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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11: At the end of the line, change “the” to “a” to provide antecedent basis for the corresponding effective light-emitting area.
Claim 1, line 26: Add a comma after “electrochromic layer”.
Claims 2-7 are objected to for depending from objected-to base claim 1.
Claim 2, line 2: Please provide antecedent basis for “the driving voltage signal output” and “the driving circuit”.
Claim 2, lines 3-4: Please provide antecedent basis for “the electric signal output”
Claim 2, line 4: Please provide antecedent basis for “the control circuit”.
Claim 3, line 2: Change “is” to “being”.
Claim 3, line 3: Change “covers” to “covering”.
Claim 6: Is this language intended to indicate a Markush group? If so, please refer to MPEP § 2117.
Claim 8, line 11: At the end of the line, change “the” to “a” to provide antecedent basis for the corresponding effective light-emitting area.
Claim 8, line 26: Add a comma after “electrochromic layer”.
Claims 9-14 are objected to for depending from objected-to base claim 1.
Claim 9, line 2: Please provide antecedent basis for “the driving voltage signal output” and “the driving circuit”.
Claim 9, lines 3-4: Please provide antecedent basis for “the electric signal output”
Claim 9, line 4: Please provide antecedent basis for “the control circuit”.
Claim 10, line 2: Change “is” to “being”.
Claim 10, line 3: Change “covers” to “covering”.
Claim 13: Is this language intended to indicate a Markush group? If so, please refer to MPEP § 2117.
Claim 15, line 10: Change “the” to “a” before “corresponding effective light-emitting area”.
Claim 15, lines 28-29: Add a comma after “electrochromic layer”.
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.
Claims 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1, lines 11-12, refer to “the corresponding effective light-emitting area”. However, antecedent basis has not been provided for the corresponding effective light-emitting area. Because antecedent basis has not been provided, claim 1 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1: Antecedent basis is missing for the terms “the driving voltage signal output”, “the driving circuit”, “the electrical signal output”, and “the control circuit” in lines 2-4. Because antecedent basis is missing, claim 2 is rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1: This claim appears to be directed to a Markush group, but the language is not consistent with the “the group consisting of A, B, and C”. See MPEP § 2117. Because the language is not that for Markush groups and the language is unclear whether a Markush group is intended, claim 6 is rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1: This claim refers to “the electric signal received by the third electrode layer” in line 3, “the driving voltage signal received by the fourth electrode layer” in lines 4-5, and “the voltage value” and “the electric signal received by the fourth electrode layer” in lines 6-7. However, claim 1 refers generally to the electrochromic functional device being under control of “an electric signal” or “the electric signal”. Claim 1 does not define different electric signals or specific electric signals that are directed to the third electrode layer and the fourth electrode layer. Because the relationship between the claim 7 electric signals and the claim 1 electric signals is unclear, because the relationship between the driving voltage signal of claim 1 and the driving voltage signal of the fourth electrode layer of claim 7 is unclear, and because the specific electric signals of claim 7 have not been defined, claim 7 is rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claim 8: Claim 8, lines 11-12, refer to “the corresponding effective light-emitting area”. However, antecedent basis has not been provided for the corresponding effective light-emitting area. Because antecedent basis has not been provided, claim 8 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 9-14 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 8: Antecedent basis is missing for the terms “the driving voltage signal output”, “the driving circuit”, “the electrical signal output”, and “the control circuit” in lines 2-4. Because antecedent basis is missing, claim 9 is rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 8: This claim appears to be directed to a Markush group, but the language is not consistent with the “the group consisting of A, B, and C”. See MPEP § 2117. Because the language is not that for Markush groups and the language is unclear whether a Markush group is intended, claim 13 is rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 8: This claim refers to “the electric signal received by the third electrode layer” in line 3, “the driving voltage signal received by the fourth electrode layer” in lines 4-5, and “the voltage value” and “the electric signal received by the fourth electrode layer” in lines 6-7. However, claim 8 refers generally to the electrochromic functional device being under control of “an electric signal” or “the electric signal”. Claim 8 does not define different electric signals or specific electric signals that are directed to the third electrode layer and the fourth electrode layer. Because the relationship between the claim 14 electric signals and the claim 8 electric signals is unclear, because the relationship between the driving voltage signal of claim 8 and the driving voltage signal of the fourth electrode layer of claim 14 is unclear, and because the specific electric signals of claim 14 have not been defined, claim 14 is rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claim 15: This claim is rejected on two bases. First, claim 15, line 10, refer to “the corresponding effective light-emitting area”. However, antecedent basis has not been provided for the corresponding effective light-emitting area. Because antecedent basis has not been provided, claim 15 is rejected as indefinite.
Second, claim 15, lines 11-20, refer to configurations that are associated with a method of use. For structure claims 1-14, this language is acceptable because the language corresponds to how the structure is configured. However, for method claim 15, a method for manufacturing the device, language relating to the method of use that is associated with the structure of the device does not make sense. Because the use of this language in a method for manufacture claim does not make sense, claim 15 is rejected as indefinite.
Remarks
The Office has reviewed the references cited by the State Intellectual Property Office of People’s Republic of China (SIPO), as well as the SIPO office actions, and—assuming the claims are the same—differs with SIPO as to the interpretation of the claims, and the allowability of the claims.
For example, Fu, Chinese Pat. Pub. No. CN106098737A, discloses the use of an electrochromic device layer and a light-emitting device layer in which the electrochromic device layer turns black during 3D mode to avoid cross-talk with a neighboring light-emitting device. This is a different feature from an electrochromic device layer turning black when its pixel circuitry detects that the pixel’s light-emitting device, intended to be turned off, is receiving a driving signal from neighboring light-emitting device. The same is true for Sun, Chinese Pat. Pub. No. CN107425043A, which uses control to turn off (or black) an electrochromic device layer when the light-emitting device layer is off, and to make transparent the electrochromic device layer when the light-emitting device layer is on. Sato, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0077316, has a similar feature, as does Liu, Chinese Pat. Pub. No. CN108987451A. For an electrochromic functional device layer to be configured to take specific actions, as required by independent claims 1, 8, and 15, more is required than inaction (electrochromic layer is not energized, and thus is black) or than the possibility of the action based on the wiring—more than “capable of” taking the action. Instead, the structure to drive the specific actions must be present, and the circuitry must be configured so that the specific actions can be taken. This circuitry configuration is absent from the references. For these reasons, claims 1-15 have allowable subject matter, once the Section 112(b) and informalities are addressed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and if the informalities were addressed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 1: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “when one pixel unit does not receive a driving voltage signal and is driven by a portion of current of an adjacent pixel unit that receives the driving voltage signal, to emit light, the electrochromic functional device corresponding to the one pixel unit is configured to, under control of an electric signal, absorb the light emitted by the one pixel unit; or, the electrochromic functional device corresponding to the one pixel unit is configured to, under the control of the electric signal, increase a refraction of the light emitted by the one pixel unit”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 2-7: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 1 above.
With regard to claim 8: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “when one pixel unit does not receive a driving voltage signal and is driven by a portion of current of an adjacent pixel unit that receives the driving voltage signal, to emit light, the electrochromic functional device corresponding to the one pixel unit is configured to, under control of an electric signal, absorb light emitted by the one pixel unit; or, the electrochromic functional device corresponding to the one pixel unit is configured to, under the control of the electric signal, increase a refraction of the light emitted by the one pixel unit”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 9-14: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 8 above.
With regard to claim 15: If applicants can overcome the Section 112(b) rejection directed to the combination of a method of use with a method of manufacture, the claim will be found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “when one pixel unit does not receive a driving voltage signal and is driven by a portion of current of an adjacent pixel unit that receives the driving voltage signal, to emit light, the electrochromic functional device corresponding to the one pixel unit is configured to, under control of an electric signal, absorb the light emitted by the one pixel unit; or, the electrochromic functional device corresponding to the one pixel unit is configured to, under the control of the electric signal, increase a refraction of the light emitted by the one pixel unit”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA KATHLEEN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Victoria K. Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights