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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3-4 and 6-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention II, and species B-G, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/23/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I, and species A in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. The examiner notes that a call was placed to Jie Zhao on 02/26/2026 to discuss the improper response to the restriction, specifically that applicant failed to identify the corresponding claims to Species A, Fig. 3. Applicant confirmed via phone and email that the corresponding claims were 2 and 5, and noted the election was still with traverse. The traversal is on the ground(s) that
- the claimed method is specifically tied to the structural configuration and coordinated operation of the claimed apparatus; and
- the claimed apparatus is specifically configured to implement the claimed method and does not represent a generally usable, materially different apparatus for other unrelated processes without substantial modification. Further for the species restriction that all the species identified are “obvious variants and/or overlapping implementations of the same generic inventive concept”.
This is not found persuasive because as to the first argument that the method is tied to the structural configuration as claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as explicitly pointed out on the restriction, the method lacks structurally distinct features of the apparatus, specifically the use of a filter wheel with a plurality of hole positions which comprise two or more filters disposed in the holes. As noted in the restriction the method could be practiced with another materially different apparatus, such as singular filters on some actuation system that are individually brought into and out of the measurement path. Applicant has stated this “hypothetical is not consistent with the claimed subject matter”, however, the examiner notes that if the “hypothetical” were consistent with the claimed subject matter then the restriction would be improper. It is exactly that the hypothetical isn’t consistent with the claimed subject matter that provides evidence for the restriction. Applicant failed to clearly point out how the method as claimed explicitly requires a filter wheel, as such the argument is not found persuasive and that alone is sufficient to warrant the restriction. However, the examiner further noted that the apparatus as claimed can be practiced by another materially different process. Applicant’s argument seems to be that there is some overlap between the method and apparatus, and that there is no other way for the system to be used other than the method as claimed, however this lacking any evidence is not found persuasive. The examiner fails to find any evidence that the particular steps of invention I are inherently required in the use of invention II. Instead the examiner pointed out particular steps that could instead be done with the system in contrast to the unique steps of invention I. Applicant has failed to legitimately challenge the noted restriction in a manner consistent with restriction patent law, as such the restriction has been maintained.
As to the argument regarding the species restriction. The examiner notes that applicant did appear to admit that the species are obvious variants of one another. However, the inclusion of the language “obvious variants and/or overlapping implementations” makes it unclear as to whether or not the claims/species are clearly admitted as being obvious variants of one another or are just overlapping in some manner and thus potentially restrictable. Further since applicant’s own disclosure page 12, explicitly defines each figure as a distinct embodiment for example “Fig. 3 is a flowchart of a display optical field radiation measuring method provided by the first method embodiment of the present invention; Fig. 4 is a flowchart of a display optical field radiation measuring method provided by the second method embodiment of the present invention;” the restriction is maintained at this time. If applicant wishes to further state on the record clearly that each figure is an obvious variant of one another, the species restriction will be vacated. However, the requirement is still deemed proper at this time and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 4, it is believed “step 2” should read –S2-- to be consistent with applicant’s naming convention in the claim from which claim 2 depends.
In claim 5, all variables must be identified with what they correspond to upon first use in claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 2 and 5 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "pixel response values" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically as the claim seems to imply that the pixel response values are previously calculated in step S3. However no such language was used and calculated in response to the imaging form the planar array detector in step S3. For examination purpose the examiner is interpreting that the image of region B is what creates the pixel response values from the output of the planar array detector.
As to claim 1, the examiner finds the use of the language “filter” and “bandpass filters” unclear. Applicant firstly defines in the preamble that a measurement method uses “filters”. Then in step S2, that “two or more specific bandpass filters” are selected. Finally in step S3, “cutting the filters selected in step S2 into the light path”, which on its own would seem sufficiently clear. However, the examiner is unclear based on an understanding of the invention as a whole and the inconsistent use of filter/bandpass filter. As shown in figure 7, two filter disks are present 10 and 11. Each disk has distinct filters, 5-1 are “bandpass filters”, the other disk has “several filters simulating the chromaticity response” 5-2. The examiner notes that figure 10 does show one disk, however said disk is disclosed as simply having both sets of filters 5-1/5-2 (i.e. chromaticity and bandpass). Therefore it is found unclear if two filter sets are intended to be claimed, or the claim merely as an antecedent basis issue, and the filters are the bandpass filters as claimed. For examination purposes the examiner is interpreting that the filters and bandpass filters are one in the same. Claims 2 and 5 are rejected for their dependency on instant claim 1.
As to claim 1, the examiner finds the limits of the use of the language “A region” and “B region” unclear. Specifically it is unclear whether or not the A region is distinct and separate from the B region, or if both regions can be identical, or if one region encompasses the other. Figure 1 from the instant disclosure seems to show region A within region B and is also disclosed as such. However, it is unclear if region B encompasses or excludes the area of region A. It is therefore not found to be entirely clearly what distinguishes the two regions from one another. The examiner is interpreting for examination purposes that the A region is within the B region and where a picture is displayed can overlap the area of the A region.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 2 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 1, the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach or disclose a display optical field radiation measuring method, wherein hyperspectral information of a to-be-measured display screen is measured by a spectral measurement module, filters, and an imaging measuring apparatus comprising a planar array detector, and the method comprises the following steps: selecting two or more specific bandpass filters according to the spectral power distributions in the A region obtained in step S1; S3: controlling the to-be-measured display screen to display a second group of pictures, and cutting the filters selected in step S2 into a light path sequentially, wherein light in a B region of the to-be-measured display screen is received by the planar array detector through an imaging lens and the filters, and positions in the B region of the to-be-measured display screen are imaged on corresponding pixels of the planar array detector; and S4: calculating, according to pixel response values of the planar array detector in step S3 and the spectral power distributions in the A region of the to-be-measured display screen in step S1, the spectral power distribution at each position in the B region when the to-be-measured display screen displays the second group of pictures in combination with the entirety of elements of instant claim 1.
The closest prior art of record Balas (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0381893 A1) does specifically use the concept of identifying specific useful spectral bands for further imaging (see Fig. 2). However, Balas does not sequentially “cut in” at least two bandpass filters to generate the spectral power distributions as a function of a first spectral power distribution measurement.
Green (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0275005 A1) discloses using filter wheels with a plurality of detectors (see figures 9-10). However again, Green does not sequentially “cut in” at least two bandpass filters to generate the spectral power distributions as a function of a first spectral power distribution measurement.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877