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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sim et al. (US 2016/0225322)
Claim 1
1. A method for reducing color drift in an electrophoretic display undergoing a partial update, wherein the electrophoretic display includes an active matrix of pixel electrodes, the method comprising:
Paragraph 128: "in which a plurality of background pixels…are not drive"
identifying an M×N matrix of pixels that were not updated in a first partial update and remain in a first optical state between the time of the first partial update and a later time that is at least 3 seconds after the first partial update;
Paragraph 129: "preferably about 3 seconds" -- where even a single pixel could be "an MxN matrix" if M and N are 1
sending an update waveform for the first optical state to each pixel of the M×N matrix of pixels in order to reduce color drift in the electrophoretic display; and
Paragraph 128: "refresh pulse"
sending no waveform to pixels that were not updated in the first partial update and remain in the first optical state between the time of the first partial update and the later time that is at least 3 seconds after the first partial update but were not included in the identified M×N matrix of pixels.
Paragraph 128: "refresh pulse not being applied to the background pixels other than said first non-zero proportion thereof"
Regarding claim 3:
Sim discloses:
wherein the first optical state is a white optical state (paragraph 129: "or when displaying a combination of light mode and dark mode, in both extreme optical states").
Regarding claim 5:
Sim discloses:
after sending an update waveform to each pixel of the M×N matrix of pixels, identifying a different M′×N′ matrix of pixels that were not updated in the first partial update and remain in the first optical state between the time of the first partial update and a later time that is at least 3 seconds after the first partial update; and sending an update waveform for the first optical state to each pixel of the M′×N′ matrix of pixels (paragraph 128: "a second non-zero minor proportion of the background pixels different from the first non-zero proportion").
Regarding claim 7:
Sim discloses:
after sending an update waveform to each pixel of the M×N matrix of pixels, identifying a different M′×N′ matrix of pixels that were not updated in the first partial update and which remain in a second optical state between the time of the first partial update and a later time that is at least 3 seconds after the first partial update; and sending an update waveform for the second optical state to each pixel of the M′×N′ matrix of pixels (paragraph 128: "a second non-zero minor proportion of the background pixels different from the first non-zero proportion").
Regarding claim 8:
Sim discloses:
wherein the M×N matrix of pixels is the same size as the M′×N′ matrix of pixels (Sim is updating individual pixels, so these are both 1x1).
Regarding claim 9:
Sim discloses:
wherein at least a portion of the electrophoretic display shows a dithered image before the first partial update (it might as per, e.g., paragraphs 100-101).
Regarding claim 10:
Sim discloses:
wherein at least a portion of the electrophoretic display shows a dithered image before the first partial update, and the dithered image includes pixels of the first optical state and the second optical state (shown in, e.g., Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11:
Sim discloses:
wherein the first optical state is a white optical state and the second optical state is a nonwhite optical state (paragraphs 128-129).
Regarding claim 12:
Sim discloses:
wherein the second optical state is a black optical state (Sim paragraphs 128-129).
Regarding claim 13:
Sim discloses:
wherein the electrophoretic display comprises an electrophoretic medium including electrically charged particles dispersed in a fluid and confined within a plurality of capsules or microcells (e.g., paragraphs 28, 41).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of Emelie et al. (US 2016/0133196)
Regarding claim 2:
Sim discloses a method as discussed above.
Sim does not disclose:
"wherein the update waveform for the first optical state is shorter in length than a standard waveform for a transition from a neutral state to the first optical state."
Emelie discloses:
wherein the update waveform for the first optical state is shorter in length than a standard waveform for a transition from a neutral state to the first optical state (paragraph 149, where this time is compared to, e.g., paragraph 48 for a standard waveform).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Sim the elements taught by Emelie.
The rationale is as follows:
Sim and Emelie are directed to the same field of art.
Emelie here is disclosing a waveform used for the same purpose as the update waveform in Sim, and that it can be much shorter than a standard waveform. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 16:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of Sim et al. (US 2022/0068229; hereafter Sim '229).
Regarding claim 4:
Sim discloses a method as discussed above.
Sim does not disclose:
"wherein the M×N matrix of pixels includes at least 9 pixels."
Sim '229 discloses:
wherein the M×N matrix of pixels includes at least 9 pixels (e.g. Fig. 2c; paragraph 71, where because neighboring and cardinal pixels are updated together at least nine pixels 224b and c, 224f, etc., are updated together).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Sim the elements taught by Sim '229.
The rationale is as follows:
Sim and Sim '229 are directed to the same field of art.
Sim doesn't really discuss updating multiple pixels; Sim '229 shows that groups of nine or more can be updated together. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 6:
Sim in view of Sim '229 discloses:
wherein the M×N matrix of pixels is larger than the M′×N′ matrix of pixels (it could be depending on how they are grouped as per Sim '229 Figs. 2A to 2C).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of Li et al. (US 2025/0104659)
Regarding claim 14:
Sim discloses a method as discussed above.
Sim does not disclose:
"wherein the electrophoretic medium includes four different types of electrically charged particles, and at least two of the types of electrically charged particles have opposite polarities."
Li discloses:
wherein the electrophoretic medium includes four different types of electrically charged particles, and at least two of the types of electrically charged particles have opposite polarities (paragraphs 96, 127).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Sim the elements taught by Li.
The rationale is as follows:
Sim and Li are directed to the same field of art.
Li discoses this allows for more colors (e.g., Li paragraph 95). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 15:
Sim in view of Li discloses:
wherein the electrophoretic medium includes two positive electrically charged particles and two negative electrically charged particles or three positive electrically charged particles and one negative electrically charged particle or one positive electrically charged particle and three negative electrically charged particles (Li paragraph 127).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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 R LAMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights