DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-21 are pending.
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 1-2 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crounse (US 2021/0375183 A1).
As to claim 1, Crounse discloses a method for updating a color electrophoretic display (Crounse, FIG. 1, [0021], a method for “electrophoretic display”) having a controller (Crounse, FIGS. 1 and 7, [0089], “display controller”), the display having a plurality of display pixels in an array (Crounse, [0067], “the plurality of pixels may be arranged in a two-dimensional array of rows and columns to form a matrix”) and being capable of displaying at least black, white, red, and yellow (Crounse, FIG. 3, [0072], “color filter array 310 having red, green and blue areas”; [0073], “white” and “black”), the method comprising:
determining for each display pixel in the plurality of display pixels whether that display pixel has identical color data for a first image (one frame) and a second image (another frame) (Crounse, see FIGS. 4B and 6, [0083] and [0088], step 602, each pixel is identical or not);
sending instructions to the controller to provide waveforms corresponding to the color data of the second image for each display pixel having different color data between the first image and the second image (Crounse, FIG. 6, [0088], step 602 → Yes→ step 604);
determining whether color data changes between the first image and the second image for each of four cardinal closest display pixels for each display pixel determined to have identical color data for the first image and the second image (Crounse, FIG. 6, [0088], step 602 → No → step 606; white-white, no change);
sending instructions to the controller to provide waveforms corresponding to the color data of the second image for each display pixel having identical color data between the first image and the second image and having at least one of its four cardinal closest display pixels having different color data between the first image and the second image (Crounse, FIG. 6, [0088], step 606 → Yes → step 608);
sending instructions to the controller to provide no waveforms to each display pixel having identical color data between the first image and the second image and having its four cardinal closest display pixels also having identical color data between the first image and the second image (Crounse, FIG. 6, [0088], steps 610, 614).
As to claim 2, Crounse discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the electrophoretic display comprises an electrophoretic medium (Crounse, FIG. 3, [0072], “electrophoretic medium layer 306”) including electrically charged particles dispersed in a fluid and confined within a plurality of capsules or microcells (Crounse, claim 12).
As to claim 5, Crounse discloses the method of claim l, wherein the electrophoretic display includes a color filter array (Crounse, FIG. 3, [0072], “color filter array 310”).
As to claim 6, Crounse discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the color filter array comprises a plurality of differently colored filters and individual differently colored filters are indexed to pixel electrodes of the electrophoretic display (Crounse, see FIG. 3, [0072], “color filter array 310 having red, green and blue areas aligned with the pixel electrodes 304”).
As to claim 7, Crounse discloses the method of claim 6, wherein each display pixel in the plurality of display pixels corresponds to a plurality of differently colored filters indexed to a respective plurality of pixel electrodes (Crounse, e.g., see FIG. 3, [0073], “In use, in a CFA based colored EPD, any color area in an image will result in a modulation of the pixels behind each CFA element”).
As to claim 8, Crounse discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the color data is RGB color data (Crounse, [0017], “using the color pixel identification data as input for a waveform generating algorithm”, FIG. 7, [0089], “source RGB”).
As to claim 9, Crounse discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the color data has been transformed from RGB to color data specific to the electrophoretic display (Crounse, FIG. 7, [0089], “an image or a source image 700 may be first processed by a color mapping algorithm 702 associated with the controller”).
As to claim 10, Crounse discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the color data represents a color image that incorporated dithering (Crounse, FIG. 7, [0089], “image dither and quantization 708 step”).
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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crounse (US 2021/0375183 A1) in view of Telfer et al. (US 2021/0191226 A1).
As to claim 3, Crounse does not teach the method of claim 2, wherein the electrophoretic medium includes four different types of electrically charged particles, and at least two of the types of electrically charged particles have opposite polarities.
However, Telfer teaches the concept that the electrophoretic medium includes four different types of electrically charged particles (Telfer, TABLE 2, “Both types of capsules are filled with an electrophoretic fluid including four different types of charged pigment particles”), and at least two of the types of electrically charged particles have opposite polarities (Telfer, e.g., see FIG. 1A, [0019], “pigment particles 137 and 135 are controlled (displaced) with an electric field produced between the front electrode 110 and the pixel electrodes 153”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “electrophoretic medium layer 306” taught by Crounse to further comprise the “four different types of electrically charged particles”, as taught by Telfer, in order to address the problem that “for large-area display applications, however, it might be preferable to have the option of a microcapsule architecture, since the maximum size of an embossed microcell area may be limited by the diameter of the embossing drum in certain embodiments” (Telfer, [0002]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crounse (US 2021/0375183 A1) in view of Telfer et al. (US 2021/0191226 A1) and Brown Elliott et al. (US 2009/0058873 A1).
As to claim 4, Crounse in view of Telfer does not teach the method of claim 3, wherein six primary colors can be formed at each pixel electrode of the electrophoretic display.
However, Brown Eliott teaches the concept that six primary colors can be formed at each pixel electrode (Brown Elliott, FIG. 7, [0076], “In a six primary system like that of FIG. 7 (with a subpixel repeating group 701 comprising red 706, green 708, blue 710, cyan 707, magenta 709, and yellow 711 subpixels)”) of the electrophoretic display (Brown Elliott, [0121], “the techniques discussed herein encompass the scope of all manners of display technologies, including … Electrophoretic displays”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “electrophoretic medium layer 306” taught by Crounse to be formed as the “six primary system” in FIG. 7, as taught by Brown Elliott, in order to provide “rendering image data to multi-primary displays that may utilize input image content to adjust image data across metamers, and to optimize subpixel values to improve image rendering accuracy or perception” (Brown Elliott, [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 11, the closest known prior art, i.e., Crounse (US 2021/0375183 A1), Telfer et al. (US 2021/0191226 A1), Brown Elliott et al. (US 2009/0058873 A1), Crounse (US 2017/0148372 A1), Emelie (US 20170148372 A1), Miyazaki et al. (US 2012/0287174 A1), Swic et al. (US 2011/0285713 A1) and Rhodes (US 2011/0001764 A1), alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitations “determining an i x j array of display pixels for which some of the display pixels have different color data between the first image and the second image, wherein a combination of the m x n array of display pixels and the i x j array of display pixels accounts for all of the display pixels in the plurality of display pixels; sending instructions to the controller to provide no update to a pixel area slightly smaller than the m x n array of display pixels when transitioning from the first image to the second image; and sending instructions to the controller to provide waveforms corresponding to the color data of the second image to all of the remaining display pixels that did not receive no update instructions, wherein some of the pixels receiving waveforms corresponding to the color data for the second image are within the m x n array of display pixels”.
As to claims 12-21, they directly or indirectly depend from claim 11, and are allowed at least for the same reason above.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Crounse (US 2017/0148372 A1) teaches the concept of “detecting a white-to-white graytone transition … or if the first pixel is a color pixel, and apply a first waveform” (Abs.); Emelie (US 20170148372 A1) teaches the concept of “reducing the appearance of light edge artifacts in displayed images” (Abs.); and Miyazaki et al. (US 2012/0287174 A1) teaches the concept of “performing a contour elimination process” (Abs.); Swic et al. (US 2011/0285713 A1) teaches the concept of “receiving data pixels of a color image and mapping the color image to display pixels of a display device” (Abs.); and Rhodes (US 2011/0001764 A1) teaches the concept of “updating frame buffer with an index to the determined waveform” (Abs.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to l LunYi Lao whose telephone number is (571) 272-7671. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30-6:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LunYi Lao can be reached on (571) 272-7671. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Jan. 15, 2026
/RICHARD J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
***