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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/14/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “rewriting circuit,” “power source connection circuit,” and “control processor” in claim 1, of which claim 2-8 are dependent, and “selection circuit” in claim 2.
Paragraph 0021 discloses the circuitry as system on a chip (SoC), Central processing unit (CPU), or a plurality of circuits.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2013/0135215 to Bozarth et al. (Bozarth).
As to claim 1, Bozarth discloses a rewriting device for an electronic paper (Fig. 1; Para. 0023-0025, electronic paper display, 102), comprising:
a rewriting circuit that performs rewriting of the electronic paper (Fig. 1; Para. 0023, display controllers, 104);
a power source connection circuit that connects the rewriting circuit and at least one power source to each other (Fig. 1; Para. 0031, one or more power sources, 116); and
a control processor that acquires power supply capability of the power source connected to the rewriting circuit (Fig. 1; Para. 0031, 0033, processor, 110) and determines a size of a unit region in a case where the rewriting is performed according to the acquired power supply capability (Fig. 1; Para. 0036-0037, sequential update module, 118, determines size of the pixel blocks), wherein,
in a case where the determined unit region is smaller than an entire region of the electronic paper, the control processor rewrites the unit region, and then rewrites the entire region by sequentially shifting the unit region to an unrewritten position (Fig. 2; Para. 0041-0045, incremental page transition).
As to claim 7, Bozarth discloses the rewriting device according to claim 1, wherein
the control processor designates a position of the unit region to be rewritten to the rewriting circuit (Fig. 2, 4; Para. 0041-0045, incremental page transition), and
the rewriting circuit rewrites a pixel in the unit region at the designated position (Fig. 2, 4; Para. 0041-0045, incremental page transition).
As to claim 9, Bozarth discloses a rewriting method for an electronic paper (Fig. 1; Para. 0023-0025, electronic paper display, 102) by a processor (Fig. 1; Para. 0031, 0033, processor, 110), comprising:
(a) recognizing connection between a rewriting circuit that performs rewriting of the electronic paper (Fig. 1; Para. 0023, display controllers, 104) and at least one power source (Fig. 1; Para. 0031, one or more power sources, 116);
(b) acquiring power supply capability of the power source connected to the rewriting circuit (Fig. 1; Para. 0031, one or more power sources 116 that provide power to the device 100);
(c) determining a size of a unit region in a case where the rewriting is performed according to the acquired power supply capability (Fig. 1; Para. 0036-0037, sequential update module, 118, determines size of the pixel blocks); and
(d) rewriting the electronic paper per the unit region by using the rewriting circuit, wherein,
step (d), in a case where the determined unit region is smaller than an entire region of the electronic paper, rewrites the unit region, and then rewrites the entire region by sequentially shifting the unit region to an unrewritten position (Fig. 2; Para. 0041-0045, incremental page transition).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bozarth in view of U.S. Publication No. 2012/0062611 to Wang et al. (Wang).
As to claim 5, Bozarth discloses the rewriting device according to claim 1, wherein the electronic paper includes pixels aligned longitudinally and laterally in a matrix (Fig. 4, pixel array), but does not expressly disclose the rewriting circuit includes a column driver that drives a pixel line in a longitudinal direction in which the pixels are aligned in the longitudinal direction, and a row driver that drives a pixel line in a lateral direction in which the pixels are aligned in the lateral direction, and the control processor controls the column driver to drive the pixel line corresponding to a longitudinal region of the unit region, and controls the row driver to drive the pixel line corresponding to a lateral region of the unit region, to rewrite the unit region.
Wang teaches the rewriting circuit includes a column driver that drives a pixel line in a longitudinal direction in which the pixels are aligned in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3; Para. 0038, column driver, 305), and a row driver that drives a pixel line in a lateral direction in which the pixels are aligned in the lateral direction (Fig. 3; Para. 0038, row driver, 306), and
the control processor controls the column driver to drive the pixel line corresponding to a longitudinal region of the unit region, and controls the row driver to drive the pixel line corresponding to a lateral region of the unit region, to rewrite the unit region (Fig. 3; Para. 0040-0042, initialing unit 303 controls the drive unit 304 to display a refresh image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the rewriting device of Bozarth to include the display driving circuitry of Wang because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. More specifically, the rewriting device of Bozarth as modified by the display driving circuitry of Wang can yield a predictable result of providing a display with improved display quality. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in the rewriting device of Bozarth the ability to use the display driving circuitry of Wang since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As to claim 6, Bozarth and Wang disclose the rewriting device according to claim 5. Bozarth discloses the size of the unit region corresponds to the pixel line for the one section (Para. 0012, 0028, display controller that allows for per-pixel or multiple-pixel-block updating enables the incremental page transitions). Bozarth does not expressly disclose wherein each of the column driver and the row driver includes a plurality of driver elements, and each of the plurality of driver elements drives the pixel line for one section of a plurality of sections into which the pixel line in one direction is divided.
Wang discloses each of the column driver and the row driver includes a plurality of driver elements, and each of the plurality of driver elements drives the pixel line for one section of a plurality of sections into which the pixel line in one direction is divided Fig. 3; Para. 0038, column driver, 305 and row driver, 306, with multiple signal lines).
This combination is obvious for at least the reasons set forth in claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 8 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lisa S Landis whose telephone number is (571)270-1061. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at (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 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.
/LISA S LANDIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights