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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 710, 720, 722U, 730 (e.g., see Fig. 8B). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-3 and 8-13 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 limitation “the display medium.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a “display medium.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the transistors.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a plurality of “transistors.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first electrodes.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a plurality of “first electrodes.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the characteristics.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a plurality of “characteristics.”
Claims 1 and 13 each recites the limitation “the amount.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
The claims contain no earlier recitation or limitation of an “amount.”
Claims 11 and 13 each recites the limitation “the sensing function elements.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
The claims contain no earlier recitation or limitation of a plurality of “sensing function elements.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the transistors.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a plurality of “transistors.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the active switch elements.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a plurality of “active switch elements.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the switch capacitors, switch resistors or switches.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a plurality of “switch capacitors, switch resistors or switches.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the inverting input terminal.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of an “inverting input terminal.”
The term “appropriate” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “appropriate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “appropriate” is purely subjective.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the non-inverting input terminal.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a “non-inverting input terminal.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the differential amplifiers.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a plurality of “differential amplifiers.”
Any remaining claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon one or more rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng (US 2020/0126961 A1) in view of Takizawa et al (US 2019/0057649 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tseng discloses a pixel array [e.g., Fig. 23: 722PAU] comprising:
a plurality of pixel units [e.g., Fig. 23: 720], wherein each pixel units comprises:
a display media module comprising one or more pairs of electrodes [e.g., Fig. 23: 101PE, 102RE] and display media [e.g., Fig. 23: 105],
each pair of electrodes comprising a first electrode [e.g., Fig. 23: 101PE] disposed on a first substrate [e.g., Fig. 2: 101PS] and a second electrode [e.g., Fig. 23: 102RE], and
the display medium [e.g., Fig. 23: 105] being disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode; and
a sensing function element constructed from an active switch element [e.g., Fig. 2: 116S; Fig. 23: 116T],
wherein the active switching element comprises a substrate portion [e.g., Fig. 2: 116S] and a transistor portion [e.g., Fig. 23: 116T] formed on the substrate portion, and
wherein the sensing function element is independently manufactured from the display media module (e.g., see Paragraph 56) and electrically coupled to the first electrodes of the display media module (e.g., see Paragraph 53), and
configured to provide electric energy between the first electrode and the second electrode for sensing (e.g., see Paragraph 2)
(e.g., see Paragraphs 50-109).
Tseng doesn’t appear to expressly disclose the transistors constructed into one or more gain stages or feedback loops.
However, Takizawa discloses a sensing function element constructed from an active switch element, wherein the active switching element comprises a substrate portion [e.g., Paragraph 70: plastic substrate] and a transistor portion [e.g., Fig. 4: 63] formed on the substrate portion, and
wherein the transistors [e.g., Fig. 4: 61-63, 73] constructed into one or more gain stages [e.g., Paragraphs 85-90: gain] or feedback loops [e.g., Paragraph 74: switch 73 is in an on state; see Figs. 6AB, where a feedback loop is formed between amp 71’s input and output terminals]; and
wherein the sensing function element is independently manufactured from the display media module [e.g., Fig. 4: 64] and
electrically coupled to the first electrodes [e.g., Fig. 4: 64 anode] of the display media module, and
configured to provide electric energy [e.g., Fig. 4: ELVDD, ELVSS] between the first electrode [e.g., Fig. 4: 64 anode] and the second electrode [e.g., Fig. 4: 64 cathode] for sensing,
measuring or compensating the characteristics of the display media to adjust the amount of light passing through the display media (e.g., see Paragraphs 25-27, 64-67, 69-76, 79-91, 95).
Tseng and Takizawa are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of light emitting display devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine Takizawa’s sensing function element circuitry with Tseng’s pixels, so as to provide uniform brightness or color.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Takizawa’s sensing function element circuitry with Tseng’s pixels as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Regarding claim 2, Tseng discloses the display media module further comprises the first substrate and a second substrate [e.g., Fig. 2B: 102RS],
which are disposed facing each other and separated from each other;
wherein the second electrode is disposed on the first substrate or the second substrate (e.g., see Paragraphs 55-62).
Regarding claim 3, Tseng discloses the first electrode or the second electrode is made of the following transparent conductive material, non-transparent conductive material, flexible conductive material, rigid conductive material, metallic conductive material, metal alloy material, organic conductive material, inorganic conductive material, composite conductive material, and one of combinations thereof (e.g., see Paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 8, Tseng discloses the display media comprises at least one of self-luminous medium material, non-self-luminous medium material, light-filtering material, electric conductive material, insulating material, light absorbing material, light reflecting material, photorefractive material, light deflecting material and light diffusing material (e.g., see Paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 9, Tseng discloses the non-self-luminous medium material comprises at least one of electrophoretic material, electric fluid material, liquid crystal material, micro electromechanical reflective material, electrowetting material, electric ink material, magnetic fluid material, electrochromic material, electromorphous material and thermochromic material; the self-luminous medium material comprises at least one of electroluminescent material, photoluminescent material, cathodoluminescent material, field emissive luminescent material, vacuum fluorescent material and light-emitting diode material (e.g., see Paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 10, Tseng discloses the shape of the display media module is square, rectangular, fan-shaped, triangular, trapezoid, round, polygonal, irregular, or one of the combinations thereof (e.g., see Paragraph 89).
Regarding claim 11, Tseng discloses a connecting module [e.g., Fig. 23: 730] being separately manufactured and combined with the display media module or the sensing function element, wherein the connecting module is a pitch connector [e.g., Fig. 23: 730], and the pitch [e.g., Fig. 23: P1] between two connectors [e.g., Fig. 23: 118A] electrically connecting with the sensing function elements is less than the pitch [e.g., Fig. 23: P2] between two connectors [e.g., Fig. 23: 118C] connecting with the first electrodes (e.g., see Paragraph 105).
Regarding claim 12, Tseng discloses the connecting module being characterized as an interposer is disposed, assembled, bonded, combined, merged, associated, linked, embedded or integrated with the display media module or the sensing function elements (e.g., see Paragraphs 104-105).
Regarding claim 13, Takizawa discloses the gain stages of the sensing function elements further comprises one or more differential amplifiers [e.g., see Fig. 4: 71] and one or more switches [e.g., see Fig. 4: 73], wherein constructed from the transistors of the active switch elements, one or more switch capacitors [e.g., see Fig. 4: 72] or resistors; wherein the switch capacitors, switch resistors or switches are electrically coupled to the inverting input terminal [e.g., see Fig. 4: 71-] and output terminal [e.g., see Fig. 4: 71 output] of the differential amplifier to form a closed loop; wherein the first electrode of the display media electrically coupled to the inverting input terminal of the differential, the second electrode of the display media electrically connected to ground, a dc voltage [e.g., see Fig. 4: ELVSS] or the inverting input terminal of another differential; and wherein during a reset phase or a sensing phases of the sensing function elements, by modulating an appropriate voltages [e.g., see Fig. 6B: Vmg; Fig. 6C: Vm_TFT; Fig. 6D: Vm_OLED; Fig. 6E: DV(i, j)] electrically coupled to the non-inverting input terminal [e.g., see Fig. 4: 71+] of the differential amplifiers, by setting an appropriate switch capacitors [e.g., see Fig. 4: 72] or switch resistors values, and by appropriate controlling the switches; and whereof the sensing function elements configured to provide electric energy between the first electrode and the second electrode for sensing, measuring or compensating the characteristics of the display media to adjust the amount of light passing through the display media (e.g., see Paragraphs 77-86).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 11, 13, 15, 28, 33 and Invention I in the reply filed on 4 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to at least a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4 December 2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached 'Notice of References Cited' are cited to further evidence the state of the art pertaining to pixel arrays.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Piziali whose telephone number is (571)272-7678. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (7:30AM - 4PM). 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Jeff Piziali/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
12 December 2025