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 § 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “supplies, during beam irradiation, the shift register with the control data which causes the flip-flops to hold a “1” value and has a first voltage that is used during beam irradiation”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what element has the first voltage. It is not clear if the controller has the first voltage or if the shift register has the first voltage or if some other element has the first voltage.
Claim 13 recites similar language to claim 1 and is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 1 recites “supplies, during beam irradiation, the shift register with the control data which causes the flip-flops to hold a “1” value and has a second voltage that lower than the first voltage”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what element has the second voltage. It is not clear if the controller has the second voltage or if the shift register has the second voltage or if some other element has the second voltage.
Claim 13 recites similar language to claim 1 and is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 1 recites “determining whether a state to be obtained by blanking by one of the first electrodes coupled to a first flip-flop in the shift register in accordance with the control data supplied to the shift register coincides with a state obtained by blanking by the one of the first electrodes coupled to the first flip-flop in accordance with the control data supplied to the shift register.” The limitation is indefinite because the sentence lacks grammatical clarity. Further, it is not clear how a state to be obtained by blanking by one of the first electrodes coupled to a first flip-flop in the shift register in accordance with the control data supplied to the shift register is potentially different to a state obtained by blanking by the one of the first electrodes coupled to the first flip-flop in accordance with the control data supplied to the shift register such that it can be determined whether or not these states coincide. Note, the similar language in claim 13 is not unclear/indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “the control data which cases the flip-flops to hold a “1” value…” (first instance) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the control data supplied to the shift register…” (first instance) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the control data transferred through the shift register…” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claims 2-3 and 7-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 13.
Claim 2 recites “estimates a first time until the first flip-flop stops operating normally even with the shift register supplied with the control data which causes the flip-flops to hold a “1” value by using a relationship between accumulated use time of the first flip-flop and a threshold voltage” is indefinite because it is unclear if the underlined portion is required by the claim or represents an optional condition.
Claim 2 recites “compares the first time with reference time.” The limitation “reference time” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Consider re-writing as “a reference time”.
Claims 3, 8 and 9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 2.
Claim 4 recites “determining whether a state to be obtained by blanking by one of the first electrodes coupled to a first flip-flop in the shift register in accordance with the control data supplied to the shift register coincides with a state obtained by blanking by the one of the first electrodes coupled to the first flip-flop in accordance with the control data supplied to the shift register.” The limitation is indefinite because the sentence lacks grammatical clarity. Further, it is not clear how a state to be obtained by blanking by one of the first electrodes coupled to a first flip-flop in the shift register in accordance with the control data supplied to the shift register is potentially different to a state obtained by blanking by the one of the first electrodes coupled to the first flip-flop in accordance with the control data supplied to the shift register such that it can be determined whether or not these states coincide. Note, the similar language in claim 14 is not unclear/indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the control data supplied to the shift register” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the control data output from one of the flip-flops in the shift register” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the control data transferred through the shift resistor” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “shift resistor” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claims 5-6 and 10-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 4.
Claim 5 recites “estimates a first time until the first flip-flop stops operating normally even with the shift register supplied with the clock having the first cycle by using a relationship between accumulated use time of the first flip-flop and the cycle of the clock” is indefinite because it is unclear if the underlined portion is required by the claim or represents an optional condition.
Claim 5 recites “compares the first time with reference time.” The limitation “the reference time” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Consider re-writing as “a reference time”.
Claims 6, 11 and 12 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 5.
Claim 14 recites “the control data supplied to the shift register” (first instance) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “the control data received from one of the flip-flops in the shift register” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “supplying the shift register with the control data which causes the flip-flops to hold a “1” value and has the first voltage during the beam irradiation when the first time is not equal to or less that the first threshold value” is indefinite because it is not clear what element “has” the first voltage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 13, and 14 and their respective dependent claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ueba (US 20170270656 A1)
Yamashita (US 20160061876 A1)
Ozawa (US 20120126138 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Robert Kim can be reached at 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights