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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Please see response to arguments below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "The drawings were objected to on the grounds…submits that this amendment overcomes the present objection to the drawings. Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the objection to the drawings for at least this reason," the Examiner traverses. Applicant failed to address all drawing objections presented in the previous Office action, dated 22 December 2025. Please see new drawing objections necessitated by amendment below in the present Office action for further guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Applicant has currently amended the claims to remove the terms…amended claims should not be interpreted under 35 USC § 112(f)," the Examiner traverses. Applicant failed to address all 35 USC§ 112(f) invokes presented in the previous Office action, dated 22 December 2025. Please see new 35 USC § 112(f) section necessitated by amendment below in the present Office action for further guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Although Applicant does not necessarily agree with these rejections, claim 1 has been amended to more fully describe the subject matter therein. Support for this amendment can be found in Applicant's specification, for example, in paragraph [0066] of 2025/0147465, No new matter has been added," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that any specification-related references are to be made to the as-filed specification rather than the US published application, for the written description requirement prevents an applicant from claiming subject matter that was not adequately described in the specification as filed. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP § 2163. Furthermore, Examiner submits that new matter has been added by the applicant and that the recited US publication paragraph does not support the newly amended claims. Please see 35 USC § 112(a) section necessitated by amendment below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Kamee and Kunimoto, whether taken alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest all the required features of Applicant's amended claim 1," the Examiner traverses. Please see 35 USC § 103 section necessitated by amendment below in the present Office action for further details.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Kamee does not teach the above-emphasized feature….does not set forth any type of blocking sequence, much less the specifically-recited above-emphasized claim 1 feature," the Examiner traverses. Kamee discloses a controller…wherein the at least one processor (image processing section 150 including image processor; [0051]), when executing the instructions (operated in accordance with program stored; [0058]), is configured to:… measure a exposure duration (when intensities of light entering into all pixels are close to average value, i.e., when luminance difference of object is small, there might not be any pixels that are overexposed or underexposed, in this case, simple average value of intensities of first signals indicates average value of light intensities; [0064], image sensor 222 receives entering light to perform photoelectric conversion, generates image data, in imaging section 220, exposure time is always 10 milliseconds; [0091]) during which the light source (light source unit 10; [0050]) illuminates the object (observation object 900; [0029], [0054]) with light for red, green, and blue regions (R pixel 226, G pixel 227, B pixel 228; [0033]; fig. 2) of the plurality of wavelength regions (separate wavelength regions; [0033]) when a difference in intensity of the object light (observation object 900; [0029], [0054]) and the reference light (for R, G, B pixel average intensity, each of the values is a proper intensity close to 5 μA that is the reference value 116; [0126-129]) is within a reference value range (proper light quantity range is present in which a signal corresponding to the light quantity can be output; [0034]) stored in a memory (program stored in storage portion 115 or storage area in integrated circuit; [0058]), and outputs a control signal (output value determined by light intensity adjusting section 110; [0048]) to block corresponding wavelength regions (illuminating light does not have to be present in all wavelength regions; [0034] and [0043]) in sequence of the red, green, and blue regions (R pixel 226, G pixel 227, B pixel 228; [0033]; fig. 2)… Please see 35 USC §§ 103 and 112(a) section(s) necessitated by amendment below in the present Office action for further details.
In response to the applicant's argument that "Like Kamee, Kunimoto also does not teach or suggest the above-emphasized claim 1 feature, not does the Office cite to Kunimoto as allegedly disclosing such…claim 1 is not obvious in view of the cited combination of references. Claim 1 is otherwise allowable," the Examiner traverses. Examine reminds the applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, and in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Please see previous argument(s) above and 35 USC §§ 103 and 112(a) section(s) necessitated by amendment below in the present Office action for further details.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “object light,” “control signal,” “reference light,” “a housing having a fixed aperture shape defined by a mechanical structure,” “measure a exposure duration,” “a controller including a memory storing instructions executable by at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is configured to: output a control signal to regulate an intensity of illumination to the light source; output a control signal to regulate an intensity of reference light to the backlight; and measure a exposure duration during which the light source illuminates the object with light for red, green, and blue regions of the plurality of wavelength regions when a difference in intensity of the object light and the reference light is within a reference value range stored in a memory, and outputs a control signal to block corresponding wavelength regions in sequence of the red, green, and blue regions in which optical sensitivity of the photopolymer composition is relatively high,” “an electric signal generated,” and “a reference value range stored in a memory” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). This is not an exhaustive list, for the claims are replete with subject matter that the as-filed drawings fail to illustrate. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “a housing having a fixed aperture shape defined by a mechanical structure,” “measure a exposure duration,” “a controller including a memory storing instructions executable by at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is configured to: output a control signal to…which optical sensitivity of the photopolymer composition is relatively high,” “an electric signal generated,” “a reference value range stored in a memory,” etc. This is not an exhaustive list, for the claims are replete with subject matter that the as-filed specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, and 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to Claim 1, “measure a exposure duration” is grammatically incorrect, for the proper recitation would be to measure an exposure duration.
With respect to Claim 1, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP § 2111.04 (II). In the current instance, “illuminates the object with light for red, green, and blue regions of the plurality of wavelength regions when a difference in intensity of the object light and the reference light is within a reference value range stored in a memory” implies a hypothetical or conditional scenario without clarifying the structure or whether the claimed limitation is a necessary or optional aspect of the product(s). This creates uncertainty about whether the claimed elements and limitations are required or merely illustrative. See 35 USC §§ 112(f), 112(a), and 112(b) sections below for further details.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) are: “a controller including a memory storing instructions executable by at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is configured to: output a control signal to…which optical sensitivity of the photopolymer composition is relatively high” in Claim 1.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have 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 avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claims 1-5, and 7-9, “a housing having a fixed aperture shape defined by a mechanical structure” in Claim 1, “measure a exposure duration” in Claim 1, “a controller including a memory storing instructions executable by at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is configured to: output a control signal to regulate an intensity of illumination to the light source; output a control signal to regulate an intensity of reference light to the backlight; and measure a exposure duration during which the light source illuminates the object with light for red, green, and blue regions of the plurality of wavelength regions when a difference in intensity of the object light and the reference light is within a reference value range stored in a memory, and outputs a control signal to block corresponding wavelength regions in sequence of the red, green, and blue regions in which optical sensitivity of the photopolymer composition is relatively high” in Claim 1, “an electric signal generated by measuring…” in Claims 7-9, and “a reference value range stored in a memory” in Claims 1 and 8, recite claim limitations that introduce specific structures, relationships, and functionalities that are not supported in the as-filed specification and therefore constitute new matter.
The originally and as-filed specification (dated 26 January 2024) only generically discloses the processor and memory without describing any specific control algorithms, intensity regulation logic, reference value range determination, or exposure duration measurement tied to intensity comparisons. The claims have been amended to now recite highly specific functional relationships, such as comparing object light and reference light to a stored reference value range, regulating illumination and reference light intensity through a generic processor not adequately described nor illustrated, measuring exposure duration conditioned on light value comparison, and the processor being configured to sequentially block RGB wavelengths based on photopolymer sensitivity. The recited configurations of the generic processor are not inherent uses, for these are specified control methods requiring the disclosure of sufficient structure, material, or acts to be described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would ask how the electric signal derived from measuring light intensity, how the reference value range is determined or calibrated, what algorithm determines when intensity differences fall within the range, what is the timing relationship between measurement and control output, how is the exposure duration measured and correlated to intensity thresholds, what mechanism blocks wavelength regions, what defines relatively high optical sensitivity, and how does the controller and processor coordinate all of these method steps in real time? Since the as-filed specification does not answer any of these questions, it consequently raises doubt regarding whether the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. See MPEP §§ 2163 and 608.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 1, and notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942) See MPEP §2173.05(g).
In the current instance, “a controller including a memory storing instructions executable by at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor, when executing the instructions, is configured to: output a control signal to…which optical sensitivity of the photopolymer composition is relatively high." in Claim 1 recites functional language, for the claim limitations merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention. For example, the controller and processor are defined solely in terms of functional results without reciting sufficient structure or algorithmic detail to adequately support the scope of the instant application, and thus, these limitations are purely functional and result-oriented. Examiner reminds the applicant that “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to Claims 1 and 7-9, the terms “reference value range/of intensity stored in a memory” in Claims 1, and 7-8, “which optical sensitivity of the photopolymer composition is relatively high” in Claim 1, “to block corresponding wavelength regions in sequence” in Claim 1, and “an electric signal generated by measuring…” in Claims 7-9, include relative terminology which renders the claim(s) indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “Reference value range/of intensity stored in a memory” provides no objective boundaries for determining the range or whether a value falls within it and “which optical sensitivity… is relatively high” is a purely relative term without a standard for any form of comparison. “To block corresponding wavelength regions in sequence” is indefinite since it is unclear as to the mechanism, order, or criteria for sequencing said wavelengths and “an electric signal generated by measuring…” fails to specify the structure and characteristics of the signal and how it corresponds to measured light intensity. Since a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably ascertain the scope of these claim limitations, all other limitations reciting “reference value range/of intensity,” “which optical sensitivity….is relatively high,” “block corresponding wavelength regions in sequence,” and “an electric signal generated by measuring…” are also rendered indefinite for the use of these terms.
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within an apparatus for recording a hologram.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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.
Claims 1-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamee et al. US 20160106299 A1 (herein after "Kamee") in view of Kunimoto et al. US 20220121113 A1 (herein after "Kunimoto").
With respect to Claim 1, Kamee discloses an apparatus (observation apparatus 1; [0027]) for recording a hologram (images an object while emitting illuminating light; [0027]), comprising:
a light source (light source unit 10; [0050]) configured to illuminate an object (observation object 900; [0029]) with light (illuminate inner space of observation object having a narrow inlet to be illuminated by a general light source device; [0029]);
a housing (main body part 100; [0027]) having a fixed aperture shape defined by a mechanical structure (fig. 1) and configured to block outside light (main body part 100 and via an inserting part 200 to be inserted in a dark place where there is no light from outside; [0027]);
a coupler (image processing section 150 with display section 160; [0050]) to which a recording medium (image processing section 150 generates display data having format in which color image is displayed by display section 160; [0057]) having a photopolymer composition (display section 160 including a display device such as a liquid crystal display element; [0051]) applied thereto is coupled (color reproducibility of the color image heightens; [0009] and [0044]);
a lens (optical coupler 180; [0049]) positioned at a front surface (fig. 1) of the housing (main body part 100; [0027]) and configured to form an image (optical coupler 180 combines respective guided laser light; [0049]) on the coupler (image processing section 150 with display section 160; [0050]);
a filter (imaging section/imager 220; [0028]) positioned between the lens (optical coupler 180; [0049]) and the coupler (image processing section 150 with display section 160; [0050]) and configured to block at least one wavelength region (illuminating light does not have to be present in all the wavelength regions; [0043]) of a plurality of wavelength regions (separate wavelength regions; [0033]) included in object (observation object 900; [0029]) light reflected (object reflects the light having the spectrum corresponding to the color of the object by illumination; [0071]) from the object (observation object 900; [0029]) in response to a control signal (image sensor 222 receives light to perform photoelectric conversion, and generates image data, intensity of first signal generated in image sensor 222; [0091]);
a backlight (laser light source 120; [0045]) positioned at a rear surface (fig. 1) of the coupler (image processing section 150 with display section 160; [0050]) and configured to illuminate the coupler (image processing section 150 with display section 160; [0050]) with reference light (laser light source 120 to start illumination, light sources within 120 of illuminating light emitted out from light emitting section 210; [0045] and [0059]; reference value; fig. 1); and
a controller (light intensity adjusting section 110; [0048]) including a memory storing instructions (operated in accordance with program stored in storage portion 115 or storage area in integrated circuit; [0058]) executable by at least one processor (image processing section 150 including image processor that processes image data obtained; [0051]),
wherein the at least one processor (image processing section 150 including image processor; [0051]), when executing the instructions (operated in accordance with program stored; [0058]), is configured to:
output a control signal (output value determined by light intensity adjusting section 110; [0048]) to regulate an intensity of illumination (via light source control section 140 that controls operation of drive circuit 130 on basis of light intensity adjusting section 110 to regulate intensity of illumination via light intensity determining portion 113 transmitting calculated output value to light source control section 140; [0048], [0054]) to the light source (light source unit 10; [0050]);
output a control signal (output value determined by light intensity adjusting section 110; [0048]) to regulate an intensity of reference light (via light source control section 140 that controls operation of drive circuit 130 on basis of light intensity adjusting section 110, on basis of determined output value, drive circuit 130 is driven to regulate intensity of reference light via driving laser light source 120, turns on/off laser light source 120 and changes light intensity, reference value; [0048], [0103]; fig. 1) to the backlight (backlight unit being laser light source 120; light source control section 140 controls drive circuit 130 to drive laser light source 120 on basis of output value; [0048]); and
measure a exposure duration (when intensities of light entering into all pixels are close to average value, i.e., when luminance difference of object is small, there might not be any pixels that are overexposed or underexposed, in this case, simple average value of intensities of first signals indicates average value of light intensities; [0064], image sensor 222 receives entering light to perform photoelectric conversion, generates image data, in imaging section 220, exposure time is always 10 milliseconds; [0091]) during which the light source (light source unit 10; [0050]) illuminates the object (observation object 900; [0029], [0054]) with light for red, green, and blue regions (R pixel 226, G pixel 227, B pixel 228; [0033]; fig. 2) of the plurality of wavelength regions (separate wavelength regions; [0033]) when a difference in intensity of the object light (observation object 900; [0029], [0054]) and the reference light (for R, G, B pixel average intensity, each of the values is a proper intensity close to 5 μA that is the reference value 116; [0126-129]) is within a reference value range (proper light quantity range is present in which a signal corresponding to the light quantity can be output; [0034]) stored in a memory (program stored in storage portion 115 or storage area in integrated circuit; [0058]), and outputs a control signal (output value determined by light intensity adjusting section 110; [0048]) to block corresponding wavelength regions (illuminating light does not have to be present in all wavelength regions; [0034] and [0043]) in sequence of the red, green, and blue regions (R pixel 226, G pixel 227, B pixel 228; [0033]; fig. 2) in which optical sensitivity ([0039]) of the photopolymer composition (display section 160 including a display device such as a liquid crystal display element; [0051]) is relatively high (e.g., green color wavelength region is a region having the highest sensitivity; [0154]).
Kamee does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation of a recording medium having a photopolymer composition applied thereto.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Kunimoto teaches oxime ester photoinitiators having a special aroyl chromophore ([0001]) wherein photopolymerizable compositions are useful, for example, in photoresist formulations for display applications, e.g. liquid crystal display (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the observation apparatus of Kamee to include and disclose the technical feature of utilizing photopolymerizable compositions for display applications e.g., liquid crystal displays, for the purpose of producing photographic reproduction techniques for holographic recording materials and manufacturing liquid crystal displays for enhancing light efficiency, as taught by Kunimoto ([0338] and [0374]). Furthermore, where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. See MPEP § 2112. Examiner notes that claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP § 2115.
With respect to Claim 2, Kamee in view of Kunimoto teaches the apparatus (observation apparatus 1; [0027]) of claim 1, wherein the filter (imaging section/imager 220; [0028]) includes:
a first filter (blue color filter within color filter 224, B pixels 228; [0031]; fig. 2) configured to block a wavelength region ([0039]) having relatively highest optical sensitivity (e.g., green color wavelength region is a region having the highest sensitivity; [0154]) of the photopolymer composition (display section 160 including a display device such as a liquid crystal display element; [0051]) among the plurality of wavelength regions (separate wavelength regions; [0033]);
a second filter (red color filter within color filter 224, R pixels 226; [0031]; fig. 2) configured to block a wavelength region ([0039]) having lower optical sensitivity ([0039]) to the wavelength region blocked by the first filter (blue color filter within color filter 224, B pixels 228; [0031]; fig. 2); and
a third filter (green color filter within color filter 224, G pixels 227; [0031]; fig. 2) configured to block a wavelength region ([0039]) having relatively lowest optical sensitivity ([0039]; Kamee).
With respect to Claim 3, Kamee in view of Kunimoto teaches the apparatus (observation apparatus 1; [0027]) of claim 2, wherein the filter (imaging section/imager 220; [0028]) is configured to block (illuminating light does not have to be present in all wavelength regions; [0034] and [0043]) a red region with the first filter (blue color filter within color filter 224, B pixels 228; [0031]; fig. 2), a green region with the second filter (red color filter within color filter 224, R pixels 226; [0031]; fig. 2), and a blue region with the third filter (green color filter within color filter 224, G pixels 227; [0031]; fig. 2; Kamee).
With respect to Claim 4, Kamee in view of Kunimoto teaches the apparatus (observation apparatus 1; [0027]) of claim 1, wherein the filter (imaging section/imager 220; [0028]) includes:
a first filter (blue color filter within color filter 224, B pixels 228; [0031]; fig. 2) configured to block a wavelength region ([0039]) having relatively highest optical sensitivity (e.g., green color wavelength region is a region having the highest sensitivity; [0154]) of the photopolymer composition (display section 160 including a display device such as a liquid crystal display element; [0051]) among the plurality of wavelength regions (separate wavelength regions; [0033]);
a second filter (red color filter within color filter 224, R pixels 226; [0031]; fig. 2) configured to block a wavelength region ([0039]) having the next highest optical sensitivity (green color wavelength region is a region having the highest sensitivity; [0154]) to the wavelength region blocked by the first filter (blue color filter within color filter 224, B pixels 228; [0031]; fig. 2).
Kamee does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein a third filter is configured to block all wavelength regions.
However, Kunimoto further teaches oxime ester photoinitiators having a special aroyl chromophore ([0001]) wherein, in a color liquid display panel, spacers are formed in a nonimaging area under black matrix of color filter elements ([0382]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the observation apparatus of Kamee in view of Kunimoto to include the technical feature of comprising a color filter with a black matrix for blocking wavelength regions, for the purpose of producing spacers formed utilizing photosensitive compositions that do not decrease brightness and optical aperture within a liquid crystal display device, as taught by Kunimoto ([0382]).
With respect to Claim 5, Kamee in view of Kunimoto teaches the apparatus (observation apparatus 1; [0027]) of claim 4, wherein the filter (imaging section/imager 220; [0028]) is configured to block (illuminating light does not have to be present in all wavelength regions; [0034] and [0043]) a red region with the first filter (blue color filter within color filter 224, B pixels 228; [0031]; fig. 2) and a green region with the second filter (red color filter within color filter 224, R pixels 226; [0031]; fig. 2; Kamee).
With respect to Claim 7, Kamee in view of Kunimoto teaches the apparatus (observation apparatus 1; [0027]) of claim 1, further comprising a first optical sensor (light intensity determining portion 113; [0051]) configured to output an electric signal (output correction concerning light intensity and has influence on intensity of first signal, light intensity determining portion 113 calculates output value, i.e., intensity of laser light to be emitted out from each light source in laser light source 120; [0054]) generated by measuring (light intensity determining portion 113 transmits calculated output value to light source control section 140; [0054]) an intensity ([0054]) of the object (observation object 900; [0029]) light passing through the lens (optical coupler 180; [0049]) to the controller (light intensity adjusting section 110; [0048]),
wherein the controller (light intensity adjusting section 110; [0048]) outputs a control signal (via light source control section 140 controls operation of drive circuit 130 on basis of light intensity adjusting section 110; [0048]) such that the intensity ([0054]) of the object (observation object 900; [0029]) light is equal to or greater than a reference value of intensity (e.g., when object is illuminated by light intensity and imaged, the B pixel average intensity is 5.3 μA, greater than 5 μA of reference value 116; [0126-129]) stored in a memory (program stored in storage portion 115 or storage area in integrated circuit; [0058]; Kamee).
With respect to Claim 8, Kamee in view of Kunimoto teaches the apparatus (observation apparatus 1; [0027]) of claim 7, wherein the controller (light intensity adjusting section 110; [0048]) is configured to receive an electric signal (via drive circuit 130; [0048]) generated by measuring (light intensity determining portion 113 transmits calculated output value to light source control section 140; [0054]) the intensity (basis of output value determined by light intensity adjusting section 110; [0048]) of the object (observation object 900; [0029]) light from the first optical sensor (light intensity determining portion 113; [0051]; fig. 1) and outputs a control signal (on basis of determined output value, drive circuit 130 is driven; [0103]) such that a difference in intensity ([0054]) of the object (observation object 900; [0029]) light and the reference light (reference value 116; fig. 1) is within a reference value range (proper light quantity range is present in which a signal corresponding to the light quantity can be output; [0034]) stored in a memory (program stored in storage portion 115 or storage area in integrated circuit; [0058]; Kamee).
With respect to Claim 9, Kamee in view of Kunimoto teaches the apparatus (observation apparatus 1; [0027]) of claim 1, further comprising a second optical sensor (light source and pixel characteristic value calculating portions 111, 112 of light intensity adjusting section 110) configured to output an electric signal (on the basis of first characteristic value acquired from pixel characteristic value calculating portion 111; [0053]) generated by measuring (light source characteristic value calculating portion 112 calculates second characteristic value; [0053]) the intensity (storage portion 115 outputs reference value 116 with request from light source characteristic value calculating portion 112; [0055]) of the reference light (reference value 116; fig. 1) to the controller (light intensity adjusting section 110; [0048]);
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 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 K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 10 April 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights