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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/08/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-18 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.
Independent claim 1 recites “each of the plurality of light-emitting elements comprises a RGB LED”. This is misdescriptive. Any LED will emit light of a single color (e.g., an LED may be a red LED, or an LED may be a green LED, etc.). In order to emit RGB light, plural LEDs would be required. This necessary plurality of LEDs contradicts the singular terms “each” and “a” appearing in this limitation.
A similar recitation in independent claim 10 is similarly indefinite.
Independent claim 1 recites “controlling each of the plurality of light-emitting elements of the light-emitting apparatus to emit light according to the light-emitting color data of each of the plurality of light-emitting elements.” This is misdescriptive. Each LED is a piece of hardware which emits only a single color of light. Each element can only be controlled to emit light of its own single color or to refrain from emitting light of its own single color. No individual LED can be controlled to emit light whose color could possibly be construed as “according to the light-emitting color data of each”.
A similar recitation in independent claim 10 is similarly indefinite.
Other pending claims are indefinite by virtue of dependency from at least one indefinite claim.
Regarding claims 1-18: In the absence of a reasonably definite interpretation of a claim, it is improper to rely on speculative assumptions regarding the meaning of a claim and then base a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 on these assumptions (In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962)). See MPEP 2143.03.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
On page 9, Applicant argues “Applicant has amended … the specification to comply with the Examiner’s comments regarding trade names and commercial marks.” The Examiner has considered this argument and finds the argument persuasive.
On page 10, Applicant argues “The amendment explicitly defines the correspondence between each of the light-emitting elements and the display pixel data, thereby rendering the scope of the claims reasonably certain to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” The Examiner has considered this argument and notes that no individual LED could reasonably be construed as RGB. No matter what data are used to control each individual LED, each individual LED emits light of only a single color, i.e., red, green or blue. Because no individual RGB LED exists, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably determine the metes and bounds of any claim.
On page 10, Applicant argues “The amendment replaces an ambiguous reference to evolving specifications with a protocol-based definition that is well understood in the art, thereby clarifying the technical scope without reliance on external standards.” The Examiner has considered this argument and finds the argument persuasive.
Conclusion
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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JULIE ANNE WATKO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
05/28/2026
Prosecution Insights