CTFR 19/030,748 CTFR 90237 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Arguments Claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are pending. 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 16 and 19, removing part of previous claim limitations and adding new features. However, amended claims does not fully overcome 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections as in below . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-20 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. Claim 1 contain, inter alia, claim limitation: the at least one first light-emitting unit is operated at a first operating current ; wherein when the first operating current is less than or equal to a threshold current, a quantity of the at least one first light-emitting unit is greater than a quantity of the art least one second light-emitting unit, and the quantity of the at least one first light-emitting unit is greater than a quantity of the at least one third light-emitting unit; wherein the first current is less than the second current, and the threshold current is greater than the first current and less than the second current. It is noted that, while the claim limitation requires the claimed first current to be less than the second current , and the threshold current is greater than the first current and less than the second current , no limitation is placed on the value of the first operating current . That is, the value of the claimed “first operating current” is not defined. Hence, the claim clause of “ when the first operating current is less than or equal to a threshold current, a quantity of the at least one first light-emitting unit is greater than a quantity of the art least one second light-emitting unit, and the quantity of the at least one first light-emitting unit is greater than a quantity of the at least one third light-emitting unit” is a conditional statement which render the scope of claim indefinite, as it is uncertain whether the claimed display device is operating with a first operating current less, equal, or more than the threshold current (both the value of first operating current, as well as the threshold current are indefinite), and it is unclear whether the limitation following the conditional statement is a part of required hardware structure of claimed display device. Furthermore, it is noted while it is conceivable that operating current of LED in display pixels may be adjusted, the physical number of LEDs within pixel of display device once manufactured does not change with change of operating current. However, the scope of conditional claim clause of “ when the first operating current is less than or equal to a threshold current, a quantity of the at least one first light-emitting unit is greater than a quantity of the art least one second light-emitting unit, and the quantity of the at least one first light-emitting unit is greater than a quantity of the at least one third light-emitting unit” contain scope which indicate that a number of LEDs within a pixel may change based on changing of operating current, that the number of first LED may alternate between two states of being more than the number of second/third LED or being less than number of second/third LED as operating current dynamically change. Specification of pending applications, lacks enablement for a display that may automatically change number of LEDs within a pixel based on operating current. Similarly, dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11 , contain conditional statement of “ when the first operating current is less than the threshold current…” OR “ when the first operating current is greater than the threshold current…” (which furthermore contradict with the conditional statement as in claim 1, as first operating current cannot be both less and greater than the threshold current). It is indefinite whether the claim limitation following the conditional statement is a required element of the claim. Claim 16 contain, inter alia, claim limitation: the at least one first light-emitting unit is operated at a first operating current ; wherein when the first operating current is greater than the threshold current, the first light-emitting area is less than the second light-emitting area and the third light-emitting area, and the second light-emitting area is approximately equal to the third light-emitting area; wherein the first current is less than the second current, and the threshold current is greater than the first current and less than the second current. It is noted that, while the claim limitation requires the claimed first current to be less than the second current , and the threshold current is greater than the first current and less than the second current , no limitation is placed on the value of the first operating current . That is, the value of the claimed “first operating current” is not defined. Hence, the claim clause of “ when the first operating current is greater than the threshold current, the first light-emitting area is less than the second light-emitting area and the third light-emitting area, and the second light-emitting area is approximately equal to the third light-emitting area” is a conditional statement which render the scope of claim indefinite, as it is uncertain whether the claimed display device is operating with a first operating current less, equal, or more than the threshold current (both the value of first operating current, as well as the threshold current are indefinite), and it is unclear whether the limitation following the conditional statement is a part of required hardware structure of claimed display device. Furthermore, it is noted while it is conceivable that operating current of LED in display pixels may be adjusted, the physical light emitting area of LEDs within pixel of display device once manufactured does not change with change of operating current. However, the scope of conditional claim clause of “ when the first operating current is greater than the threshold current, the first light-emitting area is less than the second light-emitting area and the third light-emitting area , and the second light-emitting area is approximately equal to the third light-emitting area ” contain scope which indicate that a light emitting area of LEDs within a pixel may change based on changing of operating current, that the light emitting area of first / second / third LED may alternate between different states of being less / more / equal to each other as operating current dynamically change. Specification of pending applications, lacks enablement for a display that may automatically change light emitting area of LEDs within a pixel based on operating current. In addition, claim 16 contain limitation “ approximately equal ” in “ the second light-emitting area is approximately equal to the third light-emitting area”. Court has held “when a word of degree is used the court must determine whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree” (Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). 07-34-03 The term “approximately equal” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately equal area” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Furthermore, claim 16 contain limitation “ the threshold current ” in “when the first operating current is greater than the threshold current”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 contain, inter alia, claim limitation: the at least one first light-emitting unit is operated at a first operating current ; wherein when the first operating current is greater than the threshold current, the first area is less than the second area and, and the first light-emitting area is substantially the same as the second light-emitting area , wherein the first current is less than the second current, and the threshold current is greater than the first current and less than the second current. It is noted that, while the claim limitation requires the claimed first current to be less than the second current , and the threshold current is greater than the first current and less than the second current , no limitation is placed on the value of the first operating current . That is, the value of the claimed “first operating current” is not defined. Hence, the claim clause of “ when the first operating current is greater than the threshold current, the first area is less than the second area and, and the first light-emitting area is substantially the same as the second light-emitting area ” is a conditional statement which render the scope of claim indefinite, as it is uncertain whether the claimed display device is operating with a first operating current less, equal, or more than the threshold current (both the value of first operating current, as well as the threshold current are indefinite), and it is unclear whether the limitation following the conditional statement is a part of required hardware structure of claimed display device. Furthermore, it is noted while it is conceivable that operating current of LED in display pixels may be adjusted, the physical light emitting area of LEDs within pixel of display device, as well as the physical area of light enhancing unit, once manufactured, do not change with change of operating current. However, the scope of conditional claim clause of “ when the first operating current is greater than the threshold current, the first area is less than the second area and, and the first light-emitting area is substantially the same as the second light-emitting area ” contain scope which indicate that a light emitting area of LEDs and area of light enhancing units within a pixel may change based on changing of operating current, that the light enhancing unit and/or light emitting area of first / second third LED may alternate between different states of being more / less / equal from each other as the operating current dynamically change. Specification of pending applications, lacks enablement for a display that may automatically change light emitting area of LEDs and light enhancing unit area within a pixel based on operating current. In addition, claim 19 contain limitation “ substantially same ” in “ the first light-emitting area is substantially the same as the second light-emitting area”. Court has held “when a word of degree is used the court must determine whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree” (Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). 07-34-03 The term “substantially the same” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially the same area” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Furthermore, claim 19 contain limitation “ the threshold current ” in “when the first operating current is greater than the threshold current”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similarly, dependent claim 20 contain conditional statement of “ when the first operating current is greater than the threshold current…”. It is indefinite whether the claim limitation following the conditional statement is a required element of the claim. Other dependent claims are rejected for dependency on rejected independent claims 1, 16 and 19. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-27-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 4-8, 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Meitl et al., US 20210242180 A1 (hereinafter “Meitl”) . Regarding claim 1 , Meitl discloses a display device (fig. 1, paragraph 35, multi-color LED display 99) , comprising: at least one first light-emitting unit (fig. 6, LEDs 43s within subpixel 33) , wherein an external quantum efficiency thereof at a first current is less than an external quantum efficiency thereof at a second current, and the at least one first light-emitting unit is operated at a first operating current (see fig. 6, paragraph 52 on pixel configuration, fig. 3, paragraphs 43-46 on quantum efficiency of LEDs within pixel, and annotated figure below for efficiency at exemplary first / second current, threshold current, first/second operating current) ; and at least one second light-emitting unit (fig. 6, LED 41 within subpixel 33) , wherein an external quantum efficiency thereof at the first current is greater than an external quantum efficiency thereof at the second current, and the at least one second light-emitting unit is operated at a second operating current; and (see fig. 6, paragraph 52 on pixel configuration, fig. 3, paragraphs 43-46 on quantum efficiency of LEDs within pixel, and annotated figure below for efficiency at exemplary first / second current, threshold current, first/second operating current) ; at least one third light-emitting unit (fig. 6, LED 42L within subpixel 33) , wherein an external quantum efficiency thereof at the first current is greater than an external quantum efficiency thereof at the second current, and the at least one second light-emitting unit is operated at a third operating current; (see fig. 6, paragraph 52 on pixel configuration, fig. 3, paragraphs 43-46 on quantum efficiency of LEDs within pixel, and annotated figure below for efficiency at exemplary first / second current, threshold current, first/second/third operating current) ; wherein when the first operating current is less than or equal to a threshold current, a quantity of the at least one first light-emitting unit is greater than a quantity of the at least one second light-emitting unit, and the quantity of the at least one first light-emitting unit is greater than a quantity of the at least one third light-emitting unit, wherein the first current is less than the second current, and the threshold current is greater than the first current and less than the second current (see fig. 6, paragraph 52 on pixel configuration, fig. 3, paragraphs 43-46 on quantum efficiency of LEDs within pixel, and annotated figure below for efficiency at exemplary first / second current, threshold current, and first/second/third operating current) . PNG media_image1.png 881 1074 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 1721 1213 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2 , Meitl discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein when the first operating current is less than or equal to the threshold current, a ratio of the first operating current to the second operating current is 0.8 to 3.5 (see Meitl paragraphs 35-46, for embodiment as in fig. 6 of Meitl, the first operating current is equal to second operating current, with ratio of 1) . Regarding claim 4 , Meitl discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein an external quantum efficiency of the at least one first light-emitting unit at a first optimal current is greater than an external quantum efficiency thereof at the second current, an external quantum efficiency of the at least one second light-emitting unit at a second optimal current is greater than an external quantum efficiency thereof at the first current, and the first optimal current is greater than the second optimal current (see fig. 3, paragraphs 43-46 on quantum efficiency of LEDs within pixel, and annotated figure below for efficiency at exemplary first / second current, threshold current, first/second operating current, first optimal current, and second optimal current) . PNG media_image3.png 1593 1213 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 5 , Meitl discloses the display device of claim 4, Meitl does not specifically outline wherein the first optimal current is between 80 microamps and 200 microamps, and the second optimal current is between 1 microamp and 30 microamps. Meitl does discloses however that the first optimal current is approximate three to five times as second optimal current (see Meitl, fig. 3, optimal current of first LED at approximately 120 and optimal current of second LED at approximate 30). since Applicant has failed to disclose that specifying the first optimal current as 80-200 microamps and second optimal current to be 1-30 microamps provides any distinct advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide first optimal current as 80-200 microamps (for LED of 100 square micron at optimal current density of 120 A / cm 2 for first LED of Meitl as disclosed in fig. 3) and provide second optimal current as 1-30 microamps (for LED of 100 square micron at optimal current density of 30 A / cm 2 for second LED of Meitl as disclosed in fig. 3), in order to achieve the predictable result of allowing LEDs of pixels in display device of Meitl to operate at desired current near optimal efficiency) Regarding claim 6 , Meitl discloses the display device of claim 4, wherein a difference between the threshold current and the second optimal current is less than a difference between the threshold current and the first optimal current (see annotated fig. 3 of Meitl with exemplary threshold current and second optimal current below) . PNG media_image3.png 1593 1213 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 7 , Meitl discloses the display device of claim 4, wherein when the first operating current is less than or equal to the threshold current, a difference between the first operating current and the second optimal current is less than a difference between the first operating current and the first optimal current (see annotated fig. 3 of Meitl with exemplary first operating current, second optimal current, and first optimal current below) . PNG media_image3.png 1593 1213 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 8 , Meitl discloses the display device of claim 4, wherein when the first operating current is greater than the threshold current, a difference between the first operating current and the second optimal current is greater than a difference between the first operating current and the first optimal current (see fig. 3, paragraphs 43-46 on quantum efficiency of LEDs within pixel, and annotated figure below for efficiency at exemplary first / second current, threshold current, first/second/third operating current, first optimal current, and second optimal current) . PNG media_image4.png 1560 1258 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 10 , Meitl discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein when the first operating current is less than or equal to the threshold current, a ratio of the third operating current to the second operating current is 0.8 to 3.2 (see Meitl paragraphs 35-46, for embodiment as in fig. 6 of Meitl, the second operating current is equal to third operating current, with ratio of 1) . Regarding claim 11 , Meitl discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein when the first operating current is greater than the threshold current, a ratio of the third operating current to the second operating current is 0.5 to 2.5 (see Meitl paragraphs 35-46, for embodiment as in fig. 6 of Meitl, the second operating current is equal to third operating current, with ratio of 1) . Regarding claim 12 , Meitl discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein an external quantum efficiency of the at least one second light-emitting unit at a second optimal current is greater than an external quantum efficiency thereof at the first current, an external quantum efficiency of the at least one third light-emitting unit at a third optimal current is greater than an external quantum efficiency thereof at the first current, and the second optimal current is greater than the third optimal current. (see fig. 3, paragraphs 43-46 on quantum efficiency of LEDs within pixel, and annotated figure below for efficiency at exemplary first / second current, threshold current, first/second/third operating current, first/second/third optimal current) . PNG media_image5.png 1560 1362 media_image5.png Greyscale Regarding claim 13, Meitl discloses the display device of claim 12, wherein the second optimal current is between 1 microamp and 30 microamps, and the third optimal current is between 1 microamp and 30 microamps (see annotation in rejection of claim 12, fig. 3, both second and third optimal current is between 1 and 30 microamps) . Regarding claim 15 , Meitl discloses the display device of claim 1, wherein outline shapes of the at least one first light-emitting unit, the at least one second light-emitting unit, and the at least one third light-emitting unit are rectangular, square, or disk-shaped (Meitl, paragraph 52, outline area of first/second/third LED are rectangular shaped having area of n x m microns) . Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEIJIE SHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM. 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 5712727603. 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. /PEIJIE SHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2622 /PATRICK N EDOUARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/030,748 Page 2 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/030,748 Page 3 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/030,748 Page 4 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/030,748 Page 5 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/030,748 Page 6 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/030,748 Page 7 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/030,748 Page 8 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/030,748 Page 9 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/030,748 Page 10 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/030,748 Page 11 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/030,748 Page 12 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/030,748 Page 13 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/030,748 Page 14 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/030,748 Page 15 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/030,748 Page 16 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/030,748 Page 17 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/030,748 Page 18 Art Unit: 2622
Prosecution Insights