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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on October 28, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 drawn to non-elected invention have been withdrawn from examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on June 21, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the feature “based on the intensity of the light transmitted by the PDLC sensor material and reflected by the mirrored pellicle” in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the intensity of the light transmitted by the PDLC sensor material and reflected by the mirrored pellicle” in the claim. For examination purposes, the above feature is interpreted to as --based on the intensity of the light reflected by the mirrored pellicle--. Support can be found at least in line 12 of claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the feature “compare the intensity of the light corresponding to each pixel electrode to a preset calibration range” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the intensity of the light corresponding to each pixel electrode” in the claim and base claim. For examination purposes, claim 10 is considered as the claim does not include the above feature.
Claims 1-10 are rejected due to claim dependency.
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 of this title, 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 1, 9 and 10 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen US 2008/0239208 in view of Henley US 5,465,052.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a system (e.g., voltage imaging system, Figs. 1-4, [15], [10]) comprising:
a support for a substrate (e.g., support for a semiconductor device including 416, Fig. 4, [10], [41]);
an electro-optic modulator (e.g., electro-optic modulator including 406, Fig. 4, [10], [39]) separated from the substrate by a buffer material (e.g., air gap, Fig. 4, [10], [50]), the electro-optic modulator comprising:
a mirrored pellicle (e.g., dielectric mirror including 414, Fig. 4, [10], [40]) disposed proximate to the support, wherein the buffer material is disposed between the mirrored pellicle and the substrate (e.g., Fig. 4);
a transparent electrode (e.g., transparent electrode, 408, Fig. 4, [10], [40]) distal from the support; and
a polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) sensor material (e.g., PDLC sensor material including 412, Fig. 4, [10], [40]) disposed between the transparent electrode and the mirrored pellicle;
a light source (e.g., light source including 404, Fig. 4, [10], [39]) configured to illuminate the PDLC sensor material during application of a voltage to the transparent electrode;
a detector (e.g., detector including 402, Fig. 4, [10], [39], [41]) configured to detect intensity of light reflected by the mirrored pellicle; and
Chen does not explicitly teach a processor configured to determine whether a pixel electrode on the substrate is a defective pixel electrode or a functioning pixel electrode based on the intensity of the light reflected by the mirrored pellicle (see the 112 rejection above).
Chen, however, recognizes that the voltage imaging system includes an image processor (e.g., [4]). Chen further recognizes that by applying voltage on electrode 408 while grounding a second electrode 416, a transmission-voltage (T-V) curve can be obtained, and for testing of TFTs, if a constant voltage near the middle of the response curve is applied on the modulator, the voltage applied on each pixel can be detected by the CCD camera (detector 402) as a change in intensity of the light reflected by the mirror, therefore, a defective pixel can be detected by virtue of abnormality of its optical response (e.g., [41], [10]).
Henley teaches a processor (e.g., 40, Fig. 6; col. 6, lines 4-17, col. 7, line 61 to col. 8 line 7) configured to determine a defective pixel.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chen to include a processor configured to determine a defective pixel as suggested by Henley for the purpose of the conventional use of the processor for example.
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Henley teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises a glass plate including a pixel array (e.g., Chen, [50], [41]), and each pixel of the pixel array comprises a thin film transistor circuit and an electrode (e.g., Chen, TFTs and pixel electrodes 416, Fig. 4, [41]).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Henley teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: compare the intensity of the light corresponding to each pixel electrode to a preset calibration range (see the 112 rejection above); wherein the pixel electrode is determined to be a defective pixel when a gray level intensity is outside of the preset calibration range, and the pixel electrode is determined to be a functioning pixel when the gray level intensity is within the preset calibration range (e.g., Chen, [41]: the pixel is determined to be a defective pixel or a functioning pixel depending on a change of the light intensity with respect to a preset intensity range).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bo Bin Jang whose telephone number is (571) 270-0271. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00 AM to 6:00 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) OR 571-272-1000.
/BO B JANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 November 15, 2022