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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3, 6-13, 15-16, 18, 20, 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hack et. al. [2022/0358877].
Regarding claim 1, Hack teaches:
An additive display device comprising: a first light source corresponding to a first color channel that represents a first color primary; a second light source corresponding to a second color channel that represents a second color primary [§0048, note RGB sub-pixels; also note §0005 teaching OLED include a white subpixel] and a transparent display for displaying image data using only the first color channel and the second color channel [§0005 and 0048, for example using a RBG subpixel and a white subpixel];
wherein the first color primary and the second color primary together define a color space that includes a white color [§0085, demonstrated by adjusting a white-point temperature of an image].
Claims 3 and 6-11 pertain to specific colors or color ranges to be displayed on the screen. Such claim elements are statements of intended use to the device/method, and as such do not have patentable weight.
Regarding claim 12, Hack teaches:
a color selective filter configured to attenuate light corresponding to at least one of the first color primary or the second color primary [§0039, note “Hyperbolic metamaterials, on the other hand, are anisotropic media in which the permittivity or permeability are of different sign for different spatial directions”]
Regarding claim 13 and 18, Hack teaches:
wherein the color selective filter corresponds to at least one of: a fixed filter; a dynamic filter that changes an amount of light attenuation over time; a filter that produces substantially uniform light attenuation across space; a filter that varies light attenuation across space to create a spatial pattern of light attenuation [§0039, note “Hyperbolic metamaterials, on the other hand, are anisotropic media in which the permittivity or permeability are of different sign for different spatial directions”]; a spatial light modulator stacked with a static color filter; a spatial light modulator that attenuates a first wavelength of light more than a second wavelength of light; a reflective element that is reflective for at least one of the first color primary or the second color primary; or a polarization-selective filter.
Regarding claim 15, Hack further teaches:
wherein at least one of the first light source or the second light source corresponds to at least one of: a laser; a light emitting diode (LED) [§0048, note RGB sub-pixels; also note §0005 teaching OLED include a white subpixel]; superluminescent LED; or a micro-LED display panel.
Regarding claim 16, Hack teaches:
A system comprising: a first light source corresponding to a first color channel that represents a first color primary; a second light source corresponding to a second color channel that represents a second color primary [§0048, note RGB sub-pixels; also note §0005 teaching OLED include a white subpixel]
and a transparent display for displaying the first color channel and the second color channel [§0021, note transparent display];
wherein the first color primary and the second color primary together define a color space that includes a white color. [§0085, demonstrated by adjusting a white-point temperature of an image].
Regarding claim 20, Hack teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving image data having an output color for a display unit element represented by only a first color channel and a second color channel [§0048, note RGB subpixels];
displaying, on a transparent display medium for the display unit element, a first color primary light with a first intensity based on the first color channel of the image data; and displaying, on the transparent display medium for the display unit element, a second color primary light with a second intensity based on the second color channel of the image data [§0021, note transparent display].
Regarding claims 23 and 25, Hack teaches:
further comprising a first color selective filter for the first light source and a second color selective filter for the second light source. [§0005, note color filters for independent light sources.]
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hack in view of Molner et. al. [11,861,941].
Regarding claims 21-22 and 24, Hack does not teach storing the received image data in a framebuffer configured for only the first color channel and the second color channel. However, Molner teaches storing an image in a frame buffer [col. 14, lines 20-53]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the display taught by Hack with the frame buffer taught by Milner because “Generally, a GPU may render objects to be displayed into a frame buffer (e.g., one that includes pixel data for an entire frame). A GPU may include one or more graphics processors that may execute graphics software to perform a part or all of the graphics operation, or hardware acceleration of certain graphics operations. In some embodiments, controller 2030 may include one or more other components for processing and rendering video and/or images, for example image signal processors (ISPs), coder/decoders (codecs), etc.” [Molner, col. 14, lines 20-53].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW SASINOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5883. The examiner can normally be reached 7am - 4pm, Mon.-Fri. 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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/ANDREW SASINOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights