DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is responsive to claims filed for No. 18/654,023 on December 30, 2025. Please note Claims 1, 3-6 and 9-18 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 30, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 1 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.
Claim 1 recites therein of a “removable folio”.
Respectfully, while the disclosure details aspects of a closed and open configuration of the folio, it is unclear where support is for this folio being “removable”, in the sense that it can be detached/removed from the tablet device. At the very least, this is how Examiner interprets the term “removable”. Claim 13 originally noted a “moveable cover” which is equated to the folio. However, the removable aspect is still unclear. Appropriate clarification is kindly requested, thank you.
Claim 1 also recites therein “an electrophoretic display that resides below the common layer that reflects ambient light above a threshold level of ambient light to display images formed by the tablet, wherein the threshold level of ambient light exceeds the reduced level of ambient light”.
It is unclear to Examiner where support for this limitation is. As Examiner best understands these details, when the ambient light level is high(er), it is above the reduced level of ambient light (associated with a closed state) and as such, the frontlight does not need to be engaged, i.e. along the lightguide. Respectfully, this claim language is vague/confusing and does not seem to have support in the specification. Appropriate clarification is kindly requested, thank you.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Letourneur et al. ( US 2014/0002428 A1 ) in view of Nichol et al.
( US 2022/0268984 A1 ) and Smith et al. ( US 2013/0328914 A1 ).
Letourneur teaches in Claim 1:
An ambient light sensor system in a tablet device ( Figure 1, [0021] discloses a device 104 (such as a tablet) which can provide dynamic display adjustment using a light sensor 116. As for aspects of the removable folio, please note the combination below ), comprising:
a front panel that receives instructions from a tablet user during operation ( Figure 1, [0024] discloses a display 106 and [0023] discloses the display can present visual information to a user. [0030], [0048], etc discloses examples of user input such as the selection of ambient light levels, i.e. instructions ):
a lightguide disposed underneath the front panel ( Figure 1, [0025] discloses a light guide panel 108, which is clearly below the top layered display panel, as shown in Figure 2. As for aspects of the lightguide working in conjunction with the removable folio, please not the combination below );
a common layer disposed underneath the front panel that comprises: a frontlight having a plurality of LEDs ( Figure 1, [0028] discloses the illuminators 110 and light sensors 116 may be arranged within a chassis 114 and is shown on a common layer together. Respectfully, “a common layer” is not well defined ); and
an ambient light sensor that measures ambient light received from the lightguide ( Figure 1, [0028]-[0029] discloses one or more light sensors which can detect incident photons directed by/on the light guide panel 108 );
an electrophoretic display that resides below the common layer that reflects ambient light above a threshold level of ambient light to display images formed by the tablet, wherein the threshold level of ambient light exceeds the reduced level of ambient light ( Figure 9, [0067] discloses electrophoretic particles, which is known to have voltage application layers in order to bias the particles. Respectfully, the reflection, etc, is detailed by the lightguide and Figure 9, [0071]-[0072] discloses first and second waveforms depending on the level of illumination (above and below a gray level/threshold. [0044] also discloses a threshold of reflectivity );
a processor that receives the ambient light signal from the ambient light sensor ( Figure 1, [0030] discloses elements such as an ambient light control module 124, an illuminator drive module 122 and display control module 124 which receive the data from the light sensor(s) ) determines that the ambient light signal represents a level of ambient light that exceeds the reduced level of ambient light and is less than the threshold level of ambient light and engages the frontlight ( Figure 1, [0026], [0031], [0049] discloses a plurality of illuminators 110 (read as a frontlight) which provide a front light. Depending on the determined reflectivity (which is impacted by ambient light and is measured by the light sensor), the intensity of illumination can be adjusted by the illuminator drive module 122. [0044], [0071]+ disclose different waveforms based on thresholds and how it impacts the illuminators. [0040], [0039] discloses activating the one or more illuminators to provide additional intensity to improve the legibility of the information presented on the display 106 . Furthermore, a pre-determined threshold may be set and the goal is to maintain the effective reflectivity 206. Please note Figure 4, [0049] discloses step 406 that when the reflectivity is below the pre-determined threshold, the one or more illuminators are turned on or adjusted ); but
Letourneur does not explicitly teach of “an optical coupling element that resides between the lightguide and the LEDs and has a matching refractive index to the lightguide”.
Initially, Letourneur teaches: [0027] discloses an optical coupling between the light guide panel 108 and the one more illuminators 110 may comprise an adhesive, mechanical interface, and in general, surface features. These surface features include diffusers, lenses, etc, i.e. optical aspects. Please note these are used to enhance or attenuate the transmission of light between the illuminators an the light guide panel, i.e. an aid.
To further emphasize, in the same field of endeavor, devices with lightguides, Nichol teaches of “optically coupling” methods, ( Nichol, [0059] ). Notably, this includes methods of coupling wherein two regions coupled together have similar refractive indices or using an optical adhesive with a refractive index substantially near or between the refractive index of the regions or layers. Please interpret the similar indices as “matching refractive index”. Nichol further teaches in [0132] that the light redirecting element has a refractive index less than or equal to the refractive index of the core layer of the film-based lightguide. Respectfully, one of ordinary skill in the art would realize the concept of optical coupling and in general, this methodology could be applied to the layers of Letourneur.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the near equal refractive indices, and in general, optical coupling methodology, as taught by Nichol, with the motivation that optical coupling is well known in the art and will allow light to penetrate or adhere with stacked surfaces, without distortion, etc, ( Nichol, [0059] ).
Letourneur and Nichol do not explicitly teach of “a removable folio” which can interact with the front panel, namely “the front panel covered by the removable folio in a closed position” and “the lightguide receiving ambient light transmitted through the front panel when the removable folio is an open position and a reduced level of ambient light when the removable folio is in the closed position”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, devices with light sensing, Smith teaches of an akin electronic device with a protective cover, ( Smith, Figure 6B, [0045], [0077] ). Notably, the protective cover can operate in a detached mode (read as removable) and [0077] discloses various states, such as open, closed, partially open, etc, which can be determined using a ambient light sensor 112, camera assembly 110, etc. Based on this, different states can correspond to different functionality on the electronic device. Respectfully, when the protective cover is closed, i.e. covering the electronic device, Smith is able to discern this and naturally, it results in a reduced level of ambient light. The opposite is also true and again, Smith is able to determine these states using the ALS, etc. As combined with Letourneur, the removable protective cover can be incorporated and can work with the ambient light sensing aspects as well, also to enhance functionality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the cover, as taught by Smith, with the motivation that it provides protection while also enhancing the overall look and feel of the device, ( Smith, [0032] ).
Letourneur teaches in Claim 3:
The ambient light sensor system of Claim 2 wherein the threshold level of ambient light comprises a display light level below the user's ability to read a display on the tablet device that includes the frontlight. ( [0052] discloses modifications to improve legibility (read as a user’s ability to read) )
Letourneur teaches in Claim 4:
The ambient light sensor system of Claim 1 wherein the processor determines that the ambient light signal has risen above the threshold level of ambient light and wherein the processor sends a signal to the frontlight that causes the frontlight to turn off. ( Figure 4, [0050] discloses that when the ambient light level is at or above the pre-determined threshold, the illuminators are discontinued )
Letourneur teaches in Claim 5:
The ambient light sensor system of Claim 4 wherein the threshold level of ambient light comprises a display light level above the tablet user's ability to read a display on the tablet device that includes the frontlight. ( Figure 3, [0050] discloses that that in sunlight or very high ambient light levels, the illuminators may decrease and cease. This level is clearly above a user’s ability to read a display )
Letourneur teaches in Claim 6:
The ambient light sensor system of Claim 1 wherein the ambient light sensor comprises an LED. ( [0029] discloses the one or more light sensors may comprise a reverse-biased LED )
As per Claim 9:
Letourneur may not explicitly teach “wherein the optical coupling element has a height at least equal to a height of the plurality of LEDs.”
However, Letourneur teaches in [0027] of the optical coupling between the light guide panel 108 and the one or more illuminators 110 with a goal of achieving a smooth/matching transmission of light between these two elements. Respectfully, given the coupling nature, it is a design choice as to the height of this element and one of ordinary skill in the art would realize to design it at the same height.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the same height design of the coupling element, with the motivation that it is a design choice issue, especially in light of the coupling element transmitting light between these elements.
Letourneur teaches in Claim 10:
The ambient light sensor system of Claim 9 wherein the optical coupling element and the plurality of LEDs reside on a circuit board. ( Figure 1, [0030] discloses a presentation control module 118 has circuitry aspects and is located on the layer where the illuminators and light sensor also reside. To clarify, these elements are controlled by the circuitry aspects )
Letourneur teaches in Claim 11:
The ambient light sensor system of Claim 1, wherein the optical coupling element comprises a same material as the lightguide. ( [0025] discloses a light guide panel 108 may be configured with features such as diffractive, refractive, reflective, etc. [0027] discloses surface features of the optical coupling , which can include diffusers, lenses, microlens, grating, etc. Respectfully, these are examples of diffractive, refractive, reflective, etc, i.e. the same material )
Letourneur and Smith teach in Claim 13:
The ambient light sensor system of Claim 1, further comprising:
wherein the processor updates the reduced level of ambient light when the removable folio is in the closed position. ( The combination teaches to use the protective cover of Smith and to detect the configuration, i.e. closed, open state, of the cover. As combined, both references teach of ambient light sensing and can adjust the thresholds/engagement of the front light as a result. Letourneur, [0017] details the dynamic adjustment of conditions to reduce power consumption )
Letourneur teaches in Claim 14:
The ambient light sensor system of Claim 1 wherein the lightguide resides in a display stack of a display system in a tablet device, wherein elements of the display stack support the lightguide. ( Figure 1, [0024] a display 106 with a front and back, as shown in Figure 2. These elements, along with what is shown in Figure 1, is part of a “stack”, i.e. elements on top of each other. Respectfully, Figure 9, [0067] discloses electrophoretic particles, which is known to have voltage application layers in order to bias the particles. Respectfully, these are aspects of a “stack” )
Letourneur teaches in Claim 15:
The ambient light sensor system of Claim 14 wherein the display stack includes the electrophoretic display (EPD). ( [0067] discloses a electrophoretic display with particles )
Letourneur teaches in Claim 16:
The ambient light sensor system of Claim 1, further comprising a plurality of ambient light sensors that receive ambient light from the lightguide, wherein the processor receives ambient light signals from the plurality of ambient light sensors. ( Figure 1, [0028] discloses one or more light sensors which can communicate with the presentation control module 118 )
Letourneur teaches in Claim 17:
The ambient light sensor system of Claim 1, wherein the ambient light sensor receives ambient light exclusively from the lightguide. ( [0029] discloses the light sensors can detect the flux of incident photos, such as those directed by the lightguide 108 and provide a signal indicative of that flux (read as exclusively). Still, one of ordinary skill in the art realizes light sensors can detect internal aspects, such as from the lightguide, or from external aspects, such as the environment, or both. Respectfully, this is well known and Examiner asserts Official Notice to this )
Letourneur and Smith teach in Claim 18:
The ambient light sensor system of Claim 4, further comprising:
a battery fitted in the tablet device, wherein the signal that causes the frontlight to turn off enables reduces power consumption of the battery. ( Letourneur teaches in [0017] of dynamic adjustment to reduce power consumption and Smith teaches of a battery 1624, [0097]. Respectfully, one of ordinary skill in the art realizes Letourneur is able to determine ambient lighting conditions to adjust the front light and light guide aspects in order to reduce power consumption and this is clearly applicable to a battery in a portable device )
9. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Letourneur et al. ( US 2014/0002428 A1 ), Nichol et al. ( US 2022/0268984 A1 ) and Smith et al. ( US 2013/0328914 A1 ), as applied to Claim 11, further in view of Rizvi et al. ( US 2024/0077667 A1 ).
As per Claim 12:
Letourneur does not explicitly teach “wherein the same material is a polycarbonate.”
However, in the same field of endeavor, optical panels, Rizvi teaches of an optical coupling between light emitters 132 and light guide 126, ( Rizvi, Figure 10, [0066] ). Notably, this is similar in functionality to Letourneur with the smoothing of appearance of light released from the light guide, as detailed in [0033]. Here, the diffuser is an example of the optical coupling as well. Rizvi teaches in [0032] the light guide includes polycarbonate and in [0033] that the diffuser includes polycarbonate as well. As combined with Letourneur, the material can both include polycarbonate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filed date of the invention, to implement the polycarbonate, as taught by Rizvi, with the motivation that this material is well known for its durability, while still allowing for small thickness, and is a design choice issue.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments considered, but are respectfully moot in view of new grounds of rejection(s).
Applicant’s representative, Attorney Thomas Ewing, is thanked for his time to discuss the application in an interview held on November 18, 2025.
Please note the updated rejection in light of the claim amendments, focusing on the newly cited Smith reference for aspects of the removable folio. As a result, Applicant’s arguments are moot at this time.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS P JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30 - 3:30 EST.
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.
/DENNIS P JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621