DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the divisional application filed on 30 May 2024.
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 .
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 21-26, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0055801 A1; hereinafter Kim) in view of Rankov et al. (US 2010/0253710 A1; hereinafter Rankov).
In regards to claim 21, Kim teaches a capacitively coupled active-matrix system, comprising:
a system substrate (evidenced by (200); [0077]);
row wires extending in a row direction (evidenced by the horizontal wires extending from (210)) over the system substrate;
a row controller (210) operable to provide a row electrical signal to each of the row wires disposed on the system substrate [0077];
column wires (evidenced by (222); [0077]) extending in a column direction over the system substrate (fig. 3; [0062]);
a column controller (230) operable to provide a column electrical signal to each of the column wires disposed on the system substrate [0062]; and
pixels (evidenced by (100)) disposed over the system substrate, wherein each of the pixels comprises a pixel circuit that is uniquely responsive to one of the row wires and to one of the column wires, the pixel circuit operable to receive the row electrical signal from the one of the row wires and operable to receive the column electrical signals from the one of the column wires (fig. 3).
Kim appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations wherein the pixel circuit is capacitively coupled to the one of the row wires and is capacitively coupled to the one of the column wires. Rankov teaches the limitations wherein the pixel circuit is capacitively coupled to the one of the row wires and is capacitively coupled to the one of the column wires ([0013], [0067]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Kim with the aforementioned limitations taught by Rankov to program a pixel circuit (Rankov [0013]).
In regards to claim 22, the combination of Kim and Rankov teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 21. Kim further teaches the limitations wherein the electro-optically controlled active-matrix system is a display system or an imaging system (Kim Title).
In regards to claim 23, the combination of Kim and Rankov teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 21. Kim further teaches the limitations wherein the pixels are arranged in a matrix-addressed array over the system substrate (fig. 3).
In regards to claim 24, the combination of Kim and Rankov teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 21. Kim further teaches the limitations wherein the row wires are substantially orthogonal to the column wires (fig. 3).
In regards to claim 25, the combination of Kim and Rankov teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 21. Kim further teaches the limitations wherein the column controller (230) comprises an electrical circuit that provides a column electrical signal on each of the column wires [0062].
In regards to claim 26, the combination of Kim and Rankov teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 21. Kim further teaches the limitations wherein the pixel circuit comprises an electrical input circuit responsive to the column electrical signal from the one of the column wires (fig. 3).
In regards to claim 28, the combination of Kim and Rankov teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 21. Kim further teaches the limitations wherein each of the pixels comprises an inorganic light-emitting diode ([104]: evidenced by listings of LED and OLED).
In regards to claim 29, the combination of Kim and Rankov teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 21. Rankov further teaches the limitations wherein each of the pixels comprises a capacitive sensor ([0013], [0067]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Kim with the aforementioned limitations taught by Rankov to program a pixel circuit (Rankov [0013]).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim and Rankov as applied to claim 26 above, in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2003/0048261 A1; hereinafter Yamamoto).
In regards to claim 27, the combination of Kim and Rankov teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 26. The combination of Kim and Rankov appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations wherein, for each of the pixels, the electrical input circuit is capacitively coupled to the one of the row wires, is capacitively coupled to the one of the column wires, or is capacitively coupled to both the one of the row wires and the one of the column wires. Yamamoto teaches the limitations wherein, for each of the pixels, the electrical input circuit is capacitively coupled to the one of the row wires, is capacitively coupled to the one of the column wires, or is capacitively coupled to both the one of the row wires and the one of the column wires [0204]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by the combination of Kim and Rankov with the aforementioned limitations taught by Yamamoto to have row position detection (Yamamoto [0204]).
Claim(s) 30, 31, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim and Rankov as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Cok et al. (US 2018/0191978 A1; hereinafter Cok).
In regards to claim 30, the combination of Kim and Rankov teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 21. The combination of Kim and Rankov appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations wherein each of the pixels comprises a pixel substrate non-native to from the system substrate. Cok teaches the limitations wherein each of the pixels comprises a pixel substrate non-native to from the system substrate [0096]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by the combination of Kim and Rankov with the aforementioned limitations taught by Cok to reduce the cost of a device (Cok [0013]).
In regards to claim 31, the combination of Kim, Rankov, and Cok teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 30. Cok further teaches the limitations wherein the pixel substrate comprises a fractured or separated tether [0096]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by the combination of Kim and Rankov with the aforementioned limitations taught by Cok to reduce the cost of a device (Cok [0013]).
In regards to claim 33, the combination of Kim, Rankov, and Cok teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 30. Kim further teaches the limitations wherein the pixel circuit is disposed on a top side of the pixel substrate and a capacitor sensor is disposed on a bottom side of the pixel substrate opposite the top side (117) [0057].
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim, Rankov, and Cok as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Enda et al. (US 2010/0141849 A1; hereinafter Enda).
In regards to claim 32, the combination of Kim, Rankov, and Cok teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 21. The combination of Kim, Rankov, and Cok appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations wherein, for each of the pixels: the one of the row lines and the one of the column lines cross over on the system substrate at a cross-over location, the pixel comprises a pixel edge, and the cross-over location is closer to the pixel edge than to a center of the pixel. Enda teaches the limitations wherein, for each of the pixels: the one of the row lines and the one of the column lines cross over on the system substrate at a cross-over location [0031], the pixel comprises a pixel edge [0031], and the cross-over location is closer to the pixel edge than to a center of the pixel [0031]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by the combination of Kim, Rankov, and Cok with the aforementioned limitations taught by Enda to mitigate defects in a device (Enda [0001]).
Claim(s) 34-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Cok.
In regards to claim 34, Kim teaches a pixel, comprising:
a pixel circuit responsive to a row electrical signal and a column electrical signal (fig. 3), the pixel circuit disposed on, in, or over the pixel substrate (117) [0057]; and
one or more electrical sensing plates, wherein the pixel circuit is operable to receive at least one of the row electrical signal by capacitive coupling through at least one of the one or more electrical sensing plates and the column electrical signal by capacitive coupling through at least one of the one or more electrical sensing plates (fig. 3).
Kim appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations of a pixel substrate. Cok teaches the limitations of a pixel substrate [0096]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Kim with the aforementioned limitations taught by Cok to reduce the cost of a device (Cok [0013]).
In regards to claim 35, the combination of Kim and Cok teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 34. Cok further teaches the limitations comprising an inorganic light-emitting diode electrically connected to the pixel circuit or comprising a photosensor electrically connected to the pixel circuit [0022]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Kim with the aforementioned limitations taught by Cok to reduce the cost of a device (Cok [0013]).
In regards to claim 36, the combination of Kim and Cok teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 34. Cok further teaches the limitations comprising a fractured or separated tether [0096]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Kim with the aforementioned limitations taught by Cok to reduce the cost of a device (Cok [0013]).
In regards to claim 37, the combination of Kim and Cok teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 34. Kim further teaches the limitations wherein the pixel substrate comprises a dielectric structure having a top side and a bottom side, the pixel circuit is disposed on the top side, and the one or more electrical sensing plates are disposed on the bottom side (117) [0057].
In regards to claim 38, the combination of Kim and Cok teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 34. Cok further teaches the limitations comprising connection posts extending from the pixel substrate, the connection posts electrically connected to the pixel circuit (fig. 15). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Kim with the aforementioned limitations taught by Cok to reduce the cost of a device (Cok [0013]).
In regards to claim 39, the combination of Kim and Cok teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 38. Cok further teaches the limitations wherein the pixel substrate comprises a dielectric structure having a top side and a bottom side, the pixel circuit is disposed on the top side, and the connection posts extend from the bottom side (figs. 15 and 19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Kim with the aforementioned limitations taught by Cok to reduce the cost of a device (Cok [0013]).
In regards to claim 40, the combination of Kim and Cok teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 34. Cok further teaches the limitations wherein the pixel is a heterogeneously integrated device comprising a semiconductor device and a compound semiconductor device, wherein the semiconductor device comprises a semiconductor and the compound semiconductor device comprises a compound semiconductor different from the semiconductor [0101]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Kim with the aforementioned limitations taught by Cok to reduce the cost of a device (Cok [0013]).
In regards to claim 41, the combination of Kim and Cok teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 34. Kim further teaches the limitations wherein the pixel substrate comprises a semiconductor (fig. 3).
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim and Cok as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Rankov.
In regards to claim 42, the combination of Kim and Cok teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 34. The combination of Kim and Cok appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations wherein the pixel circuit is disposed in or on a top side of the pixel substrate and a capacitor sensor is disposed on a bottom side of the pixel substrate opposite the top side. Rankov teaches the limitations wherein the pixel circuit is disposed in or on a top side of the pixel substrate and a capacitor sensor is disposed on a bottom side of the pixel substrate opposite the top side (figs. 6-7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by the combination of Kim and Cok with the aforementioned limitations taught by Rankov to program a pixel circuit (Rankov [0013]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALVIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-7882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific Time).
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, William (Blake) Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
CALVIN CHOI
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/CALVIN Y CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights