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 .
Remarks
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 04/14/25. Examiner acknowledged that claims 1-7 are pending.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/14/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 (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.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki (US 2014/0300845).
Regarding Claim 1, Tamaki teaches a driving method of a reflector (Fig. 6) comprising: a first scanning line to a mth scanning line (Fig. 2A: 62m); a first signal line to a nth signal line (Fig. 2A: 61n); and a plurality of reflecting elements (Fig. 6, Fig. 2A: 50) electrically connected to respective scanning lines and signal lines and each comprising a first electrode (Fig. 2A: 621, 611), a second electrode (Fig. 2A: 622, 612) and a liquid crystal layer (Fig. 2A: 52) sandwiched by the first electrode and the second electrode, the driving method comprising: supplying a common potential (Fig. 2A: from Vcom) to the second electrode over a plurality of continuous frame periods; supplying scanning signals (Fig. 2A: via 75) to the first scanning line to the mth scanning line in each of the plurality of frame periods; and supplying control signals (Fig. 2A: via 70) to the plurality of reflecting elements through the first signal line to the nth signal line in each of the plurality of frame periods, wherein a polarity of the common potential is inverted every j frame periods (Fig. 5: Vcom is inverted every period),.
Tamaki does not explicitly teach in Fig. 2A a radio-wave reflector; the scanning signals are supplied in a first order from the first signal line to the nth signal line or a second order from the nth signal line to the first signal line, the first order and the second order are interchanged every k frame periods, m and n are each selected from natural numbers equal to or greater than 2, and j and k are selected from natural numbers equal to or greater than 1. However, it is well known in the art that scanning circuit and signal circuit controls the different line separately (as can be seen in JP 2005532590A) in different frame. The m (Fig. 2A: 611-613) and n (Fig. 2A: 621-623) are natural number greater than 2 (Fig. 2A: m and n are greater than 2); radio-wave reflector is taught by Tamaki as it reflect light signals and light signals are radio-wave signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tamaki in order to control the signal and scanning lines by frame.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Tamaki and teaches the driving method according to claim 1, wherein j and k are the same as each other (Fig. 2A: j and k are natural numbers from 1-3).
Regarding Claim 3, Tamaki teaches the driving method according to claim 1 wherein j and k are different from each other (Fig. 2A: j and k are natural numbers from 1-3, therefore, j could be 1 while k is 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Tamaki teaches the driving method according to claim 1 wherein a polarity of a potential of the control signals is inverted along with the inversion of the polarity of the common potential ([0110] “The line inversion driving method is a driving method for inverting the polarity of video signals at a time period of 1H (H represents a horizontal period) corresponding to one line (one pixel row). The dot inversion driving method is a driving method for alternately inverting the polarity of video signals for pixels vertically and horizontally adjacent to each other. The frame inversion driving method is a driving method for inverting the polarity of video signals to be written to all the pixels in one frame corresponding to one screen with the same polarity at a time”).
Regarding Claim 6, Tamaki teaches the driving method according to claim 1 wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are each configured to block visible light ([0155] “The light output toward the reflective LCD panel 2 is switched between being blocked and not to be output and to be output depending on the state of the liquid crystal”).
Regarding Claim 7, Tamaki teaches the driving method according to claim 1 wherein the plurality of radio-wave reflecting elements is arranged in a matrix shape with m rows and n columns, and potentials of the control signals are changed periodically and stepwise in a row direction and/or a column direction (Fig. 2A: scan lines and signal lines).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY T LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7008. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8:00-6:00.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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 Luong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights