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 .
Status of Claims
The amendment filed on 5/26/2026 has been entered. In the amendment, Applicant amended claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-1 and, 23-27, and cancelled claims 8. Currently claims 1-6, 9-15 and 23-27 are pending.
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 1-6, 9-15 and 23-27 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 element “a comparison between a first reference display and a first reference grayscale displayed in the first section, and between a sample display and at least one sample grayscale displayed in the second section”. It is unclear what is attempted to mean by the element. Specifically, the first reference display and the sample display are not defined by the current language. The element is amended with regard to the previously recited element “a comparison between a first reference display with a first reference grayscale displayed in the first section, and a sample display with at least one sample grayscale displayed in the second section”. Although the previously recited element is supported by the original disclosure, the amended element has the previous meaning changed and it is unclear how the original disclosure supports the amendment. Claim 1 also recites the element “a comparison between (i) the first reference display and a plurality of sample displays and (ii) a plurality of sample grayscales displayed in the second section”, which is of unclear meaning. Specifically, in addition to the undefined first reference display, the plurality of sample displays are not clearly defined by the current language.
Claims 2-6 and 9-15 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claims 23 and 25 each is rejected because the element “a comparison between a first reference display and a first reference grayscale displayed in the first section, and between a sample display and at least one sample grayscale displayed in the second section” is unclear for the same rationale applied to claim 1..
Claim 24 is rejected because it depends on claim 23.
Claims 26-27 are rejected because it depends on claim 25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 23 and 25have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 XUEMEI ZHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-1434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30 pm-6:00 pm.
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, Benjamin Lee can be reached at 571-272-2963. 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.
/XUEMEI ZHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights