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, see pages 7-8, filed 27 April 2026, with respect to the drawings objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 27 April 2026, with respect to the 112(a) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(a) rejection of claims 22-41 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 with respect to the 112(b) rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-12 of the response filed 27 April 2026 the applicant argues that when read in light of applicant’s specification the meaning of the “disputed phrase” (i.e., “wherein a substrate is selected or processed in such a way that it has a color that stands out relative to an average of the color of the pixels that form the wave packets of the target image”) is reasonably clear. The applicant points to paragraphs [0037] and [0097] and Figures 4, 6 and 7 of the USPGPUB of the instant application, and states that the specification states that the color of the substrate is selected to contrast with the color of the wave packets, and the limitation when read in light of the specification is not indefinite. Further, starting at the bottom of page 10, the applicant states that “the definition of the average itself is not the critical inventive feature, but the comparison of the average to the color of the substrate is…”
First, the examiner notes that the applicant merely states that the average color of the pixels is a well-known concept without providing any proof. Even if this is true, the applicant is now contending that the comparison of the average to the color of the substrate is the critical inventive feature. However, the specification does not describe how the color is selected relative to an average of the colors such that it will “stand out.” The claimed limitation recites “…a color that stands out relative to an average of the colors of the pixels…” While it can be understood that the color of the substrate is selected to contrast with the color of the wave packets as argued by the applicant, the phrase “stands out” is a subjective phrase without any objective measure of what “stands out” means relative to an average of the colors. One person might say red “stands out” from brown and another person might say it doesn’t, and this subjectiveness in the applicant’s claim language is what makes the claim unclear, particularly due to the lack of disclosure with regards to how the average of the colors is computed [Again, the applicant in their arguments has merely stated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand this without providing any proof.]. There is not an objective explanation in the applicant’s specification, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Therefore, the rejection if maintained.
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 23-28 and 30-42 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.
Independent claim 22 recites “wherein a substrate is selected or processed in such a way that it has a color that stands out relative to an average of the colors of the pixels that form the wave packets of the target image.” It is unclear what is meant by “a color that stands out relative to an average of the colors of the pixels.” In the applicant’s arguments dated 27 April 2026, the applicant states, starting at the bottom of page 10, that “the definition of the average itself is not the critical inventive feature, but the comparison of the average to the color of the substrate is.” In response to this, as stated in the response to arguments above, while it can be understood that the color of the substrate is selected to contrast with the color of the wave packets as argued by the applicant [such as black vs white], the phrase “stands out” is a subjective phrase without any objective measure of what “stands out” means relative to an average of the colors. One person might say red “stands out” from brown and another person might say it doesn’t, and this subjectiveness in the applicant’s claim language is what makes the claim unclear, particularly due to the lack of disclosure with regards to how the average of the colors is computed [Again, the applicant in their arguments has merely stated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand this without providing any proof.] and any specifics as to what colors “stand out” versus other colors. There is not an objective explanation in the applicant’s specification, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Thus, claim 22 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 23-28 and 30-42 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 22.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
19 May 2026
Prosecution Insights