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
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/586,740, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Therefore, Claims 6-10, 12-14, and 18-19 are awarded the filing date of the instant Application, which is 8/8/16.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/17/25 was considered by the examiner.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of US 12,272,324.
US 12,272,324
Current Application (19/092,083)
1. A method for driving an electrophoretic display including a color filter layer between a viewer and a layer of electrophoretic media, the electrophoretic media comprising black and white charged particles and being addressed by a plurality of display pixels, the method comprising: updating the display with a first image; and updating the display with a second image, wherein at least some of the plurality of display pixels are updated to the second image with a waveform comprising a pre-pulse, a mid-pulse, and a set-pulse, wherein the mid-pulse and a portion of the set-pulse cause the white particles to be driven adjacent the color filter layer before a desired color state of the second image is achieved by the remaining portion of the set pulse.
1. A method for driving an electrophoretic display including a color filter layer between a viewer and a layer of electrophoretic media, the electrophoretic media comprising black and white charged particles and being addressed by a plurality of display pixels, the method comprising: updating the display with a first image; and updating the display with a second image, wherein at least some of the plurality of display pixels are updated to the second image with a waveform comprising a pre-pulse, a mid-pulse, and a set-pulse, wherein the mid-pulse and a portion of the set-pulse cause the black particles to be driven adjacent the color filter layer before a desired color state of the second image is achieved by the remaining portion of the set pulse.
9. A display controller capable of controlling the operation of a plurality of pixel electrodes for an electrophoretic display that includes a color filter layer between a viewer and a layer of electrophoretic medium, the electrophoretic medium comprising black and white charged particles, the controller configured to carry out a driving method comprising: providing a series of voltages to the plurality of pixel electrodes over an update period, the series of voltages including a pre-pulse, mid-pulses, and set-pulses, wherein the set-pulses cause the white particles to be driven adjacent the color filter layer before achieving a final color state that does not include the white particles adjacent the color filter layer at the plurality of pixels.
8. A display controller capable of controlling the operation of a plurality of pixel electrodes for an electrophoretic display that includes a color filter layer between a viewer and a layer of electrophoretic medium, the electrophoretic medium comprising black and white charged particles, the controller configured to carry out a driving method comprising: providing a series of voltages to the plurality of pixel electrodes over an update period, the series of voltages including a pre-pulse, mid-pulses, and set-pulses, wherein the set-pulses cause the black particles to be driven adjacent the color filter layer before achieving a final color state that does not include the black particles adjacent the color filter layer at the plurality of pixels.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because besides changing movement of the charged particles from white to black particles, there are no differences between the limitations claimed except for minor obvious variants. Claims 1 and 8 include all of the features of claims 1 and 9 of US 12,272,324, respectively, except for the black particles being driven adjacent the color filter instead of the white particles. However, it is well known in the art that an electric field between opposing electrodes may be created to move positively or negatively charged particles in opposite directions based on whether the white or black particles are charged positively or negatively.
The dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 are similarly rejected based on claims 2-7, 10-13, 8, and 14, respectively, of US 12,272,324.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH PATRICK FOX whose telephone number is (571)270-3877. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 EST.
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 571-272-7603. 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.
JOSEPH PATRICK FOX
Examiner
Art Unit 2622
/JOSEPH P FOX/Examiner, Art Unit 2622/PATRICK N EDOUARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights