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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 2 remains withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/08/2026.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/09/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki (US 20150234540).
As recited in claim 1, Sasaki shows an electronic device (“medical image display apparatus 100” [0056]) for detecting an optical signal, comprising: an optical sensor (see BRIGHTNESS SENSOR 109 in Fig. 7B, for example); and a light-emitting element (see LIGHT SOURCE 106 in Fig. 7B, for example) disposed adjacent (see arrangement of light sources and brightness sensors in Fig. 7B, for example) to the optical sensor 109, wherein the optical sensor 109 is configured to detect (“In Step S408, the BL-control unit 105 allows a divided region of BLs 106 corresponding to the position (Rx, Ry) and the size (width Fw and height Fh) of the film viewer region, which are notified, to emit light with higher brightness compared to other divided regions, as shown in FIG. 5” [0064]) the optical signal (see reflected light in Fig. 7B), wherein the light-emitting element 106 has a first brightness (“light is emitted with high brightness”, [0064]) during a non-detection period (see step S408) of the electronic device 100, the light-emitting element 106 is dimmed (i.e., not emitting light with high brightness) and has a second brightness (which is not a high brightness) during a detection period (a period during which film-region-determination occurs) of the electronic device 100, the optical sensor 109 is configured to output a driving signal (insofar as such a driving signal is inherent to “acquires each sensor value from the sensors 109 through the sensor-value-acquisition unit 108”) when the light-emitting element 106 is dimmed (i.e., not emitting light with high brightness), the first brightness (“high brightness” [0064]) is (necessarily, insofar as a radiologist’s night vision would otherwise be interrupted in the dark environment of the radiographic interpretation room) greater than the second brightness (not high brightness), and the second brightness (not high brightness) is not zero (“each of the sensors 109 receives only light which is emitted from the corresponding BL 106 and reflected by the display unit 104 as shown in FIG. 7B (and potentially some external light, if there is any). Under dark environment conditions such as in a room for radiographic interpretation, the light-receiving quantity of each sensor 109 is not influenced by external light” [0070]).
As recited in claim 3, Sasaki shows that the optical sensor 109 does not overlap (see non-overlapping positions of 106 and 109 in Fig. 7B, for example) the light-emitting element 106.
As recited in claim 7, Sasaki shows a substrate (see horizontal line below 106 and 109 in Fig. 7B, for example), having a normal direction (vertical direction in Fig. 7B); and an another light-emitting element (see second LED 106 between the labeled LED 106 and the labeled brightness sensor 109); wherein the another light-emitting element (second LED 106), the light-emitting element (labeled LED 106) and the optical sensor 109 are disposed on the substrate (see horizontal line below 106 and 109 in Fig. 7B); wherein when viewing along the normal direction (vertical direction in Fig. 7B), the optical sensor 109 is adjacent to the light-emitting element (labeled LED 106 is fairly construed as adjacent to its nearest optical sensor 109, which is the labeled optical sensor 109) and the another light-emitting element (second LED 106 between the labeled LED 106 and the labeled brightness sensor 109), and a (longer) distance between the optical sensor (labeled brightness sensor 109) and the light-emitting element (labeled LED 106) is different from a (shorter) distance between the optical sensor (labeled brightness sensor 109) and the another light-emitting element (second LED 106 between the labeled LED 106 and the labeled brightness sensor 109).
Sasaki Fig. 7B detail, annotated by Examiner
labeled LED 106 unlabeled LED 106 labeled sensor 109
[AltContent: arrow]a greater distance away a shorter distance away
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
199
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20150234540).
Sasaki shows a device as described above.
As recited in claim 6, Sasaki shows that the light-emitting element 106 comprises a light-emitting diode (“The BLs 106 are configured by light sources (light-emitting devices) such as light emitting diodes (LEDs)” [0050]).
As recited in claim 6, Sasaki is silent regarding an organic light-emitting diode.
Official notice is taken of the fact that organic light-emitting diodes were known in the art prior to the effective filing date.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that organic light-emitting diodes were predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use an OLED as the LED of Sasaki. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to substitute known equivalents as was known in the art.
As recited in claim 8, Sasaki is silent regarding whether the distance between the optical sensor and the light-emitting element is less than half of a distance between the light-emitting element and the another light-emitting element.
The law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the Applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
The Examiner finds that the recited dimensional range was predictable before the effective filing date.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to arrive at the claimed dimensions through the process of routine experimentation and optimization in the absence of criticality Gardner v. TEC systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to arrive at the recited dimensional range by decreasing the number of optical sensors per LED in order to save cost by manufacturing fewer optical sensors as would have been readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, and 6-8 have 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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julie Anne Watko whose telephone number is (571)272-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 9AM-5PM, Wednesday 10:30AM-5PM, Thursday-Friday 9AM-5PM, and occasional Saturdays.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
JULIE ANNE WATKO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/Julie Anne Watko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
09/18/2026
Prosecution Insights