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 .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending. Bolded claim language below regards newly amended subject matter with a corresponding new rejection citation. Newly amended subject matter that is not bolded does not comprise a new rejection citation (utilizes previous interpretation that is unchanged in view of the new language) or is a newly added claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
Claim(s) 10-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Martin (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0100097).
Regarding independent claim 10, Martin discloses a method (Figures 17A or 17B), comprising:
(a) receiving, from one or more ambient light sensors in an electrophoretic display, one or more signals indicating a detected level of ambient illuminance incident on a viewing surface of the electrophoretic display (Figures 12-13A reference sensor system 230 described in paragraphs [0095] and [0100] to sense the ambient light incident on the display 210 and output to the controller 240.);
(b) comparing the detected level of ambient illuminance to a predetermined threshold level (Figures 14A-14B described in paragraphs [0102]-[0103] chart ambient illumination x against display brightness y with tracks regarding various settings of the frontlight 220 (410, 420, 40 nit, 60 nit, max, off). Figure 15A and paragraphs [0104] and [0105] describes a lookup table utilized by the controller 240 to determine a ratio of the measured/sensed ambient diffuse light x against the directed light y to determine how much light to add, via frontlight 220. The table depicts a plurality of thresholds. For example, in correspondence with figures 14B, frontlight 220 is set off/0 during sunny designation, set to turn on various values during office/cloudy designations, and generally set to a value of 40 during home designation. Paragraph [0109] describes the lookup table as a formula.);
(c) when the detected level of ambient illuminance is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold level (Figure 14A reference the optimal readability trace 400 as the predetermined threshold level.), controlling the frontlight illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit to adaptively (Figure 12 reference controller 240 described in paragraph [0100] to adjust frontlight 220 based on the measured ambient light from sensor 230 (figure 15).) maintain a constant viewing surface luminance comprising light reflected by the viewing surface from the frontlight illuminance and the ambient illuminance, irrespective of the detected level of the ambient illuminance (Figure 14A depicts trace 400 as an estimate of the optimal readability throughout the various ambient illumination x and brightness y. Maintaining a “constant viewing surface luminance” is implied by either a single value or the appearance of a single value as viewed by the eyes of the viewer. Trace 400 is depicted to be the same value from ambient lux 1-100 but increases in value thereafter. This implies a viewer to maintain a constant viewing of the surface luminance must increase the surface luminance when ambient illumination x and brightness y increases. Paragraph [0102] describes the disclosed adjustments, by the controller 240, to adjust the frontlight 220 to achieve the optimal readability/constant viewing.);
(d) when the detected level of ambient illuminance is greater than the predetermined threshold level, controlling the frontlight illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit to maintain the viewing surface luminance at generally the same level as a white diffuse reflector under the same detected level of ambient illuminance, wherein the white diffuse reflector comprises a Lambertian reflective surface having a value of L*=100 (Paragraphs [0090] describes reflective displays under diffuse lighting conditions have Lambertian reflectance characteristics. Citation of Lambertian reflectance characteristics is described in reference to figure 9B and paragraph [0085] to regard total reflections of light in all directions 121 (L*=100 regarding LAB luminance data). Paragraphs [0091] and [0116]-[0117] describes utilizing frontlight to provide the advantage of a Lambertian display including setting the frontlight to zero (depicted in figure 15 for high luminance sunny situations.); and
(e) repeating steps (a) through (d) a plurality of times (Figures 17A-17B depict methods of control as described above inherent to be performed more than once for performing the application’s task of adjusting the illuminance in various ambient light situations as described in paragraph [0104].), wherein when the detected level of ambient illuminance changes over time while remaining less than or equal to the predetermined threshold level (Figure 14A reference the optimal readability trace 400 as the predetermined threshold level.), the frontlight control system operates the frontlight unit in step (c) to vary the frontlight illuminance incident on the viewing surface commensurately with the detected level of ambient illuminance ([0100] ambient light is detected (inherently varies) and utilized to drive the light source 220 to match) to maintain the constant viewing surface luminance (Figure 14A depicts trace 400 as an estimate of the optimal readability throughout the various ambient illumination x and brightness y. Maintaining a “constant viewing surface luminance” is implied by either a single value or the appearance of a single value as viewed by the eyes of the viewer. Trace 400 is depicted to be the same value from ambient lux 1-100 but increases in value thereafter. This implies a viewer to maintain a constant viewing of the surface luminance must increase the surface luminance when ambient illumination x and brightness y increases. Paragraph [0102] describes the disclosed adjustments, by the controller 240, to adjust the frontlight 220 to achieve the optimal readability/constant viewing.).
Regarding claim 11, Martin discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the frontlight illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit is controlled in step (c) (Figure 12 reference controller 240 described in paragraph [0100] to adjust frontlight 220 based on the measured ambient light from sensor 230 (figure 15).) according to:
E
F
L
=
E
A
M
B
,
m
i
n
R
W
-
E
A
M
B
if EAMB ≤ EAMB, min
where EFL is the illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit (The adjust to frontlight 220, paragraph [0100], interpreted as this variable.), EAMB is the detected level of ambient illuminance incident on the viewing surface (Figures 12-13A reference sensor system 230 described in paragraphs [0095] and [0100] to sense the ambient light incident on the display and output to the controller 240. The sensed value interpreted as the variable.), EAMB, min is the predetermined threshold level (Figures 14A-15A depict various thresholds.), and RW is the diffuse reflectance factor of the viewing surface in a white state (Figure 9B and paragraph [0085] example a 100% Lambertian reflectance factor. Said Lambertian reflectance is described in paragraph [0116] as an intended outcome for reflecting the brightness substantially the same in all directions above the display surface (white state). The current application’s originally filed specification paragraph [0124] describes a white state at 100% is RW = 1.) (In view of the variables and RW =1 this enables the equation to equate to the value EFL of the frontlight 220 to be equal to the difference between the threshold value EAMB, min and the sensed ambient light value EAMB. Martin discloses this situation in paragraph [0106] wherein frontlight 220 is applied with a value to supplement the difference between the ambient luminance and the threshold/optimal readability trace 400. Such a situation is depicted in figure 15A when charted values are non-zero.).
Regarding claim 12, Martin discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the frontlight illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit is controlled in step (d) according to:
E
F
L
=
E
A
M
B
1
R
W
-
1
if EAMB > EAMB, min
where EFL is the illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit (The adjust to frontlight 220, paragraph [0100], interpreted as this variable.), EAMB is the detected level of ambient illuminance incident on the viewing surface (Figures 12-13A reference sensor system 230 described in paragraphs [0095] and [0100] to sense the ambient light incident on the display and output to the controller 240. The sensed value interpreted as the variable.), EAMB, min is the predetermined threshold level (Figures 14A-15A depict various thresholds.), and RW is the diffuse reflectance factor of the viewing surface in a white state (Figure 9B and paragraph [0085] example a 100% Lambertian reflectance factor. Said Lambertian reflectance is described in paragraph [0116] as an intended outcome for reflecting the brightness substantially the same in all directions above the display surface (white state). The current application’s originally filed specification paragraph [0124] describes a white state at 100% is RW = 1.) (In view of the variables and RW =1 this enables the equation to equate to the value EFL = (1/1-1) = 0. Figures 14A-15A depicts multiple instances of off/zero.).
Regarding claim 13, Martin discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the threshold level is between 3 lx and 500 lx (Figure 14A reference threshold trace 400 depicted to be about 94 lux up until the border at home and office.).
Regarding claim 14, Martin discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the threshold level is about 94 lx (Figure 14A reference threshold trace 400 depicted to be about 94 lux up until the border at home and office.).
Regarding independent claim 17, Martin discloses a control system (Figure 12 reference display device 200.), comprising:
at least one processor (240);
memory associated with the at least one processor; and
a program stored in the memory for controlling operation of a frontlight unit of an electrophoretic display, the program containing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor (Paragraph [0116] describes the method may be executed by the controller 240. Paragraphs [0133]-[0134] describes functions may be implemented by computer programs stored in memory.), cause the at least one processor to:
(a) receive, from one or more ambient light sensors in an electrophoretic display, one or more signals indicating a detected level of ambient illuminance incident on a viewing surface of the electrophoretic display (Figures 12-13A reference sensor system 230 described in paragraphs [0095] and [0100] to sense the ambient light incident on the display 210 and output to the controller 240.);
(b) compare the detected level of ambient illuminance to a predetermined threshold level (Figures 14A-14B described in paragraphs [0102]-[0103] chart ambient illumination x against display brightness y with tracks regarding various settings of the frontlight 220 (410, 420, 40 nit, 60 nit, max, off). Figure 15A and paragraphs [0104] and [0105] describes a lookup table utilized by the controller 240 to determine a ratio of the measured/sensed ambient diffuse light x against the directed light y to determine how much light to add, via frontlight 220. The table depicts a plurality of thresholds. For example, in correspondence with figures 14B, frontlight 220 is set off/0 during sunny designation, set to turn on various values during office/cloudy designations, and generally set to a value of 40 during home designation. Paragraph [0109] describes the lookup table as a formula.);
(c) when the detected level of ambient illuminance is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold level (Figure 14A reference the optimal readability trace 400 as the predetermined threshold level.), control the frontlight illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit to adaptively (Figure 12 reference controller 240 described in paragraph [0100] to adjust frontlight 220 based on the measured ambient light from sensor 230 (figure 15).) maintain a constant viewing surface luminance comprising light reflected by the viewing surface from the frontlight illuminance and the ambient illuminance, irrespective of the detected level of the ambient illuminance (Figure 14A depicts trace 400 as an estimate of the optimal readability throughout the various ambient illumination x and brightness y. Maintaining a “constant viewing surface luminance” is implied by either a single value or the appearance of a single value as viewed by the eyes of the viewer. Trace 400 is depicted to be the same value from ambient lux 1-100 but increases in value thereafter. This implies a viewer to maintain a constant viewing of the surface luminance must increase the surface luminance when ambient illumination x and brightness y increases. Paragraph [0102] describes the disclosed adjustments, by the controller 240, to adjust the frontlight 220 to achieve the optimal readability/constant viewing.);
(d) when the detected level of ambient illuminance is greater than the predetermined threshold level, control the frontlight illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit to maintain the viewing surface luminance at generally the same level as a white diffuse reflector under the same detected level of ambient illuminance, wherein the white diffuse reflector comprises a Lambertian reflective surface having a value of L*=100 (Paragraphs [0090] describes reflective displays under diffuse lighting conditions have Lambertian reflectance characteristics. Citation of Lambertian reflectance characteristics is described in reference to figure 9B and paragraph [0085] to regard total reflections of light in all directions 121 (L*=100 regarding LAB luminance data). Paragraphs [0091] and [0116]-[0117] describes utilizing frontlight to provide the advantage of a Lambertian display including setting the frontlight to zero (depicted in figure 15 for high luminance sunny situations.); and
(e) repeating steps (a) through (d) a plurality of times (Figures 17A-17B depict methods of control as described above inherent to be performed more than once for performing the application’s task of adjusting the illuminance in various ambient light situations as described in paragraph [0104].), wherein when the detected level of ambient illuminance changes over time while remaining less than or equal to the predetermined threshold level (Figure 14A reference the optimal readability trace 400 as the predetermined threshold level.), the frontlight control system operates the frontlight unit in step (c) to vary the frontlight illuminance incident on the viewing surface commensurately with the detected level of ambient illuminance ([0100] ambient light is detected (inherently varies) and utilized to drive the light source 220 to match) to maintain the constant viewing surface luminance (Figure 14A depicts trace 400 as an estimate of the optimal readability throughout the various ambient illumination x and brightness y. Maintaining a “constant viewing surface luminance” is implied by either a single value or the appearance of a single value as viewed by the eyes of the viewer. Trace 400 is depicted to be the same value from ambient lux 1-100 but increases in value thereafter. This implies a viewer to maintain a constant viewing of the surface luminance must increase the surface luminance when ambient illumination x and brightness y increases. Paragraph [0102] describes the disclosed adjustments, by the controller 240, to adjust the frontlight 220 to achieve the optimal readability/constant viewing.).
Regarding claim 18, Martin discloses the control system of claim 17, wherein the frontlight illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit is controlled in step (c) (Figure 12 reference controller 240 described in paragraph [0100] to adjust frontlight 220 based on the measured ambient light from sensor 230 (figure 15).) according to:
E
F
L
=
E
A
M
B
,
m
i
n
R
W
-
E
A
M
B
if EAMB ≤ EAMB, min
where EFL is the illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit (The adjust to frontlight 220, paragraph [0100], interpreted as this variable.), EAMB is the detected level of ambient illuminance incident on the viewing surface (Figures 12-13A reference sensor system 230 described in paragraphs [0095] and [0100] to sense the ambient light incident on the display and output to the controller 240. The sensed value interpreted as the variable.), EAMB, min is the predetermined threshold level (Figures 14A-15A depict various thresholds.), and RW is the diffuse reflectance factor of the viewing surface in a white state (Figure 9B and paragraph [0085] example a 100% Lambertian reflectance factor. Said Lambertian reflectance is described in paragraph [0116] as an intended outcome for reflecting the brightness substantially the same in all directions above the display surface (white state). The current application’s originally filed specification paragraph [0124] describes a white state at 100% is RW = 1.) (In view of the variables and RW =1 this enables the equation to equate to the value EFL of the frontlight 220 to be equal to the difference between the threshold value EAMB, min and the sensed ambient light value EAMB. Martin discloses this situation in paragraph [0106] wherein frontlight 220 is applied with a value to supplement the difference between the ambient luminance and the threshold/optimal readability trace 400. Such a situation is depicted in figure 15A when charted values are non-zero.).
Regarding claim 19, Martin discloses the control system of claim 17, wherein the frontlight illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit is controlled in step (d) according to:
E
F
L
=
E
A
M
B
1
R
W
-
1
if EAMB > EAMB, min
where EFL is the illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit (The adjust to frontlight 220, paragraph [0100], interpreted as this variable.), EAMB is the detected level of ambient illuminance incident on the viewing surface (Figures 12-13A reference sensor system 230 described in paragraphs [0095] and [0100] to sense the ambient light incident on the display and output to the controller 240. The sensed value interpreted as the variable.), EAMB, min is the predetermined threshold level (Figures 14A-15A depict various thresholds.), and RW is the diffuse reflectance factor of the viewing surface in a white state (Figure 9B and paragraph [0085] example a 100% Lambertian reflectance factor. Said Lambertian reflectance is described in paragraph [0116] as an intended outcome for reflecting the brightness substantially the same in all directions above the display surface (white state). The current application’s originally filed specification paragraph [0124] describes a white state at 100% is RW = 1.) (In view of the variables and RW =1 this enables the equation to equate to the value EFL = (1/1-1) = 0. Figures 14A-15A depicts multiple instances of off/zero.).
Regarding claim 20, Martin discloses the control system of claim 17, wherein the threshold level is between 3 lx and 500 lx (Figure 14A reference threshold trace 400 depicted to be about 94 lux up until the border at home and office.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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) 1-5, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Sadlik et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0146300), herein after referred to as Sadlik.
Regarding independent claim 1, Martin discloses an electrophoretic display apparatus (Figure 12 reference display 200. Paragraph [0047] describes the display may be implemented in various technologies including electrophoretic devices.), comprising:
an electrophoretic device having a viewing surface (Figure 12 reference display 210 described in paragraph [0088] to reflect incoming light toward a viewer.)
[ ];
one or more ambient light sensors at the viewing surface of the electrophoretic device for detecting a level of ambient illuminance incident on the viewing surface (Figures 12-13A reference sensor system 230 described in paragraph [0095] to sense the ambient light incident on the display.);
a frontlight unit disposed above the viewing surface of the electrophoretic device for illuminating the viewing surface (Figure 12 reference auxiliary light source 220 described in paragraph [0094] to be a front-light for a reflective display.); and
a frontlight control system coupled to the one or more ambient light sensors and the frontlight unit (Figure 12 reference controller 240 described in paragraph [0100] to adjust frontlight 220 based on the measured ambient light from sensor 230.), and configured to:
(a) receive, from the one or more ambient light sensors, one or more signals indicating a detected level of ambient illuminance incident on the viewing surface of the electrophoretic device (Figures 12-13A reference sensor system 230 described in paragraphs [0095] and [0100] to sense the ambient light incident on the display and output to the controller 240.);
(b) compare the detected level of ambient illuminance to a predetermined threshold level (Figures 14A-14B described in paragraphs [0102]-[0103] chart ambient illumination x against display brightness y with tracks regarding various settings of the frontlight 220 (410, 420, 40 nit, 60 nit, max, off). Figure 15A and paragraphs [0104] and [0105] describes a lookup table utilized by the controller 240 to determine a ratio of the measured/sensed ambient diffuse light x against the directed light y to determine how much light to add, via frontlight 220. The table depicts a plurality of thresholds. For example, in correspondence with figures 14B, frontlight 220 is set off/0 during sunny designation, set to turn on various values during office/cloudy designations, and generally set to a value of 40 during home designation. Paragraph [0109] describes the lookup table as a formula.);
(c) when the detected level of ambient illuminance is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold level (Figure 14A reference the optimal readability trace 400 as the predetermined threshold level.), control frontlight illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit to adaptively (Figure 12 reference controller 240 described in paragraph [0100] to adjust frontlight 220 based on the measured ambient light from sensor 230 (figure 15).) maintain a constant viewing surface luminance comprising light reflected by the viewing surface from the frontlight illuminance and the ambient illuminance, irrespective of the detected level of the ambient illuminance (Figure 14A depicts trace 400 as an estimate of the optimal readability throughout the various ambient illumination x and brightness y. Maintaining a “constant viewing surface luminance” is implied by either a single value or the appearance of a single value as viewed by the eyes of the viewer. Trace 400 is depicted to be the same value from ambient lux 1-100 but increases in value thereafter. This implies a viewer to maintain a constant viewing of the surface luminance must increase the surface luminance when ambient illumination x and brightness y increases. Paragraph [0102] describes the disclosed adjustments, by the controller 240, to adjust the frontlight 220 to achieve the optimal readability/constant viewing.);
(d) when the detected level of ambient illuminance is greater than the predetermined threshold level, control the frontlight illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit to maintain the viewing surface luminance at generally the same level as a white diffuse reflector under the same detected level of ambient illuminance, wherein the white diffuse reflector comprises a Lambertian reflective surface having a value of L*=100 (Paragraphs [0090] describes reflective displays under diffuse lighting conditions have Lambertian reflectance characteristics. Citation of Lambertian reflectance characteristics is described in reference to figure 9B and paragraph [0085] to regard total reflections of light in all directions 121 (L*=100 regarding LAB luminance data). Paragraphs [0091] and [0116]-[0117] describes utilizing frontlight to provide the advantage of a Lambertian display including setting the frontlight to zero (depicted in figure 15 for high luminance sunny situations.); and
(e) repeating steps (a) through (d) a plurality of times (Figures 17A-17B depict methods of control as described above inherent to be performed more than once for performing the application’s task of adjusting the illuminance in various ambient light situations as described in paragraph [0104].), wherein when the detected level of ambient illuminance changes over time while remaining less than or equal to the predetermined threshold level (Figure 14A reference the optimal readability trace 400 as the predetermined threshold level.), the frontlight control system operates the frontlight unit in step (c) to vary the frontlight illuminance incident on the viewing surface commensurately with the detected level of ambient illuminance ([0100] ambient light is detected (inherently varies) and utilized to drive the light source 220 to match) to maintain the constant viewing surface luminance (Figure 14A depicts trace 400 as an estimate of the optimal readability throughout the various ambient illumination x and brightness y. Maintaining a “constant viewing surface luminance” is implied by either a single value or the appearance of a single value as viewed by the eyes of the viewer. Trace 400 is depicted to be the same value from ambient lux 1-100 but increases in value thereafter. This implies a viewer to maintain a constant viewing of the surface luminance must increase the surface luminance when ambient illumination x and brightness y increases. Paragraph [0102] describes the disclosed adjustments, by the controller 240, to adjust the frontlight 220 to achieve the optimal readability/constant viewing.).
Martin does not specifically disclose a drive system coupled to the electrophoretic device for driving the electrophoretic device among a plurality of optical states.
Sadlik discloses an electrophoretic display apparatus (Figure 4 reference display 400 comprising electrophoretically mobile particles 426.), comprising:
an electrophoretic device having a viewing surface (Figure 4 reference outer surface 404 described in paragraph [0034] to face the viewer 406.);
a drive system coupled to the electrophoretic device for driving the electrophoretic device among a plurality of optical states (Figure 5 reference processor 530 described in paragraph [0059] to drive the display 400. Figure 4 reference voltage bias source 428 described in paragraph [0042] to be used to move the electrophoretic particles 426.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Martin’s electrophoretic display with the known technique of an electrophoretic device having a viewing surface and a drive system coupled to the electrophoretic device for driving the electrophoretic device among a plurality of optical states yielding the predictable results of operating the electric field of particles for performing the function of displaying as disclosed by Sadlik (paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 2, Martin discloses the electrophoretic display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the frontlight illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit is controlled in step (c) (Figure 12 reference controller 240 described in paragraph [0100] to adjust frontlight 220 based on the measured ambient light from sensor 230 (figure 15).) according to:
E
F
L
=
E
A
M
B
,
m
i
n
R
W
-
E
A
M
B
if EAMB ≤ EAMB, min
where EFL is the illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit (The adjust to frontlight 220, paragraph [0100], interpreted as this variable.), EAMB is the detected level of ambient illuminance incident on the viewing surface (Figures 12-13A reference sensor system 230 described in paragraphs [0095] and [0100] to sense the ambient light incident on the display and output to the controller 240. The sensed value interpreted as the variable.), EAMB, min is the predetermined threshold level (Figures 14A-15A depict various thresholds.), and RW is the diffuse reflectance factor of the viewing surface in a white state (Figure 9B and paragraph [0085] example a 100% Lambertian reflectance factor. Said Lambertian reflectance is described in paragraph [0116] as an intended outcome for reflecting the brightness substantially the same in all directions above the display surface (white state). The current application’s originally filed specification paragraph [0124] describes a white state at 100% is RW = 1.) (In view of the variables and RW =1 this enables the equation to equate to the value EFL of the frontlight 220 to be equal to the difference between the threshold value EAMB, min and the sensed ambient light value EAMB. Martin discloses this situation in paragraph [0106] wherein frontlight 220 is applied with a value to supplement the difference between the ambient luminance and the threshold/optimal readability trace 400. Such a situation is depicted in figure 15A when charted values are non-zero.).
Regarding claim 3, Martin discloses the electrophoretic display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the frontlight illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit is controlled in step (d) according to:
E
F
L
=
E
A
M
B
1
R
W
-
1
if EAMB > EAMB, min
where EFL is the illuminance incident on the viewing surface from the frontlight unit (The adjust to frontlight 220, paragraph [0100], interpreted as this variable.), EAMB is the detected level of ambient illuminance incident on the viewing surface (Figures 12-13A reference sensor system 230 described in paragraphs [0095] and [0100] to sense the ambient light incident on the display and output to the controller 240. The sensed value interpreted as the variable.), EAMB, min is the predetermined threshold level (Figures 14A-15A depict various thresholds.), and RW is the diffuse reflectance factor of the viewing surface in a white state (Figure 9B and paragraph [0085] example a 100% Lambertian reflectance factor. Said Lambertian reflectance is described in paragraph [0116] as an intended outcome for reflecting the brightness substantially the same in all directions above the display surface (white state). The current application’s originally filed specification paragraph [0124] describes a white state at 100% is RW = 1.) (In view of the variables and RW =1 this enables the equation to equate to the value EFL = (1/1-1) = 0. Figures 14A-15A depicts multiple instances of off/zero.).
Regarding claim 4, Martin discloses the electrophoretic display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the threshold level is between 3 lx and 500 lx (Figure 14A reference threshold trace 400 depicted to be about 94 lux up until the border at home and office.).
Regarding claim 5, Martin discloses the electrophoretic display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the threshold level is about 94 lx (Figure 14A reference threshold trace 400 depicted to be about 94 lux up until the border at home and office.).
Regarding claim 8, Sadlik discloses the electrophoretic display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the electrophoretic device comprises:
a light-transmissive electrode at a viewing surface (Figure 4 reference viewing surface 404 disposed on sheet 402 described in paragraph [0036] to comprise a transparent front electrode (not shown in the figure).);
a back electrode (Figure 4 reference rear electrode 418 disposed on rear support layer 416.); and
an electrophoretic medium disposed between the light-transmissive electrode and the back electrode (Figure 4 reference medium 424 disposed between sheet 402 (comprising transparent electrode) and rear electrode 418.) comprising:
a non-polar fluid (Paragraph [0039] examples a plurality of mediums including Fluorinert inherent to be non-polar.); and
a multi-pigment particle system dispersed in the non-polar fluid (Paragraphs [0040]-[0041] describers a first and second plurality of particles 426 disposed within medium 424.).
Regarding claim 15, Martin discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the electrophoretic device.
Martin does not specifically disclose a light-transmissive electrode at a viewing surface; a back electrode; and an electrophoretic medium disposed between the light-transmissive electrode and the back electrode comprising: a non-polar fluid; and a multi-pigment particle system dispersed in the non-polar fluid.
Sadlik discloses an electrophoretic display apparatus (Figure 4 reference display 400 comprising electrophoretically mobile particles 426.), comprising:
an electrophoretic device having a viewing surface (Figure 4 reference outer surface 404 described in paragraph [0034] to face the viewer 406.);
a drive system coupled to the electrophoretic device for driving the electrophoretic device among a plurality of optical states (Figure 5 reference processor 530 described in paragraph [0059] to drive the display 400. Figure 4 reference voltage bias source 428 described in paragraph [0042] to be used to move the electrophoretic particles 426.) including:
a light-transmissive electrode at a viewing surface (Figure 4 reference viewing surface 404 disposed on sheet 402 described in paragraph [0036] to comprise a transparent front electrode (not shown in the figure).);
a back electrode (Figure 4 reference rear electrode 418 disposed on rear support layer 416.); and
an electrophoretic medium disposed between the light-transmissive electrode and the back electrode (Figure 4 reference medium 424 disposed between sheet 402 (comprising transparent electrode) and rear electrode 418.) comprising:
a non-polar fluid (Paragraph [0039] examples a plurality of mediums including Fluorinert inherent to be non-polar.); and
a multi-pigment particle system dispersed in the non-polar fluid (Paragraphs [0040]-[0041] describers a first and second plurality of particles 426 disposed within medium 424.).
Sadlik discloses an electrophoretic display apparatus (Figure 4 reference display 400 comprising electrophoretically mobile particles 426.), comprising:
an electrophoretic device having a viewing surface (Figure 4 reference outer surface 404 described in paragraph [0034] to face the viewer 406.);
a drive system coupled to the electrophoretic device for driving the electrophoretic device among a plurality of optical states (Figure 5 reference processor 530 described in paragraph [0059] to drive the display 400. Figure 4 reference voltage bias source 428 described in paragraph [0042] to be used to move the electrophoretic particles 426.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Martin’s electrophoretic display with the known technique of an electrophoretic device having a viewing surface and a drive system coupled to the electrophoretic device for driving the electrophoretic device among a plurality of optical states including: a light-transmissive electrode at a viewing surface; a back electrode; and an electrophoretic medium disposed between the light-transmissive electrode and the back electrode comprising: a non-polar fluid; and a multi-pigment particle system dispersed in the non-polar fluid yielding the predictable results of operating the electric field of particles for performing the function of displaying as disclosed by Sadlik (paragraph [0042]).
5. Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin-Sadlik in view of Wyatt (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0398987).
Regarding claim 6, Martin discloses the electrophoretic display apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the one or more ambient light sensors at the viewing surface of the electrophoretic device for detecting a level of ambient illuminance incident on the viewing surface (Figures 12-13A reference sensor system 230 described in paragraph [0095] to sense the ambient light incident on the display.);
the frontlight unit includes at least one [ ] light source [ ] independently controllable [ ] (Figure 12 reference auxiliary light source 220 described in paragraph [0094] to be a front-light with any type of light source.); and
the frontlight control system is further configured to control the chrominance of illumination from the at least one [ ] light source to compensate for luminance states of the electrophoretic device [ ] (Paragraph [0104] describes the values depicted in figure 15A regard a value of auxiliary light to be added to the display for a desired light level of the display, as viewed by the user.).
Martin does not specifically disclose the ambient light sensor is at least one trichromatic sensor for detecting ambient trichromatic irradiance in red, green, and blue color channels, the frontlight unit includes at least one trichromatic light source comprising independently controllable red, green, and blue color channels, or compensate for white states of the electrophoretic device that are off-white.
Wyatt discloses an electrophoretic display (paragraph [0631]) wherein:
the one or more ambient light sensors include at least one trichromatic sensor for detecting ambient trichromatic irradiance in red, green, and blue color channels incident on the viewing surface (Paragraphs [0651]-[0652] describes determining ambient lighting conditions such as day, night evening, morning, and cloudy (pertaining to Martin’s ambient light sensor and thresholds in figures 14A-15A). Paragraphs [0854]-[0855] describes color photosensor to analyze the colors of the surrounding ambient light.);
the frontlight unit includes at least one trichromatic light source comprising independently controllable red, green, and blue color channels (Paragraphs [0634]-[0639] describes a frontlight source with multi-modal LED light source driven in multiple modes for an ePaper display.); and
the frontlight control system is further configured to control the chrominance of illumination from the at least one trichromatic light source to compensate for white states of the electrophoretic device that are off-white (Paragraph [0639] describes the multiple modes are driven by an ambient light sensor. Paragraphs [0640]-[0644] describes tuning the multimodal frontlight by altering the excitation drive strength, the ratio of the LED amplitude emission peaks (specific colors) to create a desired white point. Paragraph [0743] describes multi-modal frontlight operable to change outputted colors to affect the ePaper display for an overall white point goal. Paragraph [0858] describes a multi-modal light source including blue, green, and red emission peaks (channels) necessary to retain overall consistent impression of white.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Martin’s ambient light sensor and frontlight illumination with the known technique of the ambient light sensor is at least one trichromatic sensor for detecting ambient trichromatic irradiance in red, green, and blue color channels, the frontlight unit includes at least one trichromatic light source comprising independently controllable red, green, and blue color channels, and compensate for white states of the electrophoretic device that are off-white yielding the predictable results of retaining the overall consistent impression of white as disclosed by Wyatt (paragraph [0858]).
Regarding claim 7, Martin discloses the electrophoretic display apparatus of claim 1.
Martin does not specifically disclose wherein: the one or more ambient light sensors include at least one multispectral sensor with more than three spectral channels; and the frontlight unit includes at least one multispectral frontlight with more than three independently controlled spectral channels for changing the chrominance of the frontlight illumination.
Wyatt discloses one or more ambient light sensors include at least one multispectral sensor with more than three spectral channels (Paragraph [0655] describes the ambient light sensor to determine spectral composition in blue and red. Paragraphs [0854]-[0856] describes a colorimeter or spectroradiometer to analyze the ambient light environmental conditions. Paragraph [0857] describes the photometric analysis of colors is determined on a CIE1931 color space map depicted in figure 3 with multiple (more than three) identified individual spectral channels such as yellow, orange, red, etc.); and
the frontlight unit includes at least one multispectral frontlight with more than three independently controlled spectral channels for changing the chrominance of the frontlight illumination (Paragraphs [0641]-[00644] describes tuning spectral characteristics of the frontlight via a multi-modal light source. The spectral configuration is matched with various ambient detections such as nighttime and daylight. Paragraphs [0856]-[0858] describes a multi-spectral light source configured with deep blue, light blue, cyan, green, yellow, red, and deep red independent spectral channels.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Martin’s ambient light sensor and frontlight unit with the known technique of a multispectral sensor with more than three spectral channels and the frontlight unit includes at least one multispectral frontlight with more than three independently controlled spectral channels for changing the chrominance of the frontlight illumination yielding the predictable results of enhancing contrast as disclosed by Wyatt (paragraph [0644]).
6. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin-Sadlik in view of Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0313491), herein after referred to as Li.
Regarding claim 9, Martin discloses the electrophoretic display apparatus of claim 1.
Martin does not disclose wherein the frontlight unit comprises a waveguide, a light source for injecting light into the waveguide, and a frustrator for distributing the light from the waveguide on the viewing surface.
Li discloses wherein the frontlight unit (Figure 1A reference 150.) comprises a waveguide (110), a light source for injecting light into the waveguide (130), and a frustrator (Support for frustrator is supported in applicant’s originally filed specification paragraph [0110] which examples microstructures for scattering, reflecting, or refracting light toward the reflecting electrophoretic layer.) for distributing the light from the waveguide on the viewing surface (Figure 1A reference angled sidewall microstructure 122 described in paragraph [0037] to reflect light 132 illuminated from light source 130 toward exit out of the waveguide (describing applicant’s support for a frustrator) and reflected back in turn through the waveguide towards the viewer, paragraph [0034].).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Martin’s frontlight unit with the known technique of a waveguide, a light source for injecting light into the waveguide, and a frustrator for distributing the light from the waveguide on the viewing surface yielding the predictable results of diffusely/evenly illuminating a reflective display via discrete light sources as disclosed by Li (paragraph [0009]).
7. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Li.
Regarding claim 16, Martin discloses the method of claim 10.
Martin does not disclose wherein the frontlight unit comprises a waveguide, a light source for injecting light into the waveguide, and a frustrator for distributing the light from the waveguide on the viewing surface.
Li discloses wherein the frontlight unit (Figure 1A reference 150.) comprises a waveguide (110), a light source for injecting light into the waveguide (130), and a frustrator (Support for frustrator is supported in applicant’s originally filed specification paragraph [0110] which examples microstructures for scattering, reflecting, or refracting light toward the reflecting electrophoretic layer.) for distributing the light from the waveguide on the viewing surface (Figure 1A reference angled sidewall microstructure 122 described in paragraph [0037] to reflect light 132 illuminated from light source 130 toward exit out of the waveguide (describing applicant’s support for a frustrator) and reflected back in turn through the waveguide towards the viewer, paragraph [0034].).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to enable Martin’s frontlight unit with the known technique of a waveguide, a light source for injecting light into the waveguide, and a frustrator for distributing the light from the waveguide on the viewing surface yielding the predictable results of diffusely/evenly illuminating a reflective display via discrete light sources as disclosed by Li (paragraph [0009]).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument regards “irrespective of the detected level of the ambient illuminance”. Support for the subject matter may be found in applicant’s originally filed specification figure 9 and paragraphs [0126]-[0127] which describes detecting an ambient illuminance to be above or below a threshold 404 and, in the case of being below a threshold, maintain constant viewing surface luminance 406 by controlling the front light unit 306 (comprising light reflected by the viewing surface from the frontlight illuminance and ambient illuminance), irrespective of the detected level of the ambient illuminance. The “ambient illuminance” specifically regards the light upon the device surface due to the ambient room lights, sun, changed oriented etc (paragraph [0120]).
Applicant’s arguments imply that “maintain a constant viewing surface luminance irrespective of the detected level of ambient illuminance” is to be interpreted as not utilizing a detected level of ambient light in order to maintain a constant viewing surface. However, in view of the originally filed specification of the current application as shown above (including figure 9), maintaining constant viewing surface 406 cannot be performed without detecting ambient light 404. The interpretation utilized by the examiner in light of the specification includes “maintain a constant viewing surface luminance irrespective of the [changes to the] detected level of ambient illuminance”. The specification implies any changes to the ambient illuminance (below the threshold) will not be noticed by the viewer because the system is capable of maintain a constant viewing surface regardless of said changes to the ambient light or in other words “irrespective of the detected level of ambient light”.
Additionally, the limitation of “maintain a constant viewing surface” in view of varied lighting (ambient) environments is a broad scope of interpretation. The current application specifically describes ([0131]) controlling the LEDs of the device to be directly proportional to the [ambient] light incident on the device. In this specific interpretation of “maintaining a constant viewing surface” prior art Martin performs an identical function ([0100]) of matching the LED light output with the incident ambient light.
Applicant’s next argument regards claim 10 (d) limitations. It is noted applicant argues, from paragraph [0143] of the specification, the white state is increased in the display to reach 100% white diffuse reflector state. While the claims are examined in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not added to the claims. In this instance, the ability of the display to vary its white state is not claimed (in so far as the independent claim) beyond the existence of a “100% Lambertian reflective surface”. This may be performed by a display that is incapable of varying the white state comprising a permanent 100% Lambertian reflect surface such as disclosed by the prior art. If applicant intends the L* value to vary and/or change such should be claimed.
This action is final necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
9. 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 CHRISTOPHER E LEIBY whose telephone number is (571)270-3142. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E LEIBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights