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 Amendment
The amendments filed 26 June 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-2 and 5-14 remain pending in the application, as well as newly added claims 15-20 (claims 3-4 have been cancelled). The Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims overcome each and every objection and most of the rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated 01 April 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-11, filed 26 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 11-12, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8: the claim is missing a period (.) at the end.
Claim 11: “the light shielding unit is not adjacent to the wide band light filter unit, and the light shielding unit is not adjacent to the red filter unit” in lines 2-3 is a duplicate limitation to the limitation mentioned in lines 13-15 of claim 1 and should therefore be removed.
Claim 12: “a spacing between the wide band light filter unit and the visible light filter unit adjacent to the wide band light filter unit is larger than a spacing between the visible light filter unit and other light filter units adjacent to the visible light filter unit” in lines 3-5 is a duplicate limitation to the limitation mentioned in lines 15-17 of claim 1 and should therefore be removed.
Claim 14: “wherein the ambient light sensor is arranged below the display screen” is a duplicate limitation to the limitation mentioned in lines 1-2 of claim 1, on which claim 14 relies.
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, 5-14, 17-18, and 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.
Regarding claim 1, “a spacing between the wide band light filter unit and the red filter unit adjacent thereto” in lines 11-12 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same spacing mentioned previously or a different spacing? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same spacing mentioned previously.
Claims 2 and 5-13 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected for its reliance on the language of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, “the number of blue filter units” in line 2 and “the number of red filter units” in lines 2-3 both lack proper antecedent basis and are therefore both unclear.
Regarding claim 8, “a visible light signal” in line 3 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 8 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same visible light signal previously set forth or a different visible light signal? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same visible light signal mentioned previously. Additionally, “an infrared light signal” in line 3 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 8 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same infrared light signal mentioned previously or a different infrared light signal? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same infrared light signal mentioned previously.
Claim 9 is rejected for its dependency on claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, “a spacing between the wide band light filter unit and the red filter unit” is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 9 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same spacing mentioned previously or a different spacing? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same spacing mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 12, “a visible light signal” in line 3 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 12 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same visible light signal mentioned previously or a different visible light signal? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to a different visible light signal. Additionally, “a spacing between the wide band light filter unit and the visible light filter unit adjacent to the wide band light filter unit” in lines 3-4 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 12 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same spacing mentioned previously or a different spacing? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same spacing mentioned previously. Additionally, “a spacing between the visible light filter unit and other light filter units adjacent to the visible light filter unit” in lines 4-5 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1, on which claim 12 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same spacing mentioned previously or a different spacing? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same spacing mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 13, “the pixel unit” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear. (Note: pixel units have been mentioned in the plural form but a single pixel unit has not been mentioned previously).
Regarding claim 17, “a preset value of 80 um” in lines 5-6 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 15, on which claim 17 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same preset value mentioned previously or a different preset value? In light of the specification the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same preset value mentioned previously.
Regarding claim 18, “a visible light signal” in lines 2-3 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 15, on which claim 18 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same visible light signal mentioned previously or a different visible light signal? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to a different visible light signal.
Regarding claim 20, “a visible light signal” in lines 2-3 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 19, on which claim 20 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same visible light signal mentioned previously or a different visible light signal? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to a different visible light signal.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation of claim 8 is a duplicate of the following limitation in lines 8-9 of claim 1: “the wide band light filter unit is configured to allow for transmittance of a visible light signal and an infrared light signal,” therefore, claim 8 fails to specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 and 19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach an ambient light sensor as claimed, wherein the ambient light sensor is adapted to be arranged under a display screen of an electronic device, and comprises: a light filter unit array comprising a sub-array composed of a red filter unit, a green filter unit, and a blue filter unit, and the light filter unit array further comprising a wide band light filter unit configured to allow for transmittance of a visible light signal and an infrared light signal; and a pixel unit array located below the light filter unit array and comprising a plurality of pixel units, the plurality of pixel units being configured to receive a light signal of ambient light after passing through the display screen and the light filter unit array, for ambient light detection; wherein a gravity center of a pattern formed by the red filter unit in the sub-array, a gravity center of a pattern formed by the green filter unit in the sub-array, and a gravity center of a pattern formed by the blue filter unit in the sub-array coincide with each other, and an arrangement direction of light filter units in each line or each row of the light filter unit array is aligned with a line scan direction of the display screen, more specifically in combination with wherein the wide band light filter unit is not adjacent to the red filter unit, the wide band light filter unit is not adjacent to the green filter unit, and the wide band light filter unit is not adjacent to the blue filter unit; or a spacing between the wide band light filter unit and the red filter unit, a spacing between the wide band light filter unit and the green filter unit, and a spacing between the wide band light filter unit and the blue filter unit are each larger than or equal to a preset value of 80 um.
Claim 16 is allowable for its dependency on claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach an ambient light sensor as claimed, wherein the ambient light sensor is adapted to be arranged under a display screen of an electronic device, and comprises: a light filter unit array comprising a sub-array composed of a red filter unit, a green filter unit, and a blue filter unit, wherein the light filter unit array further comprises a wide band light filter unit configured to allow for transmittance of a visible light signal and an infrared light signal and a light shielding unit configured to block or absorb a light signal; and a pixel unit array located below the light filter unit array and comprising a plurality of pixel units, the plurality of pixel units being configured to receive a light signal of ambient light after passing through the display screen and the light filter unit array, for ambient light detection; wherein a gravity center of a pattern formed by the red filter unit in the sub-array, a gravity center of a pattern formed by the green filter unit in the sub-array, and a gravity center of a pattern formed by the blue filter unit in the sub-array coincide with each other, and an arrangement direction of light filter units in each line or each row of the light filter unit array is aligned with a line scan direction of the display screen, more specifically in combination with wherein the light shielding unit is not adjacent to the wide band light filter unit, and the light shielding unit is not adjacent to the red filter unit; or a spacing between the light shielding unit and the wide band light filter unit and a spacing between the light shielding unit and the red filter unit are each larger than or equal to a preset value of 80 um.
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.”
Claims 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach an ambient light sensor as claimed, wherein the ambient light sensor is adapted to be arranged under a display screen of an electronic device, and comprises: a light filter unit array comprising a sub-array composed of a red filter unit, a green filter unit, and a blue filter unit, wherein the light filter unit array is an array composed of M lines × N rows of light filter units, wherein the light filter unit array further comprises a visible light filter unit, a wide band light filter unit, and a light shielding unit, the visible light filter unit, the wide band light filter unit, and the light shielding unit are located on an edge of the light filter unit array, and M and N are each a positive integer greater than 1; and the wide band light filter unit is configured to allow for transmittance of a visible light signal and an infrared light signal, wherein a spacing between the wide band light filter unit and the red filter unit adjacent thereto is larger than a spacing between the red filter unit and the blue filter unit adjacent thereto, or a spacing between the wide band light filter unit and the red filter unit adjacent thereto is larger than a spacing between the red filter unit and the adjacent green filter unit adjacent thereto; more specifically in combination with the light shielding unit is arranged non-adjacent to the wide band light filter unit, and the light shielding unit is arranged non-adjacent to the red filter unit; and a spacing between the wide band light filter unit and the visible light filter unit adjacent thereto is larger than a spacing between the visible light filter unit and other light filter units adjacent to the visible light filter unit; and a pixel unit array located below the light filter unit array and comprising a plurality of pixel units, the plurality of pixel units being configured to receive a light signal of ambient light after passing through the display screen and the light filter unit array, for ambient light detection; wherein a gravity center of a pattern formed by the red filter unit in the sub-array, a gravity center of a pattern formed by the green filter unit in the sub-array, and a gravity center of a pattern formed by the blue filter unit in the sub-array coincide with each other, and an arrangement direction of light filter units in each line or each row of the light filter unit array is aligned with a line scan direction of the display screen.
Claims 2 and 5-7 and 9-13 would be allowed for their dependency on claim 1. (NOTE: claim 9 is dependent upon claim 8 which is rejected under 112(d), however, claim 9 does not inherit the issues of claim 8).
Claim 14 would be allowed for its reliance on the language of claim 1.
Claims 17-18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-18 would be allowed for their dependency on claim 15
Claim 20 would be allowed for its dependency on claim 19.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 would be allowable for its dependency on claim 1.
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 ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights