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 .
Claims 1, 4-5, 9-15, and 17-26 are pending. Claims 1, 4-5, 9-15, 17-20 are amended. Claims 2-3, 6-8, and 16 are canceled and claims 21-26 are added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 17 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification and Drawings
The amendment filed 04/16/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Figures 6 and 9, and replacement of characters “OB1, OB2, P 1-1, P 1-2, P 1-3, P2-1,P2-1, P2-2 and P2-3” to “OB2, OB1, P2-1, P2-2, P2-3, P 1-1, P1-2 and P1-3”, respectively, created new matter issue in the drawings and the specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5, 10-14, 20, and 22-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, dependents on claim 3. However, claim 3 is canceled. Examiner suggest to change the dependency to depend on claim 1.
Claim 4, line 2, recites “the node”. To keep consistency in the claim language, examiner suggest “the first node”.
Claim 10, line 9, recites “a voltage higher than the first high-level section”. To clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “a voltage higher than a voltage of the first high-level section”.
Claim 10, line 11, recites “a voltage lower than the second high-level section”. To clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “a voltage lower than the voltage of the second high-level section”.
Claim 11, recites “wherein the third high-level section has a voltage higher than a voltage of the first high-level section”. To clarify the claim language and correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “wherein the voltage of the third high-level section is higher than the voltage of the first high-level section”. The voltage of the third high-level section and the voltage of the first high-level section appear previously in claim 10.
Claim 20, line 3, recites “generates data signals and/or control signals”. Examiner suggest “generates at least one of data signals and control signals”
Claim 20, lines 5-6, recites “based on the data signals and/or the control signals”. Examiner suggest “based on the at least one of the data signals and the control signals”.
Claim 22, line 5, recites “a voltage higher than the first high-level section”. To clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “a voltage higher than a voltage of the first high-level section”.
Claim 22, line 7, recites “a voltage lower than the second high-level section”. To clarify the claim language, examiner suggest “a voltage lower than the voltage of the second high-level section”.
Claim 23, recites “wherein the third high-level section has a voltage higher than a voltage of the first high-level section”. To clarify the claim language and correct antecedent issues, examiner suggests “wherein the voltage of the third high-level section is higher than the voltage of the first high-level section”. The voltage of the third high-level section and the voltage of the first high-level section appear previously in claim 22.
Claims 5, 12-14, and 24-26 depend directly or indirectly from an objected claim, therefore are also objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1, 4-5, 9-15, and 17-26 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.
Claims 1, 17 and 20 recite “the first signal comprises a first rise section, a first maintain section after the first rise section, and a first fall section after the first maintain section, and the second signal comprises a second rise section, a second maintain section after the second rise section, and a second fall section after the second maintain section, the first rise section and the second rise section start simultaneously with each other, and the second fall section starts during the first maintain section”. Applicants’ original disclosure fails to provide support for “the second fall section starts during the first maintain section”. Applicants’ original specification, original drawing and original claim 8 disclose “the first fall section starts during the second maintain section”.
PNG
media_image1.png
675
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 12 and 24 recite “the third high-level section is maintained, after the second fall section ends, until the first fall section starts”. Applicants’ original disclosure fails to provide support for above limitation. Applicants’ original specification, original drawing and original claim 12 disclose “the third high-level section is maintained, after the first fall section ends, until the second fall section starts”.
PNG
media_image2.png
675
633
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-5, 9-11, 13-15, and 18-19, 21-23, and 25-26 depend directly or indirectly from a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), therefore are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IVELISSE MARTINEZ QUILES whose telephone number is (571)270-7618. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 1:00 PM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/IM/Examiner, Art Unit 2626
/TEMESGHEN GHEBRETINSAE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2626 7/20/26
