DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . It is responsive to the submission dated 05/20/2024 Claims 1-20 are presented for examination, of which, claims 1, and 17 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 05/20/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 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.
The subject-matters of claim 1 are indefinite for reciting steps written with broadly functional claimed language that only describes the function of the invention as opposed to how it is carried out.
For example, claim 1 recite:
“A halo test method, comprising:
selecting one or more to-be-tested regions from a display region of a to-be-tested display device;
lighting up a target test region with a preset grey scale, wherein the target test region is one of the to-be-tested regions;
obtaining luminances where a plurality of unlit pixel points within a preset range from the target test region are located;
based on the luminances where each of the plurality of unlit pixel points in a same direction of the target test region is located and a display luminance of the display region when the to-be-tested display device is lit up with the preset grey scale, obtaining normalized grey scales corresponding to the luminances where each unlit pixel point is located;
based on the normalized grey scales corresponding to the luminances where each unlit pixel point in the same direction of the target test region is located, obtaining normalized grey scale difference information measured in the target test region; and
obtaining a halo value of the to-be-tested display device based on the normalized grey scale difference information measured in the one or more to-be-tested regions”.
From the aforementioned steps, the claim appears to provide a concatenation of block box experiments, of which only inputs and outputs are specified. The claimed steps merely define obscure parameters (e.g., obtained halo value) by virtue of vague relation to other unclear and undefined other parameters (e.g., measured normalized grey scale difference information), as no details are provided describing how the parameters are computed to achieve the desired result.
Specifically, the subject-matters in claim 1 are indefinite because:
a. From the “selecting” step, it is unclear as to whether said step is performed manually by a user interacting with a touchscreen of the display device, or is it by other means integral to the display device?
Also from said step, it is unclear as to how [multiple] to-be-tested regions be selected from a [single] region of the display.
b. In the lighting up step, is said step performed upon a user input to a touchscreen pressing or sliding a button/slider on the interface of the device, or is it performed by means of certain functions executed by some components integrated in the display device? Hence, the details of how the preset grey scale is used to cause a test region to light up is not made clear in the claim.
c. In the luminances obtaining step, it is unclear as to how the luminances be obtained if the area in question for the obtained luminances is comprised mainly of unlit pixels located within a preset range. Thus, it cannot be understood if the obtained luminance refers to luminance of the entire display region, or if it is referring only to the brightness of the test area previously selecting from regions of the display device. Hence, based on the scheme recited in claim 1, it cannot be determined what range a preset range is in the step of "obtaining luminances at locations where a plurality of unlit pixel points within a preset range from the target test area" refers to, because in the claim as currently formulated, all ranges appear possible while only the range set in advance is needed. However, in practice, not all ranges are possible. A range of, for example, 10 pixel points of the halo 1 in one direction of the target test area is a preset range, assuming that a point (a) is closest to the target test area, its normalized gray level is 0.9, point location (b) is farther from the target test area than point (a), its normalized gray level is assumed to be 0.8, then if point (c) is farther away, its normalized gray level is assumed to be 0.7, and so on.
In addition, is said step performed in response to a touch contact on the display device or is it performed by some other nominal functions? Further, insufficient antecedent basis is lacking for the location of the target test region.
d. In the normalized grey scales obtaining step, the measured normalized grey scale difference information obtaining step, and the halo value obtaining step, the details of how the grey scales are normalized, what is considered a normalized grey scale, including the details of how the normalized grey scale difference information is measured are lacking. It is also unclear as to whether the obtaining steps are based on results of user trigger operations received by the device, or are these steps automated?
Moreover, the phrase “a same direction” as recited in the claim is vague and unclear, therefore renders the claim indefinite, because the meaning of the term "same" may change depending on context and does not clearly limit the scope of the claim.
Additionally, the claim recites “obtaining a halo value of the to-be-tested display device”. However, it provides no details as to whether or not the regions of the display device are actually tested; the details of how the halo value computed is used to test the region of the display device (if the aim is to test regions of the display device), including the purpose or advantage(s) of computing said halo value. Also, the term “to be" does not definitely and positively infer that such act of the claim is actually being performed and only suggests that the limitation of the claim is capable of being performed.
As such, the person skilled in the art is unable to (1) determine what difference information is meant by the measured difference information in "obtaining the normalized gray level difference information corresponding to the target test region measured based on the normalized gray level corresponding to the luminance of the location of the respective unlit pixel point located in the same direction of the target test region", because, in the same direction, multiple unlit pixel points are chosen, there will be multiple differences, and one skilled in the art cannot determine which two pixels the difference refers to, including how the normalized gray level is calculated; (3) nor can one skilled in the art ascertain from this expression, obtaining a halo value of the display device to be tested based on normalized gray level difference value information measured for the one or more regions to be tested, correspondence of halo values to difference information, which difference information of the target test area is taken as the halo value, whether a halo value refers to difference information or difference information correspondence (if it refers to difference information: the larger the difference the smaller the halo, the smaller the difference the smaller the halo, as opposed to the larger the halo the larger the halo value, as in the conventional sense).
Claim 5 is indefinite because the meaning of the expression “M” in the mapping relationship formula is not determinable by a person skilled in the art, as it does not clearly define the scope of the claim.
Independent claim 17 contain features that correspond in scope with those of claim 1. Thus, the features of claim 17 are indefinite for reasons similar to those as described above with respect to the rejections of claim 1.
The claims not specifically cited in this rejection are rejected as being dependent upon their rejected base claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1-20 have no art rejection but rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). As the technical features of the wording of dependent claims 1-20 are indefinite for the reasons discussed above, the technical effect of the subject-matters of these claims is indeterminate and thus, they cannot be agreed that a problem is solved by each of these diverging claims. Thus, in the absence of a problem being solved, it is not, at present, apparent which part of the application could serve as a basis for a new, allowable claim. A final determination of patentability will be made upon resolution of the above 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zheng et al. (CN 115497965 A) discloses an image sensor and preparation method thereof, and crosstalk between adjacent pixels of image sensor, the detection method of halo, image sensor comprises: a pixel array composed of pixel units, the pixel array comprises a photosensitive pixel region for photosensitive and a black pixel region for calibration; the surface of the photosensitive pixel area and/or black pixel area is covered with a discontinuous shading layer, so as to block the incident light, wherein the pixel unit covered by the shading layer is a shading pixel unit, the pixel unit not covered by the shading layer is a non-shading pixel unit. the shading layer of the black pixel area is designed to be discontinuous, it can relieve stress, process damage and so on, reducing the performance difference of black pixel area and photosensitive pixel area, realizing better black level calibration; Through the design of the discontinuous light shielding layer, it can realize the light halo and crosstalk test between the pixel of the monochromatic pixel and the non-finished pigment process.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESNER SAJOUS whose telephone number is (571)272-7791. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:00 TO 7:30 (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 or email the Examiner directly at wesner.sajous@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Said Broome can be reached on 571-272-2931. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESNER SAJOUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
WS
02/04/2026