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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/28/2026 has been entered into this application.
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 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because the claims recite the limitation "the same structural configuration" in line 4 of claim 1 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the examiner has assumed that as long as the prior art described any structural configuration of LED such as luminescence or produce and send out light (emitting color (i.e. blue light)) or reflected/transmit light then it can be assumed the system will anticipates or would obviously perform the claimed device/system, and the claimed limitations would be met because the there is no limit as to what the same structural configuration is or is not.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a processing unit” within the claim(s).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mestha (2009/0296085 A1, previously cited reference).
Regarding claims 1 and 6-7, Mestha discloses an optical characteristic determination device/method for a display device is included in system and method for full width scanning color analysis of a printed media sheet (figs. 1-3), comprising:
an optical measuring instrument the combination of 26/20/22 includes illuminator 18 irradiating a test element group (TEG) element color test patches 42 included a color test target 40 or a printed sheet 14 having the same structural configuration as a light emitting diode [par. 0044] (luminescence element or element that produce and send out light through physical or chemical processes) timing or triggering indicia marks 44 of a substrate/sheet and measuring a reflectance of the TEG element based on an amount of light reflected from the TEG element [pars. 0051, 0057, 0061]; and
a processing unit spectrophotometer 12 [par. 0040] determining optical characteristics of the TEG element color test patches 42 included a color test target 40 or a printed sheet 14 based inherently on the reflectance of the TEG element color test patches 42 included a color test target 40 or a printed sheet 14 from the optical measuring instrument the combination of 26/20/22 [pars. 0040-50].
For the purpose of clarity, the method claims 6-7 is/are taught/suggested by the functions shown/stated/set forth with regards to the apparatus/device claim 1 as rejected above as being anticipated by Mestha.
As to claims 2-3, 8 and 18, Mestha also discloses optical characteristic determination device/method (figs. 1-3) that is implemented using limitations such as, wherein the processing unit spectrophotometer 12 [par. 0040] provides the optical characteristics (i.e. reflection, transmission, reflectance/color(s)) of the TEG element color test patches 42 included a color test target 40 or a printed sheet 14 as optical characteristics of the light emitting diode [pars. 0040-50] (claims 2 and 8); and wherein the optical characteristics of the TEG element color test patches 42 included a color test target 40 or a printed sheet 14 include at least one of color coordinates, luminous efficiency, luminance, of the TEG element (Mestha, claim 1; see abstract; [pars. 0040-43]) (claims 3 and 18).
As to claims 5 and 20, Mestha also discloses a device/method that is implemented using limitations such as, wherein the optical measuring instrument the combination of 26/20/22 includes a spectroscopy reflectometer spectrophotometer 12 [par. 0040].
As to claim 9, Mestha also discloses wherein the light emitting diode and the TEG element are formed through the same process (i.e. printed/printing process) [pars. 0057, 0061].
As to claims 11-13, Mestha also discloses optical characteristic determination device/method (figs. 1-3) that is implemented using limitations such as, wherein the substrate (i.e. monolithic substrate) is a mother substrate sheet of material including a plurality of display panels/displays [par. 0013] (a thin, flat, electronic screen used to visually present information, images, or video) [pars. 0013, 0023, 0039 and 0060] (claim 11); wherein the light emitting elements (luminescence element or element that produce and send out light through physical or chemical processes) timing or triggering indicia marks 44 are formed on the plurality of display panels/displays [par. 0013] (a thin, flat, electronic screen used to visually present information, images, or video) (claim 12); and wherein the TEG element color test patches 42 included a color test target 40 or a printed sheet 14 is formed on one side of the mother substrate (i.e. monolithic substrate) excluding the plurality of display panels/displays [par. 0013] (claim 13).
As to claims 14 and 15, Mestha further discloses optical characteristic determination device/method (figs. 1-3) that is implemented using limitations such as, wherein the light emitting diode (luminescence element or element that produce and send out light through physical or chemical processes) timing or triggering indicia marks 44, the plurality of the luminescence element(s) (i.e. 44) includes a first light emitting element, a second light emitting element, and a third light emitting diode that provide light of different colors is included in a printed media sheet comprising rows of different color test patches and at least one space absent test patches [pars. 0028,0032, 0057] (claim 14); and wherein the TEG element color test patches 42 included a color test target 40 or a printed sheet 14, the plurality of the color test patches 42 that included a color test target 40 or a printed sheet 14 includes: a first TEG element formed through the same process as the first light emitting element; a second TEG element formed through the same process as the second light emitting element; and a third TEG element formed through the same process as the third light emitting element, as can be seen in depicted drawing (fig. 3)(claim 15).
As to claim 19, Mestha also discloses wherein the measuring of the reflectance of the TEG element color test patches 42 included a color test target 40 or a printed sheet 14 comprises using an optical measuring instrument spectrophotometer 12 [par. 0040].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mestha (2009/0296085 A1, previously cited reference) in view of Wada (2021/0341394 A1, previously cited reference).
As to claims 4 and 10, Mestha teaches of the features of claims 4 and 10, as applied to 1 and 6, comprising wherein the processing unit spectrophotometer 12 [par. 0040] determines the optical characteristics (i.e. reflection, transmission, reflectance/color(s)) of the TEG element color test patches 42 included a color test target 40 or a printed sheet 14 by analyzing the reflectance of the TEG element color test patches 42 included a color test target 40 or a printed sheet 14 using at least an algorithm [pars. 0041, 0054].
Mestha fail to explicitly specify that the algorithm is at least one of regression analysis and an artificial intelligence model.
However, using at least one of regression analysis and an artificial intelligence model as a calibration algorithm to analyzed or as a mathematical technique for processing the electronic signals from the spectrophotometer to generate or update color correction tables, calibration and/or correction systems, is known in the art in order to improve spectral accuracy, as evidence by Wada (Wada, [pars. 0003-4, 0031 and 0037]). Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Mestha as claimed in applicant’s claims 4 and 10 in view of Mestha suggestion of using algorithm in the spectrophotometer in order to generate or update color correction tables, calibration and/or correction systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Mestha in view of Mestha suggestion, and in view of the teachings of Wada to modify Mestha in the manner set forth in applicant’s claims 4 and 10 in order to generate or update color correction tables, calibration and/or correction systems, as per teaching of Wada.
Claims 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mestha (2009/0296085 A1, previously cited reference).
As to claims 16 and 17, Mestha teaches of the features of claims 16 and 17, as applied to 6, comprising an optical measuring instrument the combination of 26/20/22 includes illuminator 18 irradiating a test element group (TEG) element color test patches 42 included a color test target 40 or a printed sheet 14 having the same configuration as a light emitting diode (luminescence element or element that produce and send out light through physical or chemical processes) timing or triggering indicia marks 44 of a substrate/sheet and measuring a reflectance of the TEG element based on an amount of light reflected from the TEG element [pars. 0051, 0057, 0061]. Further, Mestha teaches of a spectrophotometer which includes a monolithic substrate [par. 0023]. Monolithic materials are defined as continuous structures made from either organic or inorganic polymers, reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 16 (CCPA, 1977).
Mestha fail to explicitly specify the constructional/structural change as that claimed by Applicants claims 10-17, wherein each of the first TEG element and the first light emitting diode includes an organic light emitting layer providing light of a first color, each of the second TEG element and the second light emitting diode includes an organic light emitting layer providing light of a second color, and each of the third TEG element and the third light emitting diode includes an organic light emitting layer providing light of a third color (claim 16); and wherein each of the first TEG element and the first light emitting diode further includes a pixel electrode and a common electrode disposed with the organic light emitting layer of the first color interposed therebetween, each of the second TEG element and the second light emitting diode further includes a pixel electrode and a common electrode disposed with the organic light emitting layer of the second color interposed therebetween, and each of the third TEG element and the third light emitting diode further includes a pixel electrode and a common electrode disposed with the organic light emitting layer of the third color interposed therebetween.
However, even though, Mestha fail to teaches the constructional/structural change differences as that claimed by Applicants claims 16-17, the constructional changes differences are considered obvious substitution in view of reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure, since the propose modification of the prior art would not change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified. The spectrophotometer will still perform it operation of color analysis of the substrate without discrimination in order to generate or update color correction tables, calibration and/or correction systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Mestha in the manner set forth in applicant’s claims 16-17 in order to generate or update color correction tables, calibration and/or correction systems, as per teaching of Mestha.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks, (see pages 6-8), filed on 07/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
a) Applicant argues that The Examiner asserts on page 4 of the Office Action that Mestha Fig. 1-3 and paragraph [0051] discloses irradiating a test element group (TEG) element having the same structural configuration as a light emitting diode of a substrate. A review of Mestha reveals that there is no teaching or suggestion of this element. Specifically, nothing in Mestha discloses that the test element group (TEG) element having the same configuration as a light emitting diode.
Instead in Mestha indicia marks are printed on paper and do not have a configuration that corresponds to a configuration of a light emitting diodes. Metha paragraph [0057] states "color printer test target 40 which may be employed to generate a printed sheet 14 with rows of different color test patches 42 and timing or triggering indicia marks 44."
Examiner's response:
With respect to argument (a), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because it is well settled that the teachings or suggestions of the prior art that have been used as evidence within a rejection of the claimed invention in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103, as set forth by the Court, are to be evaluated and determined not just from one or more specifically identified quotes to individual sections of the text of the prior art document but are in fact to be evaluated and determined from all that the prior art document teaches or suggests, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 17 (CCPA, 1977), with some reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 16 (CCPA, 1977). In view of this, then contrary to Applicant’s arguments to the contrary the Examiner’s need not necessarily point to specific sections of the prior art when supporting a rejection of the claimed invention in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102. In this case, the feature "having some certain structural configuration as the LED" as recited in independent claims 1 and 6 only required that test element or test substrate considering the BRI consistent with the instant spec. have or share the same characteristics, or that the elements, are arranged or organized to form a specific structure/function (of emit color or luminescence or produce and send out light (emitting color (i.e. blue light)) or reflected/transmit light, or (luminous, which means emitting or reflecting light)). The color test in this case emitting color(s) light is the same as the structural configuration of LED emitting light or glowing or radiating light. As such, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that argument (a) is not persuasive.
b) Applicant argues that Nothing in Mestha suggests that these color test patches have the same configuration as a light emitting element of a substrate. Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. From the disclosure of the Specification, it is clear that light emitting diodes are more than simply printed marks. The color test patches in Mestha are merely printed patterns on paper with nothing actually disclosing a structural configuration of a light emitting diode. The Examiner's noted "luminescence element or element that produce and send out light through chemical or physical processes" is not actually disclosed by the Mestha nor is there a disclosure of the color printer test target having this configuration. Mestha simply discloses color printed test targets with none of the test targets having the same configuration as a light emitting element. It would be unreasonable and inconsistent with the Specification to interpret a printed test target as having the configuration of a light emitting element in light of the specification. As such Mestha does not disclose each and every element as set forth in the claim.
Thus, the Applicants respectfully request that the Examiner withdraw the rejection to claims 1 and 6 and their dependents 2-3, 5, 7-9, 11-17, and 18-20.
Applicant also argues that ………, Mestha is simply disclosing application of spectrophotometers with no specific disclosure of an implementation where the substrate includes a plurality of display panels.
Examiner's response:
With respect to argument (b), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to argument(s) (a), applicant arguments regarding argument(s) (c)-(e) are not persuasive.
In addition, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this/these argument(s) is/are not persuasive because during examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and a claim must be read in accordance with the percepts of English grammar and words should be given their plain, ordinary meaning. In re Hyatt, 708 F2d 712, 218 USPQ 195 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In this case, based on the context of the applicant disclosure as found in specification as published [par. 0129], Applicant has described part of the structural configuration of LED as providing/emitting light of different colors, therefore, since the limitation (structural configuration) is not limited to any particular structure, then the claim(s) invention is not limited to such embodiment as claimed. Therefore, the limitation is within the scope and analysis of Mestha system configuration as detailed above, considering the (BRI) consistent with instant specification.
Finally, considering BRI, as detailed above an optical measuring instrument is considered (i.e. spectrophotometers), spectrophotometer is an instrument used to measure the amount of light a substance/substrate absorbs, transmits, or reflects at different wavelengths. As such, based on the context of the applicant disclosure as found in specification as published [pars. 0127-128], Applicant has described substrate as “………substrate including a plurality of display panels” “….….. substrate MSUB may include the plurality of display panels” in this case, by applicant's own account (argument (a) above) the reference substrate for measurement includes display that would anticipate display panel(s).
In conclusion, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this/these argument(s) is/are not persuasive. Applicant has argued the patentability of dependent claims, based solely upon the patentability of independent claim(s), and has presented no additional arguments exclusively pertaining to the claims, since the applicant has not argued the examiner’s position about the rejection(s) regarding the dependent claims, in the previous Official action. The applicant has acquiesced.
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 Isiaka Akanbi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8658. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ISIAKA O AKANBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights