DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. Acknowledgement is made of the response filed on August 24, 2026, in which claims 1-18 are canceled, claims 19-36 are added and currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claim(s) 19-27, 31-33, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telfer et al. (US 2016/0085132 A1, hereinafter referred as “Telfer”) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2014/0071178 A1, hereinafter referred as “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 19, Telfer discloses an electrophoretic display (¶0003 discloses colored electrophoretic displays) comprising:
an electrophoretic medium including at least three different types of charged pigment particles (¶0050 disclose an electrophoretic medium comprising four types of particle as described above dispersed in a fluid; and ¶0053 disclose the first and third particles are negatively charged and the second and fourth particles are positively charged);
a plurality of pixels arranged in rows (¶0168 discloses a TFT array display having a matrix of pixel electrodes is present on the backplane. ¶0169 discloses update of a selected row and defining a frame as an update of all rows in the display), each pixel including a portion of the electrophoretic medium (¶0135 discloses electrophoretic fluid may be encapsulated in microcapsules or microcell layers laminated to a backplane bearing pixel electrodes using an electrically conductive adhesive); and
a controller configured to update an image on the electrophoretic display (¶0060 discloses the display having voltage control means capable of applying voltage differences of +VH, +VL, 0, −VL and −VH between the first and second electrodes and thereby updating an image) by: …wherein, for at least one pixel in the first row, the respective push voltage pulse has a polarity opposite to the respective pull voltage pulse and a shorter duration than the respective pull voltage pulse (Fig. 6A, ¶0061 and ¶0141 disclose push and pull voltage pulses characterized by the series of first pulses alternating with second pulses of +VL or −VL, and of opposite polarity to, but greater duration than, the first pulses).
Telfer doesn’t disclose addressing a first row of pixels and initiating respective push voltage pulses across the pixels in the first row; addressing a second row of pixels after addressing the first row and initiating respective push voltage pulses across the pixels in the second row; re-addressing the first row after addressing the second row and initiating respective pull voltage pulses across the pixels in the first row; and re-addressing the second row after re-addressing the first row and initiating respective pull voltage pulses across the pixels in the second row, wherein the first row is re-addressed before all of the rows of pixels have each been addressed once during the image update…
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses addressing a first row of pixels and initiating respective push voltage pulses across the pixels in the first row (Fig. 4 and ¶0059 disclose a Pixel L1 connected to the first row being scanned at a first time); addressing a second row of pixels after addressing the first row and initiating respective push voltage pulses across the pixels in the second row (Fig. 4 and ¶0059 disclose a Pixel L2 connected to the second row being scanned at a first time after the Pixel L1 is scanned at the first time); re-addressing the first row after addressing the second row and initiating respective pull voltage pulses across the pixels in the first row (Fig. 4 and ¶0059 disclose the Pixel L1 being scanned at a second time after the Pixel L2 is scanned at the first time); and re-addressing the second row after re-addressing the first row and initiating respective pull voltage pulses across the pixels in the second row (Fig. 4 and ¶0059 disclose the Pixel L2 being scanned at a second time after the Pixel L1 is scanned at the second time), wherein the first row is re-addressed before all of the rows of pixels have each been addressed once during the image update (Fig. 4 and ¶0059 and each row of pixels is turned on twice earlier and later with such a time interval that is necessary for continuously scanning n rows, but the invention is not limited to this; for example, any natural number smaller than n may be applicable as well)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Telfer so that when different intervals between refresh cycles are predetermined and more pulse combination schemes are provided, more and faster grayscale displays can be realized accordingly, and requirements on storage capacitance can be lowered (¶0019).
Regarding claim 20, Telfer discloses the electrophoretic display of claim 19, wherein the respective pull voltage pulse has a duration at least twice as long as the respective push voltage pulse (Table 8, ¶0061 and ¶0251 disclose a duty cycle is defined as the proportion of the time of one cycle at which the display was driven at voltage V1, and magenta M writing waveform alternates between V1=+30 V and V2= -15 V with a 33% duty cycle, thus the V2 pull portion is approximately 67%/33%=2.03 times the duration of the V1 push portion).
Regarding claim 21, Telfer discloses the electrophoretic display of claim 19, wherein the respective push voltage pulse has a duration of less than 20 milliseconds (Fig. 6A, ¶0061 and ¶0141 disclose length of the positive (push) impulse (tp) is shorter than that of the negative (pull) impulse (tn) and the period of one cycle of positive and negative impulses may range from about 30-1000 milliseconds. Since tp < tn and tp + tn =30 ms at the lower range, it implies the push impulse tp is less than 15 ms).
Regarding claim 22, Telfer discloses the electrophoretic display of claim 19, wherein the respective push voltage pulse has a greater voltage magnitude than the respective pull voltage pulse (Fig. 6A, ¶0061 and ¶0141 disclose the voltage applied in the positive impulse (Vp) is greater than that of the negative impulse (Vn)).
Regarding claim 23, Telfer discloses the electrophoretic display of claim 19, wherein the respective push voltage pulse and the respective pull voltage pulse each have a voltage magnitude not greater than 24 V (Fig. 8, ¶0061, ¶0152 and ¶0157 disclose a pulse with length T1 and amplitude +Vmax followed by a pulse with length T2 and amplitude −Vmid, where +Vmax is +24V and -Vmid is -12V and provides a push pulse and a pull pulse each having a magnitude no greater than 24 V).
Regarding claim 24, Telfer discloses the electrophoretic display of claim 19, wherein the respective push voltage pulse and the respective pull voltage pulse each have a voltage magnitude not greater than 15 V (Fig. 8, ¶0061, ¶0152 and ¶0157 disclose a sequence of pulses comprising a push pulse with length T1 and amplitude +Vmid followed by a pull pulse with length T2 and amplitude −Vmid, where +Vmid is +12V and -Vmid is -12V).
Regarding claim 25, Telfer doesn’t disclose the electrophoretic display of claim 19, wherein, after re-addressing the second row, the controller again re-addresses the first row and initiates a subsequent push voltage pulse across the at least one pixel in the first row.
However, the combination of Telfer and Zhang discloses wherein, after re-addressing the second row, the controller again re-addresses the first row and initiates a subsequent push voltage pulse across the at least one pixel in the first row (Telfer, Fig. 8 and ¶0157 disclose a repetition of instances of a sequence of push and pull pulse pairs. Zhang, Fig. 4 and ¶0054 disclose during one refresh cycle, each row of pixels are turned on twice with such a time interval that is necessary for continuously scanning n rows between).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Telfer so that when different intervals between refresh cycles are predetermined and more pulse combination schemes are provided, more and faster grayscale displays can be realized accordingly, and requirements on storage capacitance can be lowered (¶0019).
Regarding claim 26, Telfer discloses the electrophoretic display of claim 25, wherein the respective push voltage pulse and the subsequent push voltage pulse have the same polarity and voltage magnitude (¶0157 discloses a repetition of instances of a sequence of pulses comprising a pulse with length T1 and amplitude +Vmax or +Vmid followed by a pulse with length T2 and amplitude −Vmid).
Regarding claim 27, Telfer doesn’t disclose the electrophoretic display of claim 19, wherein a pixel in the first row and a pixel in the second row undergo a same color transition when the controller updates the image.
However, the combination of Telfer and Zhang disclose wherein a pixel in the first row and a pixel in the second row undergo a same color transition when the controller updates the image (Telfer, Fig. 8 and ¶0142 disclose applying voltage waveforms to individual pixel electrodes to move an electrophoretic pixel into selected color states. Zhang, Fig. 1, ¶0040 and ¶0061-¶0063 disclose pixels in the first row and the second row and applying signal voltages through their respective data lines. Thus, when a pixel in first row and second row of Zhang are both required by the image data to undergo for example a blue to magenta transition, Tefler’s drive scheme would apply the appropriate blue to magenta waveform to both pixels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Telfer so that when different intervals between refresh cycles are predetermined and more pulse combination schemes are provided, more and faster grayscale displays can be realized accordingly, and requirements on storage capacitance can be lowered (¶0019).
Regarding claim 31, Telfer discloses the electrophoretic display of claim 19, wherein the electrophoretic medium includes a reflective white particle and at least one subtractive color particle (Fig. 1 and ¶0094 disclose electrophoretic medium which comprises one light-scattering particle (typically white) and three other particles providing the three subtractive primary colors) or a reflective white particle and at least one reflective color particle.
Regarding claim 32, Telfer discloses the electrophoretic display of claim 19, wherein the electrophoretic medium includes a fourth type of electrophoretic particle (abstract and ¶0050 disclose an electrophoretic medium comprising four types of particle as described above dispersed in a fluid).
Regarding claim 33, Telfer discloses the electrophoretic display of claim 32, wherein two of the types of particles are negatively charged and two of the types of particles are positively charged (¶0053 disclose first and third particles are negatively charged and the second and fourth particles are positively charged).
Regarding claim 36, Telfer discloses the electrophoretic display of claim 19, wherein the electrophoretic medium is encapsulated in microcapsules or microcells (¶0135 discloses electrophoretic fluid may be encapsulated in microcapsules or incorporated into microcell structures).
5. Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telfer in view of Zhang and in further view of Li et al. (US 10,991,330 B1, hereinafter referred as “Li”).
Regarding claim 29, Telfer as modified doesn’t disclose the electrophoretic display of claim 19, wherein there are n rows of pixels, and the first row and the second row are separated by about n/2 rows of pixels.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li discloses wherein there are n rows of pixels, and the first row and the second row are separated by about n/2 rows of pixels (Fig. 11 and col. 9, lines 25-33 disclose in the split-screen mode of operation, clock signals CLK1, CLK2, CLK3, and CLK4 are sequentially phased and start signal GST2 includes a start pulse that is one clock longer that start pulse GST1, such that the sequential gate pulses of gate lines G1−G(N/2) of the first half of the pixel array alternate and are interleaved with the sequential gate pulses of gate lines G(N/2+1)−G(N) of the second half of the pixel array).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Telfer for the purpose of avoiding generation of visible artifacts such as motion blur, luminance offsets, or other effects which can be unpleasant or even dizzying to a viewer (col. 1, lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 30, Telfer as modified doesn’t disclose the electrophoretic display of claim 29, wherein the controller further re-addresses the first row after initiating the respective pull voltage pulses across the pixels in the first row, and every row of pixels is addressed at least twice between the addressing of the first row that initiates the respective push voltage pulses and the further re-addressing of the first row.
However, combination of Telfer and Zhang discloses wherein the controller further re-addresses the first row after initiating the respective pull voltage pulses across the pixels in the first row, and every row of pixels is addressed at least twice between the addressing of the first row that initiates the respective push voltage pulses and the further re-addressing of the first row (Telfer, Fig. 8 and ¶0157 disclose a repetition of instances of a sequence of push and pull pulse pairs. Zhang, Fig. 4 and ¶0054 disclose during one refresh cycle, each row of pixels are turned on twice with such a time interval that is necessary for continuously scanning n rows between).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Telfer so that when different intervals between refresh cycles are predetermined and more pulse combination schemes are provided, more and faster grayscale displays can be realized accordingly, and requirements on storage capacitance can be lowered (¶0019).
6. Claim(s) 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telfer in view of Zhang and in further view of Daliwala et al. (US 2022/0139340 A1, hereinafter referred as “Daliwala”)
Regarding claim 34, Telfer as modified doesn’t disclose the electrophoretic display of claim 32, wherein one of the types of particles is negatively charged and three of the types of particles are positively charged.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Daliwala discloses wherein one of the types of particles is negatively charged and three of the types of particles are positively charged (¶0031 discloses three of the sets of particles are positively charged and one of the sets of particles are negatively charged).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Telfer so the system can provide white, yellow, red, magenta, blue, cyan, green, and black at every pixel (¶0049).
Regarding claim 35, Telfer as modified doesn’t disclose the electrophoretic display of claim 32, wherein three of the types of particles are negatively charged and one of the types of particles is positively charged.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Daliwala discloses wherein three of the types of particles are negatively charged and one of the types of particles is positively charged (¶0031 discloses one of the sets of particles are positively charged and three of the sets of particles are negatively charged).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Telfer so the system can provide white, yellow, red, magenta, blue, cyan, green, and black at every pixel (¶0049).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 28 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.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 19-36 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRIYANK J SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3732. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00 - 6:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ghebretinsae, Temesghen can be reached on (571) 272-3017. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PRIYANK J SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
