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 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.
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: “data signal output module”, “voltage regulator modules”, “voltage output module”, “digit module” in claims 1-20.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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. The claimed data signal output module, voltage module and digit module are not described in the specification or drawings. See 112(b) rejection below.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 limitations “data signal output module”, “voltage module” and “digit module” 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. The specification and drawings lack any disclosure as to the structure of the digit module. Figure 3 shows the data signal output module, voltage module and digit module as black boxes connected to the voltage regulator modules and the MUX. The specification and drawings show these modules being part of an integrated circuit. That alone does not state the structure corresponding to these modules. It is unclear whether they are computer programs stored on memory, batteries, stand-alone circuits, etc. 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.
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) 1-4, 6, 10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (US 2005/0200582) in view of Morita (US 2009/0079767).
In regard to claim 1, Goto et al. teach a display panel, comprising: multiple switch circuits (SW1-3), wherein each switch circuit comprises: multiple switch modules (each individual switch in the module), wherein a control terminal of each switch module is configured to receive a switch control signal (ΦR, ΦG, ΦB), a first terminal of the switch module is configured to receive a data signal (element 100 and paragraph 36), and a second terminal of the switch module is connected to a data line in a display area (fig. 1, second terminal of switches connected to display); a source driving circuit, wherein the source driving circuit comprises: a data signal output module configured to output the data signal through source signal lines connected thereto, wherein each source signal line corresponds to each switch circuit (fig. 1 element 100 and paragraph 36), and the source signal line is connected to the switch modules in the switch circuit corresponding thereto (fig. 1, element 100 connected to switches) and switch control signals output by at least some of the voltage regulator modules have different signal amplitudes (fig. 3, ΦR, ΦG are 12V and ΦB is 10V) but does not teach multiple voltage regulator modules configured to output the switch control signal; wherein a number of the voltage regulator modules is less than or equal to a number of switch modules in the switch circuit.
Morita et al. teach multiple voltage regulator modules configured to output the switch control signal (figs. 10 and 14, R, G, B component offset value. The specification states the voltage regulator modules are linear low dropout regulators. Morita et al. shows using logic circuits to control the voltage. These are art recognized equivalents); wherein a number of the voltage regulator modules is less than or equal to a number of switch modules in the switch circuit (fig. 14, there are 3 offset sections for entire display of n columns).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of displays
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Goto et al. with the multiple voltage sources of Morita. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Goto et al. with the multiple voltage sources of Morita because the multiple power source of Morita would work equally as well as the single power source of Goto et al. one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize making a device separable would provide predictable results and would provide advantages such as size and circuit complexity.
In regard to claims 2 and 19, Goto et al. teach the display area and a non-display area arranged at least on a side of the display area, wherein the display area comprises multiple pixel units arranged in an array along a row direction and a column direction (element 500), each pixel unit comprises multiple types of sub pixels having different maximum grayscale voltages (paragraph 37, red, green and blue), and the switch circuits and the source driving circuit are both located in the non-display area (fig. 1); and wherein a signal amplitude of the switch control signal is proportional to a maximum grayscale voltage of a sub pixel corresponding to the switch control signal (see fig. 3. The signal amplitudes in any display circuit are proportional to the maximum grayscale value. For example, if a circuit were to use a greatly reduced or greatly increased voltage the circuit would not operate).
In regard to claims 3 and 20, Goto et al. teach wherein switch modules connecting the same type of sub pixels to the source signal lines share the same voltage regulator module (fig. 3, the first switches receive ΦR).
In regard to claim 4, Morita teaches wherein the number of the voltage regulator modules is the same as a number of the sub pixels in a pixel unit (fig. 10, red, green and blue).
In regard to claim 6, Goto et al. teach wherein the pixel unit comprises m sub pixels, and the switch circuit comprises n switch modules (fig. 1, both m and n are 3), where n and m are natural numbers, and n is an integer multiple of m (3x1=3); and wherein the source driving circuit further comprises multiple signal transmission lines (fig. 1 and paragraph 34, element 200 and 100 are on the same chip therefore are both part of the source driving circuit), each signal transmission line is connected to each switch module, and switch modules connected to the same type of sub pixels are connected to the same voltage regulator module through signal transmission lines corresponding thereto (see lines coming from element 200 which are connected to each color sub-pixel).
In regard to claim 10, Goto et al. teach wherein the switch circuit comprises a multiplexer, and the switch module comprises a transistor (fig. 1 SW1-3).
In regard to claim 18, Goto et al. and Morita et al. teach all the elements of claim 18 (see claim 1 rejection above) including a display device (fig. 1).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. in view of Morita further considered with Fengels (US 2006/0209013).
In regard to claim 9, Goto et al. and Morita teach all the elements of claim 9 except wherein a voltage regulator circuit comprises a linear low dropout regulator.
Fengels teaches wherein a voltage regulator circuit comprises a linear low dropout regulator (element 74 and paragraph 99).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of user interfaces.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Goto et al. and Morita with the linear low dropout regulator of Fengels. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Goto et al. and Morita with the linear low dropout regulator of Fengels because the linear low dropout regulator provides efficient voltage output and reduces power usage.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. in view of Morita further considered with Cheng et al. (US 2024/0023228).
In regard to claim 11, Goto et al. teach wherein the non-display area comprises a transition area and a binding area, the transition area is connected between the display area and the binding area (see fig. 1 area between display and source drivers), the source driving circuit is located in the binding area (see area with source driver 100), and the switch circuits are located in the transition area (element 400) but does not teach wherein a width of the transition area in a first direction is less than a width of the binding area in the first direction, and the first direction intersects with an overall extension direction from the display area to the binding area.
Cheng et al. teach wherein a width of the transition area in a first direction is less than a width of the binding area in the first direction, and the first direction intersects with an overall extension direction from the display area to the binding area (fig. 3, Cheng et al. teach a flexible circuit board that tapers).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of user interfaces.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Goto et al. and Morita with the tapered flexible circuit board of Cheng et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Goto et al. and Morita with the tapered flexible circuit board of Cheng et al. because the tapered circuit board of Cheng et al. reduces electromagnetic interference between the flexible circuit board and other devices.
In regard to claim 12, Cheng et al. teach wherein the width of the transition area in the first direction gradually decreases along a direction pointing from the binding area to the display area (fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 8 and 13-17 would be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim if the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are obviated.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: In regard to claim 5, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the first, second and third maximum grayscales in combination with the first, second and third switch control signals.
In regard to claims 7 and 8, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the voltage output module, digit module and their respective functions in combination with the claim’s other features.
In regard to claims 13-17, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious, in combination with the claim’s other features, the first, second and third active parts arranged in one-to-one correspondence with the active parts, wherein each active part has first, second and third sub-conductive parts.
Conclusion
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights