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
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species.
Species A: Fig. 1-17 and 21-25
Species B: Fig. 18-20
The species are independent or distinct because the ramp generator of species A and B exhibit mutually exclusive characteristics. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: The species exhibit mutually exclusive characteristics which requires different methods of search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Claims 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species of figs. 18-20, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/02/2026 according to a telephone interview with Mr. Yong Kwun on 01/30/2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 9-14 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: details regarding the plurality of stages of the ramp generator and the delay blocks as claimed are found to be novel and non-obvious in view of the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang et al., US 2009/0278865 A1, hereinafter “Kang”.
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a ramp driver (fig. 3, element 20, ¶ 53) comprising: a ramp generator configured to generate a reference ramp signal (fig. 3, element 31, ¶ 53), and comprising a resistor string (fig. 3, element 30 includes such a resistor string) comprising: a first end configured to receive a high ramp voltage (fig. 3, V0, ¶ 54); and a second end configured to receive a low ramp voltage (fig. 3, V63, ¶ 54, also note fig. 5 wherein V0 is high voltage and V63 is low voltage); and a ramp delayer configured to sequentially output the reference ramp signal (fig. 3, element 37, ¶ 60-61), wherein the ramp generator is configured to: divide the high ramp voltage into first through k-th voltages by utilizing the resistor string (fig. 3, see V0-V63); and sequentially output the first through k-th voltages to generate the reference ramp signal, where k is a positive integer (see fig. 6 and ¶ 61).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang, in view of Georgiou et al., US 2018/0259904 A1, hereinafter “Georgiou”.
Regarding claim 18, Kang teaches a display device that comprises: a ramp generator configured to generate a reference ramp signal (fig. 3, element 31, ¶ 53), and comprising a resistor string (fig. 3, element 30 includes such a resistor string) comprising: a first end configured to receive a high ramp voltage (fig. 3, V0, ¶ 54); and a second end configured to receive a low ramp voltage (fig. 3, V63, ¶ 54, also note fig. 5 wherein V0 is high voltage and V63 is low voltage); and a ramp delayer configured to sequentially output the reference ramp signal (fig. 3, element 37, ¶ 60-61), wherein the ramp generator is configured to: divide the high ramp voltage into first through k-th voltages by utilizing the resistor string (fig. 3, see V0-V63); and sequentially output the first through k-th voltages to generate the reference ramp signal, where k is a positive integer (see fig. 6 and ¶ 61).
Kang does not teach a wearable electronic device, comprising: a processor; a first display device configured to provide an image to a user's right eye; and a second display device configured to provide an image to the user's left eye, wherein at least one of the first display device or the second, wherein the wearable electronic device comprises at least one of a head mounted display (HMD) device, a virtual reality (VR) device, a mixed reality (MR) device, or an augmented reality (AR) device.
Georgiou, however, teaches a wearable electronic device (fig. 1, element 100, ¶ 20), comprising: a processor (¶ 68); a first display device configured to provide an image to a user's right eye (fig. 1, element 102R, ¶ 20); and a second display device configured to provide an image to the user's left eye (fig. 1, element 102L, ¶ 20), wherein the wearable electronic device comprises at least one of a head mounted display (HMD) device, a virtual reality (VR) device, a mixed reality (MR) device, or an augmented reality (AR) device (¶ 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Kang in view of Georgiou. The references teach display devices and Georgiou further teaches the use of such display devices as wearable devices. Accordingly, one would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to incorporate the display device of Kang as a wearable and provide a user with an immersive experience as taught by Georgiou.
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.
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.
Claims 6-8 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitations: “a third delay switch configured to be turned on in response to an inverted gate clock signal, and comprising a first end connected to the input end of the at least one of the delay circuits, and a second end connected to the second electrode of the sampling capacitor; and a fourth delay switch configured to be turned on in response to the inverted gate clock signal, and comprising a first end connected to the output end of the first amplifier, and a second end connected to an output end of the at least one of the delay circuits.” Claim 6 appears to be drawn towards the disclosure of fig. 10 of the instant application. However, fig. 10 does not include a third and fourth delay switch as claimed. Furthermore, the third and fourth delay switches are only mentioned in the summary of the invention and the claims, and are not taught in the detailed description of the application.
Claim 7 recites the limitations: “wherein the at least one of the delayed circuits further comprises a fifth delay switch configured to be turned on in response to the inverted gate clock signal, and comprising a first electrode connected to the first input end of the first amplifier, and a second electrode connected to the first input end of the first amplifier.” However, fig. 10 does not include the fifth delay switch as claimed. Furthermore, the fifth delay switch is only mentioned in the summary of the invention and the claims, and is not taught in the detailed description of the application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEPEHR AZARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7903. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11AM-7PM.
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.
/SEPEHR AZARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621