DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the instant reissue application (US 19/261,774) filed 7 July 2025, which is a narrowing reissue of application 16/172,463 (US Patent 10,796,628 B2 to Chen, published 6 October 2020).
The instant application is also a continuation of reissue application 18/651,393 (now RE50,539 E, published 19 August 2025).
Claims 1-9 and 21-31 are pending.
Claims 1-9 and 21-31 are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Claims Status
US Patent 10,796,628 (the ‘638 Patent) was issued with 20 claims. The instant reissue application seeks to amend claims 1, 3, 7, and 8, cancel claims 10-20, and add new claims 21-31. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim.
Reissue
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which US Patent 10,796,628 B2 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 7 July 2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over corresponding claim 10 of US Patent RE50,539. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because corresponding claim 10 of US Patent RE50,539 contains every element of claim 1 of the instant application and thus anticipates the claim of the instant application. Claim 1 of the instant application therefore is not patentably distinct from the patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. An application claim is not patentably distinct from a patent claim if the application claim is anticipated by the patent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 1-9 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.177(b) all of the claims of the patent to be reissued must be presented in each reissue application in some form, i.e., as amended, as unamended or as canceled (see: MPEP 1451(I) & (II)). The same claim of the patent cannot be presented for examination in more than one of the continuation reissue applications, as a pending claim, in either its original or amended versions. If a patent claim is presented in one of the continuation reissue applications of a reissue application “family,” as a pending claim, then that patent claim must be presented as a canceled claim in all the other reissue applications of that family. Once a claim in the patent has been reissued (i.e., patent claims 1-10 were reissued in U.S. Patent No. RE50,539), it does not exist in the original patent; thus, it cannot be reissued from the original patent in another reissue application. If the same claim of the patent, e.g., patent claim 1 is presented for examination in more than one of the reissue applications, in different amended versions, the following rejection should be made in the reissue applications with that patent claim: A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251, in that the reissue application is not correcting an error in the original patent, because original claim 1 would be superseded by the reissuance of claim 1 in the other reissue application.
In the instant case, claims 1-9 in the present reissue application are not correcting an error in the original patent, because claims 1-9 would be superseded by the reissuance of claims 1-9 in US Patent RE50,539. New claims 21-31 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, and fail to cure the above deficiencies. MPEP 1451(I) provides an example procedure to follow to remedy the rejection discussed directly above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-9 and 21-31 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.
As noted above, the same claim of the patent cannot be presented for examination in more than one of the continuation reissue applications, as a pending claim, in either its original or amended versions (see: MPEP 1451(I) & (II)). If a patent claim is presented in one of the continuation reissue applications of a reissue application “family,” as a pending claim, then that patent claim must be presented as a canceled claim in all the other reissue applications of that family. Once a claim in the patent has been reissued (i.e., patent claims 1-9 were reissued in U.S. Patent No. RE50,539), it does not exist in the original patent; thus, it cannot be reissued from the original patent in another reissue application. If the same claim of the patent, e.g., patent claim 1 is presented for examination in more than one of the reissue applications, in different amended versions, the following rejection should be made in the reissue applications with that patent claim: A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, in that claim 1 is indefinite because the invention of claim 1 is not particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed. Claim 1 presents one coverage in continuation reissue application X and another in the present reissue application. This is inconsistent.
In the instant case, claims 1-9 in the present reissue application present different coverage than corresponding patent claims 1-9 in US Patent RE50,539. New claims 21-31 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, and fail to cure the above deficiencies. MPEP 1451(I) provides an example procedure to follow to remedy the rejection discussed directly above.
Allowable Subject Matter
With the exception of the newly added limitation “wherein the light-emitting elements are Micro LEDs”, instant claim 1 is identical in scope to claim 1 of US Patent RE50,539. The 18 November 2024 Non-Final Office Action in parent reissue application 18/651,393 indicated that claim 1 was allowable, stating:
The instant application is a reissue of the ‘628 patent, resulting from prosecution of US Application 16/172,463. In the 24 March 2020 Non-Final Office Action, the examiner indicated the following reasons of allowance for then-dependent claims 8 and 10:
Claim 8 recites a method of compensating for an anomalous light-emitting element by adjusting luminance of light-emitting elements adjacent to the anomalous light-emitting element to be between L and (L-(L1-L), wherein: L is a normal luminance, L1 is a luminance of anomalous brightness. Claim 10 recites a method of compensating for an anomalous light-emitting element by adjusting luminance of light-emitting elements adjacent to the anomalous light-emitting element to be between L and (L-(L2-L), wherein: L is a normal luminance, L2 is a luminance of anomalous brightness.
No prior art, alone or in combination, teaches the claimed method.
Applicant’s response amended independent claim 1 to include the subject matter of claim 8, and a Notice of Allowability was subsequently mailed on 13 July 2020. As a result, key features pertaining to allowability for the ‘628 patent include at least the limitation “wherein the light-emitting element in the brightness anomalous status has a luminance L1, a difference between the luminance L1 and a normal luminance L is (L1-L), and a luminance of each of the M light-emitting elements configured for compensating the light-emitting element in the brightness anomalous status is between L and (L-(L1-L)).”
The Examiner failed to locate prior art that disclosed such key features, alone or in combination. For example, Park (US Publication 2011/0227958) discloses systems and methods of compensating for anomalous pixels on a display. Park at [0058]-[0066] generally discloses “[a] subpixel that is a dark spot is detected and then at least a subset of neighboring subpixels having the same color as the subpixel that is a dark spot are controlled to achieve a higher luminance.” See [0066]. However, Park does not accomplish this “dark spot compensation” by controlling each of the compensating subpixels to have luminance values between a normal luminance value L and ((L-(L1-L)), where L1 is the luminance value of the “dark spot”. Park simply states that the compensating subpixels are controlled to have a luminance that is “higher” that the luminance of subpixels neighboring the dark spot. See [0064].
Similarly, Hsu (US Publication 2013/0050528) discloses systems and methods for adaptive pixel compensation that calculates a compensation value with respect to luminance values of a group of pixels surrounding an anomalous pixel (see, for example, [0028] and [0034]), but fails to particularly control the compensation values using the claimed range between “L and ((L-(L1-L))”.
See 24 November 2025 Non-Final Office Action at 6-7.
A prior art search conducted with respect to the instant application failed to yield relevant results. Subsequently, claims 1-9 and 21-31 of the instant reissue application would be allowable if the instant rejections, applied supra, were overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Roswell whose telephone number is (571) 272-4055. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 4:30PM.
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 Kosowski can be reached on 571-272-3744. 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.
/MICHAEL ROSWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ADAM L BASEHOAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights