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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt of the Amendment, filed on December 4, 2024, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 12, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho (US 2008/0094537 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses a reflective display comprising: a plurality of pixels (¶[0073]), each pixel comprising an active area (Fig. 1); and an array of reflectors (103) within the active area of each pixel, each reflector (103) of the array of reflectors is directly adjacent to another reflector of the array of reflectors, each reflector of the array of reflectors is entirely reflective (Fig. 3), and each reflector of the array of reflectors comprises a curved first surface (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Cho discloses a reflective display wherein the first surface is convex (Fig. 14)
Regarding claim 3, Cho discloses a reflective display wherein the first surface is concave (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Cho discloses a reflective display wherein each reflector of the array of reflectors is arranged in an opposite orientation to a directly adjacent reflector of the array of reflectors (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Cho discloses a reflective display reflective display comprising: a plurality of pixels (¶[0073]), each pixel comprising an active area (Fig. 1); and an array of reflectors (103) within the active area of each pixel, each reflector (103) of the array of reflectors is directly adjacent to another reflector (103) of the array of reflectors (Fig. 1), each reflector of the array of reflectors is entirely reflective (Fig. 3), and each reflector (103) of the array of reflectors comprises a first surface having a first slope and a second surface having a second slope different from the first slope (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Cho discloses a reflective display reflective display wherein the first surface extends to the second surface (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Cho discloses a reflective display reflective display wherein the first surface and the second surface are curved (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohhira et al. (US 7,324,179 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Ohhira discloses a reflective display comprising: a plurality of pixels, each pixel comprising an active area (area driven by each TFT 71, Fig. 13); and an array of reflectors (1) within the active area of each pixel, each reflector (1) of the array of reflectors is directly adjacent to another reflector of the array of reflectors, each reflector of the array of reflectors is entirely reflective (Fig. 9), and each reflector of the array of reflectors comprises a curved first surface (B, Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 2, Ohhira discloses a reflective display wherein the first surface (B) is convex (B, Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 3, Ohhira discloses a reflective display wherein the first surface (B) is concave (Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 4, Ohhira discloses a reflective display wherein each reflector of the array of reflectors comprises a planer second surface (A) extending to the first surface (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Ohhira discloses a reflective display further comprising: a glass substrate (22, Column 10, lines 39-44); wherein the array of reflectors (1) are arranged on the glass substrate (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Ohhira discloses a reflective display further comprising: a liquid crystal layer (23) within each pixel, wherein the array of reflectors (1) directly contacts the liquid crystal layer (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 12, Ohhira discloses a reflective display reflective display comprising: a plurality of pixels, each pixel comprising an active area (area driven by each TFT 71, Fig. 13); and an array of reflectors (1) within the active area of each pixel, each reflector (1) of the array of reflectors is directly adjacent to another reflector (1) of the array of reflectors (Fig. 9), each reflector (1) of the array of reflectors is entirely reflective (Fig. 9), and each reflector (1) of the array of reflectors comprises a first surface having a first slope and a second surface having a second slope different from the first slope (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 14, Ohhira discloses a reflective display reflective display wherein the first surface extends to the second surface (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 17, Ohhira discloses a reflective display reflective display wherein the first surface (B) and the second surface (B) are curved (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 12-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (CN 106094325 A).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses a reflective display comprising: a plurality of pixels (3), each pixel comprising an active area; and an array of reflectors (2) within the active area of each pixel, each reflector (2) of the array of reflectors is directly adjacent to another reflector of the array of reflectors (Fig. 8), each reflector of the array of reflectors is entirely reflective, and each reflector of the array of reflectors comprises a curved first surface (Figs. 7-9, ¶[0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhu discloses a reflective display wherein the first surface is concave (¶[0040], Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Zhu discloses a reflective display wherein each reflector of the array of reflectors comprises a planer second surface extending to the first surface (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu discloses a reflective display further comprising: a third surface extending between the first surface and the second surface, wherein a first angle between the second surface and the first surface is less than a second angle between the second surface and the third surface (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Zhu discloses a reflective display wherein each reflector (2) of the array of reflectors is arranged at an angle to a directly adjacent reflector of the array of reflectors within a range between about 15 degrees and about 25 degrees (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 12, Zhu discloses a reflective display comprising: a plurality of pixels (3), each pixel comprising an active area; and an array of reflectors (2) within the active area of each pixel, each reflector (2) of the array of reflectors is directly adjacent to another reflector (2) of the array of reflectors, each reflector of the array of reflectors is entirely reflective, and each reflector (2) of the array of reflectors comprises a first surface having a first slope and a second surface having a second slope different from the first slope (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 13, Zhu discloses a reflective display wherein each reflector (2) of the array of reflectors comprises a third surface (bottom surface) extending between the first surface and the second surface (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 14, Zhu discloses a reflective display wherein the first surface extends to the second surface (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 15, Zhu discloses a reflective display wherein each reflector (2) of the array of reflectors comprises a first triangular shaped portion comprising the first surface and a second triangular shaped portion comprising the second surface (Figs. 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 16, Zhu discloses a reflective display wherein each reflector (2) of the array of reflectors comprises a single triangular shaped portion comprising the first surface and the second surface on a single side of the reflector (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 18, Zhu discloses a reflective display comprising: a plurality of pixels (3), each pixel comprising an active area (Fig. 10); and an array of reflectors (2) within the active area of each pixel, each reflector of the array of reflectors is directly adjacent to another reflector of the array of reflectors (Fig. 8), and each reflector (2) of the array of reflectors comprises an inverted pyramid (Figs. 7-9) or cone (¶[0040]).
Regarding claim 20, Zhu discloses a reflective display wherein an angle between opposing sidewall portions is within a range between about 60 degrees and about 90 degrees (Fig. 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 5, 9-10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (CN 106094325 A).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu fail to disclose wherein the second surface is rectangular. It has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to a rectangular pyramid shape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component.
Regarding claim 9, Zhu discloses a reflective display further comprising: a substrate (1); wherein the array of reflectors (2) are arranged on the substrate. Zhu fails to exemplify wherein the substrate is made of glass. It is considered within the capabilities of one skilled in the art the selection of a material based on its known suitability for an intended application as an obvious matter of design engineering. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to a glass substrate, since the selection of known materials for a known purpose is within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 10, Zhu discloses a reflective display further comprising: a planarization layer (4) encapsulating the array of reflectors (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 19, Zhu discloses a reflective display wherein each reflector of the array of reflectors comprises a base portion and sidewall portions, and wherein the sidewall portions are reflective. Zhu is silent in regards to the base portion is transparent. It is considered within the capabilities of one skilled in the art the selection of a material based on its known suitability for an intended application as an obvious matter of design engineering. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to have the base portion made of a transparent material, since the selection of known materials for a known purpose is within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akins et al. (US 6,285,426 B1) discloses a ridged reflector having optically transmissive properties for use in back-lighted and reflective liquid crystal displays.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mariceli Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-2464. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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, James R. Greece, can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Mariceli Santiago/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2879
Prosecution Insights