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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s IDS submitted on 10/1/25, 10/17/24, and 6/24/24 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has/have been considered by the examiner and made of record.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0008] “pixel fill factor (CFA)” is unclear since in [0002]CFA is color filter array, and not pixel fill factor.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 is unclear because it recites that the fill factors pFF1, pFF2, and pFF3 comply with the condition of pFF1 : pFF2 : pFF3 = 1 : 1 : 2, this condition means that pFF1 = pFF2 = 25% and pFF3 = 50%. However, this conflicts with claim 4, from which claim 5 depends, which recites that the ratio of the areas of the third pixel to the total pixel unit is 20%.
For purposes of examination claim 5 has been interpreted as requiring pFF1 : pFF2 : pFF3 = 1 : 1 : 2, as this interpretation allow for the consideration of this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuruda et al., US 20190271878 A1, hereafter Tsuruda.
Regarding independent claim 1, Tsuruda discloses the following limitations:
A color reflective display panel, comprising:
a reflective display panel (Tsuruda, Figure 2, reflective display panel 1A); and
a color filter array disposed on the reflective display panel (Tsuruda, Figure 2, plurality of color filter layers 17 respectively include a first colored layer 17r, a second colored layer 17g, and a third colored layer 17b as colored layers), wherein the color filter array comprises a plurality of pixel units (Tsuruda, Figure 2, pixel P1 includes subpixels Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4), each of the plurality of pixel units comprises one or more first pixels having a first color (Tsuruda, Figure 2, first colored layer 17r), one or more second pixels having a second color (Tsuruda, Figure 2, second colored layer 17g), and one or more third pixels having a third color (Tsuruda, Figure 2, third colored layer 17b),
wherein a ratio of an area of the one or more third pixels to an area of the pixel unit is less than one-third (Tsuruda, Figure 2, and [0083]-[0084] which discloses that the subpixels can be the same size, and since there are four subpixels in the pixel, each subpixel occupies one-quarter of the pixel area, an area less than one-third).
Regarding claim 3, Tsuruda discloses the following limitations:
The color reflective display panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ratio of the area of the one or more third pixels to the area of the pixel unit is 20% ± 5% (Tsuruda, Figure 2, and [0084] which discloses that the subpixels can be the same size, and since there are four subpixels in the pixel, each subpixel occupies one-quarter of the pixel area, or 25%).
Regarding claim 6, Tsuruda discloses the following limitations:
The color reflective display panel as claimed in claim 3, wherein the ratio of the area of the one or more third pixels to the area of the pixel unit is 25% (Tsuruda, Figure 2, and [0084] which discloses that the subpixels can be the same size, and since there are four subpixels in the pixel, each subpixel occupies one-quarter of the pixel area, or 25%).
Regarding claim 8, Tsuruda discloses the following limitations:
The color reflective display panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first color is red, the second color is green, and the third color is blue (Tsuruda, Figure 2, and [0075] which discloses “The first color, the second color, and the third color may be, for example, red, green, and blue.”)
Regarding claim 10, Tsuruda discloses the following limitations:
The color reflective display panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein shapes of a region of the first color and a region of the second color are the same as a shape of a region of the third color (Tsuruda, Figure 2, and [0083] which discloses that all of the subpixels are shaped as rectangles).
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.
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 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuruda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiang et al., US 20200041837 A1, hereafter Jiang.
Regarding claim 2, Tsuruda fails to disclose the following limitation:
The color reflective display panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein a ratio of an area of the one or more first pixels to the area of the pixel unit is greater than one-third, and a ratio of an area of the one or more second pixels to the area of the pixel unit is greater than one-third.
Jiang discloses the following limitation:
wherein a ratio of an area of the one or more first pixels to the area of the pixel unit is greater than one-third, and a ratio of an area of the one or more second pixels to the area of the pixel unit is greater than one-third (Jiang, in the field of color displays discloses the use of different size pixels to balance the light output of a display and in [0024] discloses a ratio of color areas of 1:X:Y where 2.5≤X≤5 and 4≤Y≤6. If both X and Y are equal to 4 (pFF3 : pFF2 : pFF1 = 1:4:4) then the ratio of the areas would be 1/9 : 4/9 : 4/9, which means that two pixels have an area more than one-third of the total area).
Tsuruda teaches the claimed invention, lacking only in not teaching that the radio of the area of the first pixel is greater than one-third of the pixel unit area and that the ratio of the second pixel area is greater than one-third of the pixel unit area. Jiang discloses the use of different size pixel in a display improve the color shift phenomenon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of different size pixels would improve the color shift phenomenon in the device of Tsuruda. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the color shift using the known technique of different size pixels in the display device.
Regarding claim 9, Tsuruda fails to disclose the following limitation:
The color reflective display panel as claimed in claim 1, wherein shapes of a region of the first color and a region of the second color are different from a shape of a region of the third color.
Jiang discloses the following limitation:
wherein shapes of a region of the first color and a region of the second color are different from a shape of a region of the third color (Jiang, Figure 8, show a configuration of colored pixels (R, G, B) where each color pixel has a different shape).
Tsuruda teaches the claimed invention, lacking only in not teaching to use two different shapes for the pixels. Jiang discloses the use of different pixel shapes in a display improve the color shift phenomenon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of different pixel shapes would improve the color shift phenomenon in the device of Tsuruda. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve the color shift using the known technique of different pixel shapes in the display device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuruda as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kim et al., KR 20080098795 A, hereafter Kim.
Regarding claim 4, Tsuruda fails to teach the following limitation:
The color reflective display panel as claimed in claim 3, wherein the ratio of the area of the one or more third pixels to the area of the pixel unit is 20%.
Tsuruda fails to disclose pixels of different sizes, such that one or more of the third pixels has an area that is 20% of the pixel unit size. Kim teaches that in the field of reflective displays it is known that “white balance is adjusted by varying the areas of the red, green, and blue color pixels.” Kim teaches that the size of the color pixels in a reflective display is a results effective variable, that is, changing the relative sizes will change the white balance of the reflective device. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality of a pixel with an area that is 20% of the total pixel unit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have used routine optimization to determine the sizes of the pixels, including one with an area that is 20% of the total pixel unit, to achieve an improved white balance in the reflective display. See MPEP 2144.05 IIB.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuruda as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Fujita, US 20070229748 A1, hereafter Fujita.
Regarding claim 5, Tsuruda fails to teach the following limitation:
The color reflective display panel as claimed in claim 4, wherein a pixel fill factor of the first color is pFF1, a pixel fill factor of the second color is pFF2, a pixel fill factor of the third color is pFF3, and pFF1, pFF2, and pFF3 comply with a condition of pFF1: pFF2: pFF3= 1: 1: 2.
Fujita teaches the following limitation:
wherein a pixel fill factor of the first color is pFF1, a pixel fill factor of the second color is pFF2, a pixel fill factor of the third color is pFF3, and pFF1, pFF2, and pFF3 comply with a condition of pFF1: pFF2: pFF3= 1: 1: 2 (Fujita, Figure 2A, and [0166] which discloses that the bluish region has a wavelength of 415 to 500 nm and the other region has a wavelength of 500 to 590 nm, so there are two region of the color blue and one green region and one red one, meeting the 1:1:2 raito).
Tsuruda teaches the claimed invention, lacking only in not teaching pFF1 : pFF2 : pFF3= 1 : 1 : 2. Fujita in a reflective display device discloses a device with an pixel of an “other” color pixel that is used to adjust the white balance of the display, and that the other color can have a 500 nm wavelength, a wavelength that is also in the range of the blue pixel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teaching of Fujita to change the size of a pixel to improve the white balance could be applied to the device of Tsuruda and therefore have made a device with a ratio of areas of the colored device equal to 1 : 1 : 2.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuruda as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ding et al., CN 109961735 B, hereafter Ding.
Regarding claim 7, Tsuruda fails to teach the following limitation:
The color reflective display panel as claimed in claim 6, wherein a pixel fill factor of the first color is pFF1, a pixel fill factor of the second color is pFF2, a pixel fill factor of the third color is pFF3, and pFF1, pFF2, and pFF3 comply with a condition of pFF1: pFF2: pFF3= 2: 2: 3.
Ding discloses the following limitation:
The color reflective display panel as claimed in claim 6, wherein a pixel fill factor of the first color is pFF1, a pixel fill factor of the second color is pFF2, a pixel fill factor of the third color is pFF3, and pFF1, pFF2, and pFF3 comply with a condition of pFF1: pFF2: pFF3= 2: 2: 3 (Ding, Figure 2, and “the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel and the third sub-pixel have the same size, and the white balance subpixel is either red or green. In the case where the first pixel is red, and a = 0.5, the ratio would be 3 : 2 : 2 because the area of the first pixel of Ding, which would correspond to the third pixel of the claim, would include the area of the red pixel and the area of the white balance pixel.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have applied the teachings of Ding to the device of Tsuruda and to therefore have used a white balance subpixel to improve the white balance of the display device. Doing so would make the area of one of the pixels larger than that of the other two colors, and when a = 0.5, in the center of the range for a, the ratio of the pixel area would be 1 : 1 : 2
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ohmuro et al., US 20040189925 A1, discloses adjusting the white balance in a reflective display by changing the occupied area
Kim et al., US 20080277664 A1, discloses pixels of different sizes to maintain white balance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA J FLECK whose telephone number is (703)756-1253. The examiner can normally be reached 10-2 ET.
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.
/LINDA J. FLECK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights