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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “module” throughout the claims.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 9 – 11, 16, 19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US Pub. No. 2010/0020107 A1).
As to claims 1 and 16, Chui shows a display system 300 and associated methodology comprising a plurality of display modules (i.e. paddles 302/304, for example, Fig. 3 and para. 43), each display module comprising: at least one light source (LED) movable along a predetermined closed path (Figs. 2A and 2B and paras. 40 and 41); an image controller adapted to modulate an intensity of light emitted by the at least one light source as it moves along the predetermined closed path so as to cause a desired image to be visible by virtue of persistence of vision (Figs. 1 and 5 and paras. 36, 37, 62 and 108); a drive (inherently included) mechanically coupled to the at least one light source for moving the at least one light source along the predetermined closed path (Figs. 2A and 2B and paras. 40 and 41); a sensor 506 which generates a synchronization signal including a synchronization feature indicating a passage of the at least one light source past a datum point on the predetermined closed path (i.e. angle, for example, Fig. 5 and para. 62); and a drive controller (inherently included) for controlling the a speed of the drive (Fig. 5 and paras. 62 and 66), the drive controller being adapted to receive the synchronization signal from the sensor and a reference signal including a periodic timing feature having a period based on a desired speed of revolution of the at least one light source along the predetermined closed path (Fig. 5 and paras. 62 and 66), wherein the drive controller is further adapted to produce a drive signal to control the speed of the drive such that a phase shift between the synchronization feature and the timing feature is maintained at a predetermined value (i.e. to correct for drifting speed values, Fig. 5 and paras. 62 and 66); wherein the plurality of display modules are arranged into at least two groups (Fig. 7 and para. 80), each of the at least two groups comprising one or more of the plurality of display modules (Fig. 7 and para. 80), and the predetermined closed path of the or each display module in each group lying in a plane associated with the group (Fig. 7 and paras. 80 – 82), the plane associated with each group being unique to that group (Fig. 7 and para. 82); wherein the display modules are disposed such that each lies within a region around an intersection of a row and a column in a grid (Fig. 7 and paras. 80 – 82), each module being adjacent, in its row and column, only to modules in a different one of the at least two groups (Fig. 7 and paras. 80 – 82), the light sources of each adjacent pair of display modules moving along their predetermined closed paths in opposing senses (Fig. 9 and para. 87) and the predetermined closed paths of each adjacent pair overlapping (Fig. 7 and paras. 80 – 82); wherein the predetermined value of the phase shift between the synchronization feature and the timing feature for each of the plurality of display modules is selected such that the at least one light source does not occupy a position in which the at least one light source obscures the at least one light source of another of the plurality of display modules (paras. 44 and 73).
As to claim 2, Chui shows that the sensor of each display module detects the passage of a respective indexing feature having a fixed spatial relationship to the at least one light source of the display module as it moves along its predetermined closed path (inherently the case to detect speed of rotation, Fig. 5 and paras. 62 and 66), the sensor generating a pulse in the synchronization signal in response to the passage of the indexing feature past the sensor (inherently the case to detect speed of rotation, Fig. 5 and paras. 62 and 66).
As to claim 3, Chui shows a second sensor which generates an image synchronization signal indicating the passage of the at least one light source past an image start point on the predetermined closed path (para. 94).
As to claim 5, Chui shows that the image controller of each display module is further adapted to modulate the intensity of light emitted by the at least one light source (paras. 44, 62 and 73) in accordance with a respective brightness mask (412/432) to adjust the intensity of light emitted by the at least one light source based on a predefined profile (Figs. 4B and 4C an paras. 44, 51, 57, 62 and 73).
As to claim 6, Chui shows that the predetermined value of the phase shift between the synchronization feature and the timing feature for each of the plurality of display modules is dynamically adjustable (paras. 62 and 66).
As to claim 7, Chui shows that each of the plurality of display modules is arranged into a respective one of first and second groups (Fig. 7 and paras. 80 – 82), each module in the first group being adjacent, in its row and column, only to modules in the second group (Fig. 7 and paras. 80 – 82) and each module in the second group being adjacent, in its row and column, only to modules in the first group (Fig. 7 and paras. 80 – 82).
As to claim 9, Chui shows an external control unit which generates the reference signal (Fig. 5 and paras. 62 and 66).
As to claim 10, Chui shows that each display module is assigned to a respective row and column within the grid (Fig. 7 and paras. 80 – 82), and wherein the external control unit comprises a memory in which the assigned row and column for each display module is stored (i.e. pixel map, Fig. 5 and paras. 62 and 63).
As to claims 11 and 27, Chui shows that the external control unit is coupled to each of the display modules by a communications link over which image data may be transmitted to each display module (Fig. 5 and para. 62), the image data representing a portion of an overall image to be displayed by all of the display modules together (Fig. 7 and paras. 80 – 082) comprises an image processor which, for each display module, offsets the portion of the overall image represented by the image data by a calibration amount to account for misplacement of the display module (Fig. 7 and paras. 80 – 82).
As to claim 19, Chui shows generating at each display module an image synchronization signal indicating the passage of the at least one light source past an image start point on the predetermined closed path (inherently included to sense speed, Fig. 5 and paras. 62 and 66).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 13, 14, 17, 23 and 28 – 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Specifically, claims 8 and 23 recite that “… the phase shift between the synchronization feature or phase-shifted version of it and the timing feature or phase-shifted version of it of each display module is a multiple of 45° and different to the phase shift between the synchronization feature or phase-shifted version of it and the timing feature or phase-shifted version of it of each adjacent display module in its row and column.”
The prior art of record does not show this configuration; therefore these claims contain allowable subject matter.
Also, claim 13 recites that “… the predetermined value of the phase shift between the synchronization feature or phase-shifted version of it and the timing feature or phase-shifted version of it for each of the plurality of display modules is selected such that the difference between the predetermined values of each adjacent pair has a desired value or lies between upper and lower threshold values, thereby setting an initial phase shift between the synchronization feature or phase-shifted version of it and the timing feature or phase-shifted version of it for each of the plurality of display modules.
The prior art of record does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 14 contains allowable subject matter at least by virtue of its dependence on claim 13.
Claim 17 recites that “…detecting at each display module, with a respective sensor, the passage of an indexing feature having a fixed spatial relationship to the at least one light source as it moves along the predetermined closed path, the sensor generating a pulse in the synchronization signal in response to the passage of the indexing feature past the sensor; wherein, at each display module, the sensor generates a pulse in the synchronization signal in response to the passage of one or more sub-indexing features spaced apart from each other and from the indexing feature such that each one of the indexing and sub-indexing features passes the sensor in turn as the at least one light source moves along the predetermined closed path.”
The prior art of record does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 28 recites similar subject matter as that of claim 13, and therefore contains allowable subject matter for the reasons above.
Claims 29 and 30 contain allowable subject matter at least by virtue of their dependence on claim 28.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/CARL ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2627