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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A, drawn to Fig, 2, in the reply filed on 01/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “species B and C correspond to fallback operations associated with Species A and that species A, B, and C should be examined together”. This is not found persuasive because numerous ambiguities obfuscating the structure and functioning of the Fig. 2 embodiment would constitute a serious examination burden if any additional species were examined together with elected Species A.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Although Applicant has alleged that claims 5 and 17 are drawn to elected Species A, it is noted by the Examiner that claims 5 and 17 are drawn to an embodiment including a “bypassing” feature which is absent from the Fig. 2 embodiment to which elected Species A is drawn.
Claims 5-12 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/26/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
At least one information disclosure statement fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but unless a copy has been provided, the information referred to therein has not been considered.
At least one information disclosure statement fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but unless listed, the information referred to therein has not been considered.
At least one information disclosure statement fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but where no translation and no concise explanation of relevance have been provided, the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the feature(s) “first timings” and “second timings” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The feature(s) “first timings identified from a start timing of the first image transmission based on a length of an emission period for a display on the display panel” in combination with “second timings identified from the start timing based on a shortest length of a time interval capable of executing the display” (i.e., the same start timing of the same first image transmission) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The feature(s) “overlapping” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “294-3” has been used to designate both second timings (to the extent understood) and third timings.
Fewer than all lines are “uniformly thick and well-defined” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(l). See Figs. 1 and 11-12, for example, wherein lines vary in thickness.
Solid black shading (see Fig. 10, for example) is not permitted by 37 CFR 1.84(m).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0036], the SPEC recites “at least a portion 200 of the first time interval may include a time interval 201, a time interval 202, and a time interval 2023.” It is unclear which claimed time intervals (if any) correspond to which disclosed time intervals. The Examiner suggests the use of common nomenclature between the claims and the specification, to assist the reader in identifying which disclosed features (if any) correspond to which claimed structures.
In [0043], the SPEC recites “the length of the vertical synchronization signal for the display driver circuitry 120 may correspond to the time interval 202.” This is misdescriptive of the appearance of vertical synchronization signal in Fig. 2, wherein a length of the vertical synchronization signal appears to correspond to a duration of second image transmission state 212, and wherein a length of time interval 202 appears longer than a time between vertical synchronization signal pulses.
In [0044], the SPEC recites “a length of the vertical synchronization signal for the display driver circuitry 120 may be determined according to the transmission of the third image at the timing indicated by the arrow 291-3 and the transmission of the fourth image at the timing indicated by the arrow 294-1. For example, the length of the vertical synchronization signal for the display driver circuitry 120 may correspond to the time interval 203.” This is misdescriptive of the appearance of vertical synchronization signal in Fig. 2. For example, time interval 203 appears longer than a time between vertical synchronization signal pulses in Fig. 2.
In [0052], the SPEC recites “the transmission of the fourth image may correspond to the first image transmission.” This teaching raises an ambiguity regarding the claim limitation “first image transmission”, insofar as “first image transmission” may refer to transmission of a disclosed fourth image, rather than to transmission of a disclosed first image. The Examiner suggests the use of common nomenclature between the claims and the specification, to assist the reader in identifying which disclosed features (if any) correspond to which claimed structures.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to” followed by multiple steps conjoined by “and”. Insofar as no individual instruction would be sufficient to cause the processor to perform all of the claimed steps, the limitation “executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively” is interpreted as either serial processing of all of said instructions or parallel processing of all of said instructions.
The limitation “memory comprising one or more storage media storing instructions” is interpreted broadly enough to include transitory storage media such as a signal. Applicant discloses in [0193] of the SPEC “The machine-readable storage medium may be provided in the form of a non-transitory storage medium. Wherein, the "non-transitory" storage medium is a tangible device, and may not include a signal (e.g., an electromagnetic wave)”. These disclosures are phrased as “may” rather than “must”, meaning that the storage medium may be either transitory or non-transitory. The recited “memory comprising one or more storage media storing instructions” constitutes one portion of an electronic device, and the electronic device constitutes eligible subject matter even when said “memory comprising one or more storage media storing instructions” consists of a signal.
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 1-4 and 13-16 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.
Independent claim 1 recites “display driver circuitry including memory”. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to “memory comprising one or more storage media storing instructions” or to some additional “memory” not yet recited.
A similar recitation in independent claim 13 is similarly indefinite.
Independent claim 1 recites “execute … a first image transmission”. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to transmission of “a first image” according to the plain meaning of the words of the claim (see 211 within portion 200 of a first time interval), or whether this limitation instead refers to transmission of a “fourth image” (see 214 within second time interval 250) consistent with the teaching “the transmission of the fourth image may correspond to the first image transmission” in [0052] of the SPEC.
A similar recitation in independent claim 13 is similarly indefinite.
Independent claim 1 recites “execute… a second image transmission … at first timings”. It is unclear in what sense a single second image transmission could possibly occur at plural first timings.
A similar recitation in independent claim 13 is similarly indefinite.
Independent claim 1 recites “execute… the second image transmission at second timings”. It is unclear in what sense a single second image transmission could possibly occur at plural second timings. Furthermore, it is unclear whether this limitation refers to the same “second image transmission” as “execute… a second image transmission … at first timings” or to some additional “second image transmission” not previously recited. If the latter, then there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the second image transmission”. Moreover, it is unclear whether “the second image transmission” refers to transmission of “a second image” (see 212 in Fig. 2, for example) after transmission of “a first image” constitutes “a first image transmission” according to the plain meaning of the words of the claim, or whether “the second image transmission” instead refers to transmission of a “fifth image” (see 215 in Fig. 2, for example) after transmission of a “fourth image” would instead constitute “a first image transmission” as suggested by the teaching “the transmission of the fourth image may correspond to the first image transmission” in [0052] of the SPEC.
A similar recitation in independent claim 13 is similarly indefinite.
Independent claim 1 recites “in at least a portion of a first time interval… execute… a second image transmission from the at least one processor to the display driver circuitry at first timings identified from a start timing of the first image transmission based on a length of an emission period … and in a second time interval… execute… the second image transmission at second timings identified from the start timing based on a shortest length of a time interval capable of executing the display”. This is misdescriptive. If transmission of a “fourth image” during second time interval 250 would constitute “a first image transmission” as suggested by the teaching “the transmission of the fourth image may correspond to the first image transmission” in [0052] of the SPEC, then said first timings could not possibly be “identified from a start timing of the first image transmission based on a length of an emission period” insofar as said “start timing of the first image transmission” would not yet have occurred “in at least a portion of a first time interval”.
A similar recitation in independent claim 13 is similarly indefinite.
Independent claim 1 recites “at least a portion of displays … is executed using the memory”. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to “memory comprising one or more storage media storing instructions” or “including memory” or both. Furthermore, memory does not execute anything; rather, execution is “by at least one processor”.
A similar recitation in independent claim 13 is similarly indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “stored in the memory”. Which one?
Independent claim 13 recites “disables a scan of an image from the memory”. It is unclear whether this limitation refers to “memory comprising one or more storage media storing instructions” or to “including memory” or to some additional memory not yet recited.
Claim 16 recites “a portion … a portion”. It is unclear whether these limitations refer to the same portion or to two different portions.
Claim 16 recites “the fourth timings is positioned”. This raises an ambiguity regarding whether a fourth timing is singular or plural. If only a single fourth timing is meant by this limitation, which one?
Other elected claims are indefinite by virtue of dependency from at least one indefinite claim.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 13-16: In the absence of a reasonably definite interpretation of a claim, it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions (In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)). See MPEP 2143.03.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays.
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.
JULIE ANNE WATKO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
03/14/2026