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 Interpretation
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “a zero-watt module”, “an energy harvesting module” and “a photovoltaic harvesting module” in claims 1-8 and 10.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 9 recites “the power conversion device is configured to apply voltage to the power conversion device if…”. It is not clear how the power conversion device applies voltage to itself.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 2015/0214770).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a display device comprising:
a System on Chip (SoC) (SoC; see at least paragraph 0018);
a power conversion device configured to supply power to the SoC (converter; see at least paragraph 0018); and
a zero-watt module configured to apply voltage to the power conversion device in a zero-watt mode (battery cell supplies the converter in a standby mode; see at least paragraphs 0018, 0022-0025, 0029-0030 and 0041-0042).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the zero-watt module includes a battery configured to be charged by receiving external power while the display device is operating in a normal mode, and
wherein the battery is configured to apply voltage to the power conversion device in the zero-watt mode (see at least paragraphs 0023 and 0055).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the zero-watt module
is configured to intermittently apply voltage to an IR sensor in the zero-watt mode (see at least paragraphs 0019 and 0023).
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.
Claims 3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Jensen (US 2013/0062444).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses the display device of claim 1, and discloses the zero-watt module, the power conversion device and the zero-watt mode; as in the rejection of claim 1, but is not clear about an energy harvesting module, and wherein the energy harvesting module is configured to apply voltage.
Jensen discloses the above missing limitation; an energy harvester that can supply power to the electronic component of an electronic appliance, wherein the electronic appliance can be a display; see at least paragraphs 0038, 0048-0053 and 0056.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen by the teachings of Jensen by having the above limitations so to be able to reduce power consumption; see at least paragraph 0001.
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Jensen disclose the display device of claim 3, wherein the energy harvesting module includes a photovoltaic harvesting module that converts light into power (Jensen; see at least paragraphs 0050-0051).
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Jensen disclose the display device of claim 3, wherein, if output voltage of the energy harvesting module is less than a predetermined reference voltage in the zero-watt mode, the power conversion device is configured to receive external voltage (the combination of Chen’s power conversion device and Jensen’s energy harvesting module. Furthermore, conditional language).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein the zero-watt module
includes a battery and wherein the battery is configured to apply voltage to the power conversion device; see at least the rejection of claim 1, but is not clear about an energy harvesting module.
Jensen discloses the above missing limitation; an energy harvester that can supply power to the electronic component of an electronic appliance, wherein the electronic appliance can be a display; see at least paragraphs 0038, 0048-0053 and 0056.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen by the teachings of Jensen by having the above limitations so to be able to reduce power consumption; see at least paragraph 0001.
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Jensen disclose the display device of claim 7, wherein one of the battery or the energy harvesting module is configured to apply voltage to the power conversion device according to an operating time of the display device in a normal mode (the battery of Chen and the harvesting module of Jensen; see at least the rejection of claims 1 and 7).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Jensen and further in view of Hamada (EP 2239833).
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Jensen disclose the display device of claim 3, wherein the energy harvesting module includes: a semiconductor device configured to conduct using leakage dark current from an external power source (Jensen; see at least paragraph 0049), but are not clear about a current amplifier configured to amplify current flowing through a device and a charge pump configured to generate power by charging and discharging the amplified current.
Hamada discloses the above missing limitations; an amplifier circuit and a charge pump to control switching elements to thereby perform the accumulation of electric charges to a capacitor and transfer the charge to a second capacitor for generating a negative power source; see at least the Abstract.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen in view of Jensen by the teachings of Hamada by having the above limitations so to be able to supply a power source to a driven circuit; see at least paragraph 0001.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 ET.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/YASSIN ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights