DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/22/25 comply with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner considered the information disclosure statements.
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: memory unit, scan driving circuit, data driving circuit in claims 1, 6, and 7.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hou et al. (CN108597460A).
Regarding claim 1, Hou teaches an electronic label device (¶2, electronic paper display technology), comprising, a display module (fig. 1; ¶9 and ¶34, display screen, note: the electrophoretic electronic paper display screen) comprising a driving substrate and an E-paper film (shown in fig. 1, the external rectangle corresponds to the substrate and ¶2, electronic paper display technology), wherein the E-paper film is disposed on the driving substrate (examples shown in fig. 3a-3c where ¶26, fig. 3a is the initial state, ¶27, fig. 3b is the product failure state, ¶28, fig. 3c is the adjusted product state); and a driving chip (¶9 and ¶34, driving control chip calls the first set of driving waveforms to drive the display screen to display information) disposed on the driving substrate and electrically connected to the driving substrate, wherein the driving chip drives the E-paper film to display images through the driving substrate (¶34, as shown in fig. 1, the present invention provides an extended life electrophoresis type electronic paper device, which mainly comprises: a display screen, a driving control chip and a waveform storage unit); wherein, the driving chip comprises a memory unit (¶35, The waveform storage unit contains multiple sets of driving waveforms, which can be any of the following: the built-in storage space of the drive control chip, external storage space, and application software, or other carriers that can realize waveform storage function. Note: from ¶9, ¶11, ¶35, waveform storage unit storing multiple sets of driving waveforms; can be built-in storage space of the drive control chip), the memory unit stores a plurality of lookup tables (¶35, The waveform storage unit contains multiple sets of driving waveforms, which can be any of the following built-in storage space) corresponding to a plurality of temperature ranges (¶38, , the driving waveform can also be adjusted according to different operating temperature ranges. Each of the driving waveforms is valid for the entire operating temperature range or for a specific operating temperature range. The temperature range is divided according to the display requirements of the display screen and note: ¶37,¶38,¶39, multiple sets of driving waveforms each mapped to specific temperature sub-ranges), each of the lookup tables comprises an index corresponding to one of the temperature ranges (¶38, , the driving waveform can also be adjusted according to different operating temperature ranges. Each of the driving waveforms is valid for the entire operating temperature range or for a specific operating temperature range. The temperature range is divided according to the display requirements of the display screen. ¶39, operating temperature range divided into sub-ranges (e.g., 0
°
C-3
°
C, 3
°
C-8
°
C), each mapped to a specific stored waveform set.) and a plurality of processing procedures for multiple display colors of the E-paper film (¶40, further divided into several parts: C-BALANCE (color waveform balance), KW-BALANCE (black and white waveform balance), SHAKING (fast pulse waveform), and PUSH-PULL (pull-out display waveform). If only black and white are required to be displayed, then there is no C-BALANCE part.), and the index indicates a driving mode of the processing procedures (¶44, multiple sets of driving waveforms to drive electronic paper in order to extend its service life; ¶38 and ¶39, each waveform set determines the driving mode; drive control chip calls waveform according to current temperatures).
Regarding claim 2, Hou teaches the electronic label device of claim 1, wherein the E-paper film comprises an electrophoretic material (¶34, as shown in fig. 1, the present invention provides an extended life electrophoresis type electronic paper device; ¶5, ¶9, ¶34, device expressly described as electrophoretic electric paper driven by charged particles).
Regarding claim 3, Hou teaches the electronic label device of claim 1, wherein each of the lookup tables further comprises a processing procedure corresponding to a common voltage of the multiple display colors (¶40, waveform balance requirement: product of positive driving voltage
×
time = product of negative voltage
×
time , applied across all color procedures (C-BALANCE, KW-BALANCE)).
Regarding claim 4, Hou teaches the electronic label device of claim 1, wherein the driving mode comprises a synchronous driving mode (¶37 and ¶38, driving waveforms valid across entire operating temperature range applied uniformly to all ranges) and an asynchronous driving mode (¶38 and ¶39, drive control chip calls waveform corresponding to each specific temperature sub-range based on current operating temperature).
Regarding claim 5, Hou teaches the electronic label device of claim 1, wherein the memory unit comprises an OTP ROM or an MTP ROM (¶11, ¶35, ¶44, waveform storage unit described as built-in storage space of drive control chip; confirmed waveforms are “burned” into driver chip built-in storage).
Regarding claim 6, Hou teaches the electronic label device of claim 1, wherein the driving chip further comprises a scan driving circuit (¶9, ¶34, ¶40, drive control chip drives display screen at pixel level to display multiple colors and waveform types; scan driving circuit inherent to electrophoretic display architecture), the driving substrate comprises a plurality of pixel units (¶9, ¶34, display screen driven at pixel level through driving substrate to display information), and the scan driving circuit is electrically connected to the pixel units via a plurality of scan lines (¶9, ¶34, ¶40, pixel-level scan line connection inherent and inseparable from the disclosed electrophoretic display driving architecture).
Regarding claim 7, Hou teaches the electronic label device of claim 6, wherein the driving chip further comprises a data driving circuit (¶34, ¶40, drive control chip drives pixel-level display of multiple colors and waveform types (C-BALANCE, KW-BALANCE, SHAKING-PUSH-PULL); data driving circuit inherent to disclosed architecture), and the data driving circuit is electrically connected to the pixel units via a plurality of data lines (¶34,¶40, data line connection to pixel units inherent and inseparable from the disclosed electrophoretic display driving architecture.).
Regarding claim 8, Hou teaches the electronic label device of claim 1, further comprising: a system circuit board electrically connected to the driving substrate and the driving chip (fig. 1, ¶14, ¶34, integrated device comprising display screen, driving control chip, waveform storage unit, and temperature sensing chip necessarily interconnected by system circuit board.).
Regarding claim 9, Hou teaches the electronic label device of claim 8, further comprising: a connection circuit board connected to the system circuit board and the driving substrate (¶14, ¶34, integrated device with multiple components (display screen, driving control chip, waveform storage unit, temperature sensing chip) inherently requires intermediate connection structure between system-level and display level boards), wherein the system circuit board is electrically connected to the driving substrate and the driving chip via the connection circuit board (¶14, ¶34, intermediate connection between system-level and display-level components is a standard and routine design element inherent in the disclosed device architecture.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571)270-1284. 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.
/HENRY DUONG/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872 06/12/26
Prosecution Insights