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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Regarding claim 28, applicant argues that the prior art Rotzoll does not disclose the a system where one line connects pixels while the other connects microdevices as required by the claim because both the row-select and column-data lines interfere pixel controller rather than connecting individually to the microdevices themselves. The mcirodevices are driven by the pixel controller based on the stored values and timing signals rather than being directly addressed or controlled by separate lines.
However Fig 1 of Rotzoll discloses a pixel (20; Fig 1) and Lines 60 are connected between each pixel through pixel controller (40) and lines 62 are connected to microdevices through pixel controller (40). The lines 60/62 are still electrically connected to the microdevices and pixels even through pixel controller but connected. The claim only requires one common lines connects microdevices and one common line connects pixels. It does not limit the claims to these lines being individually connected as argued in the remarks. Therefore Rotzoll discloses the claimed limitation.
For above mentioned reasons, the rejection is deemed proper and considered final.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-27 are canceled. Therefore Claims 16-27 should be also included in the amendment with the right claim status i.e. Claims 16-27 (Canceled).
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 1-2, 4-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “pads formed on top of openings coupling microdevices and the common electrode” is unclear to the examiner because the pads formed on top of openings should be pads formed on top of openings and the second openings because pads are formed at both openings and claimed limitation regarding pads formed on top of openings is not clear.
Note: The dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
Claim(s) 28, 32-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rotzoll et al (US 2018/0197471; hereinafter Rotzoll).
Regarding claim 28, Figs 1-3 of Rotzoll discloses an optoelectronic system, the system comprising:
more than one pixel (20; Fig 1; ¶ [0070]);
each pixel having multiple microdevices (22; Fig 1; ¶ [0070]); and wherein first common lines (62; Fig 1; ¶ [0080]) connect microdevices (22; Fig 1; ¶ [0070]) and second common lines (60; Fig 1; ¶ [0080]) connect pixels (20; Fig 1; ¶ [0070]).
Regarding claim 32, Figs 1-3 of Rotzoll discloses the first common lines (62; Fig 1; ¶ [0080]) are columns (Fig 1) and the second common lines (60; Fig 1; ¶ [0080]) are rows (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 33, Figs 1-3 of Rotzoll discloses the first common lines and second column lines are select lines (Figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 34, Figs 1-3 of Rotzoll discloses firstly a first column is activated and microdevices in the first column are driven followed by a second column being activated and microdevices in the second column are driven. (Figs 1-5)
Regarding claim 35, Figs 1-3 of Rotzoll discloses firstly a first row is activated and microdevices in the first row are driven followed by a second row being activated and microdevices in the second row are driven. (Figs 1-5)
Regarding claim 36, Figs 1-3 of Rotzoll discloses firstly a first column is activated and pixels in the first column are driven followed by a second column being activated and pixels in the second column are driven. (Figs 1-5)
Regarding claim 37, Figs 1-3 of Rotzoll discloses firstly a first row is activated and pixels in the first row are driven followed by a second row being activated and pixels in the second row are driven. (Figs 1-5)
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 RATISHA MEHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-7473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00 pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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.
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights