for driving” (applicant’s disclosure [0030]).
Claims 26-29 depend on claim 25 and incorporate the informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitsuzawa et al (US Patent Application Publication 20200152147).
For claim 1, Mitsuzawa et al teach the following limitations: A clock selection circuit (Fig 10 teaches the clock selection circuit) comprising: an inverter (Inverter 91 shown in Fig 10) configured to receive an input signal through a first input terminal (N4 is the input terminal as shown in Fig 4; [0137] mention that N4 receives signal from node N3, which is shown in Fig 10); and at least one controller (the controller circuit formed with FRP1, XFRP1 transistors 92-95 shown in Fig 10, the controller is coupled to inverter 91) configured to receive at least one clock signal (FRP1 is the clock signal as shown in Fig 7 and [0217]; [0145][0146][0125][0111]) and configured to output the clock signal when the input signal is supplied to the inverter (Fig 10; N4 is provided in input terminal which causes the circuits to conduct; FRP1 is the clock signal will be output to 15[0141]-[0145] – FRP1 is supplied to node 15 via transistor 93 and 95 when N4 data is high level).
Claim(s) 7-8, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NA et al (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0263188).
For claim 7, NA et al teach the following limitations: A display device (Fig 1 – Fig 6) comprising: pixels connected to scan lines, emission control lines, and data lines ([0027]-[0028] – pixel rows connected to data lines, emission control lines and gate lines (or, scan lines)); a scan driver configured to supply a scan signal to the scan lines (scan driver 500 includes gate driver to generate gate signals [0028][0032]-[0034]; gate lines are the scan lines – see applicant’s specification [0068]-[0069] Fig 1); an emission driver configured to supply an emission control signal to the emission control lines ([0034] emission driver generates emission control signals; [0028] emission control lines Fig 1 Fig 2 Fig 3; EMn-1 shown in Fig 4 is the emission control signal); and a clock controller (Fig 4; 500 includes clock controller) configured to receive at least one clock signal to drive the scan driver (Fig 4 shows the reception of clock signal via CT inputs and drives the scan driver to generate the output Gn; Fig 5 shows the partial circuitry, where the clock controller receives the clock signals to drive the gate lines; [0094] mentions OT1 may output the voltage of second clock signal CK2 for gate signal Gn; thus the scan driver 650 shown in Fig 5 is driven by the clock controller), and configured to determine whether to supply the clock signal to the scan driver (the clock controller includes the various transistors and other circuits in 610, 650 and 630 of Fig 5 and determines whether to supply the clock CK2 to scan driver 650; Fig 6 shows how Gn follows the CK2) in response to the emission control signal (Fig 6 shows that EMn-1 is provided during periods a -f; Fig 5 shows EMn-1 is an input to transistor to T3-3; for proper operation of the circuitry, EMn-1 signal must be provided (may be either low or high); thus the 650 operates in response to emission control signal EMn-1; without EMn-1 connection circuit will be floating and non-working).
For claim 8, NA teaches wherein the clock controller is configured to sequentially receive the emission control signal in a horizontal line unit (Fig 4 shows the circuitry; each CS is one horizontal line unit; EMn-1 is received in CSn in a sequence), and configured to output the clock signal in the horizontal line unit (the clock signal CK2 is output to OT1 as mentioned in [0094]) in response to the emission control signal (EMn-1 is shown as input in 650; the circuitry works when the EMn-1 is provided with a signal).
For claim 30, NA teaches the following limitations A method of driving a display device (Fig 1 – Fig 6), the method comprising: sequentially supplying an emission control signal to pixels ([0027]-[0028] – pixel rows connected to data lines, emission control lines; Fig 4 shows the circuitry; each CS is one horizontal line unit; EMn-1 is received in CSn; Fig 1 sequentially supplied); outputting a clock signal in a horizontal line unit (the clock signal CK2 is output to OT1 as mentioned in [0094]; Fig 4 shows that the clock signal is output in the horizontal line unit) when the emission control signal is input (Fig 6 shows that EMn-1 is provided during periods a -f; Fig 5 shows EMn-1 is an input to transistor to T3-3; for proper operation of the circuitry, EMn-1 signal must be provided (may be either low or high); thus the 650 operates in response to emission control signal EMn-1; without EMn-1 connection circuit will be floating and non-working); and sequentially supplying a scan signal in response to the clock signal input in the horizontal line unit (Fig 4 shows the reception of clock signal via CT inputs and drives the scan driver to generate the output Gn; Fig 5 shows the partial circuitry, where the clock controller receives the clock signals to drive the gate lines; [0094] mentions OT1 may output the voltage of second clock signal CK2 for gate signal Gn; thus the scan signal Gn is sequentially supplied in response to CK2 input in horizontal line unit through CSn as shown in Fig 4 – Fig 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuzawa et al (US Patent Application Publication 20200152147) and further in view of Jain et al (US Patent 11855642).
For claim 2, Mitsuzawa et al mentions the transistor in Fig 10, but does not disclose the corresponding structure in Fig 10. Jain et al teach an inverter that includes a P-type first transistor and an N-type second transistor connected in series between a first power source and a second power source having a voltage lower than that of the first power source (Fig 3; lines 55-65 of col 3), and a gate electrode of the first transistor and a gate electrode of the second transistor are connected to the first input terminal (lines 55-65 of col 3). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an inverter with the structure including series connection of P and N transistors between first power source and ground power source with gate electrodes connected to first input terminal. Such a inverter structure is easy to implement and provide the desired functionality in the system with fewer devices.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NA et al (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0263188), in view of Kim et al (US Patent Application Publication 11462152).
For claim 17, NA et al teaches plural scan lines (Gate lines Gn-1, Gn, Gn1 in Fig 4) but does not explicitly mention first scan driver and second scan driver. Kim et al mention plural scan drivers driving plurality of scan lines respectively (Fig 2; lines 59-67 of col 8). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide multiple scan drivers because using separate driver instead of one centralized driver provides better control in the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 9-16, 18-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph if applicable, set forth in this Office action and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 25-29 would be allowed if rewritten to overcome the claim objection and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph if applicable, set forth in this Office action
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 AM - 7 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, Andrew Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/FAHMIDA RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights