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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/09/2026 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/21/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each 112(b) rejection and drawing objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/21/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(f) interpretations, applicant’s amendments have overcome the 112(f) interpretation applied to independent claims 1 and 7. However, as no amendments or arguments were made regarding claims 6 and 12, the 112(f) interpretation of claims 6 and 12 remains applied.
Regarding the 103 rejections, applicant argues that the currently applied prior art does not disclose the newly added limitations of independent claims 1 and 7 related to “the display device” which “detect a brightness around the eye of the user using the first-light receiving element before capturing the image of the fundus of the eye of the user.” However, a new 103 rejection is now made under Geng (US 10733439 B1) in view of Ogura (US 20140104570 A1) and further in view of Okuyama (JP 2008241827 A) to teach the new limitations.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
"wherein diagnosis is made by capturing an image of the eye of the user" in claims 6 and 12
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 § 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 1-12 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 independent claims 1 and 7, the limitation “the display device is configured to detect a brightness around the eye of the user using the first light-receiving element” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear if this limitation means the first light-receiving element is detecting a brightness level or just acting as a light sensor and detecting any light. Any light sensor, such as a camera, can detect brightness, but it is unclear if the first light-receiving element is additionally meant to determine what the brightness level is in addition to detecting the light.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “the display device is configured to detect light
Claims 2-6 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same issues.
Claims 8-12 are dependent on claim 7 and therefore inherit the same issues.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng et al. (US 10733439 B1), hereinafter Geng, in view of Ogura (US 20140104570 A1) and further in view of Okuyama (JP 2008241827 A).
Regarding independent claim 1, Geng discloses an electronic device worn on a head of a user, comprising:
a display device (105/705; Figs. 1A, 1B, 7; col. 2 line 43 – col. 3 line 6, col. 11 lines 23-43) comprising a pixel (col. 4; a single pixel is being considered the combination of the display pixels and detector pixels disclosed in col. 4), the pixel comprising:
a first light-emitting element (135; Figs. 1-2; col. 3 lines 7-16);
a second light-emitting element (244; Fig. 2; col. 4 lines 10-39);
a first light-receiving element (246; Fig. 2; col. 4 lines 10-39); and
a second light-receiving element (248; Fig. 2; col. 4 lines 10-39), and
wherein the display device (105/705) is configured to display an image using the first light-emitting element (135) (col. 3 lines 7-16) and to capture an image of a fundus of an eye of the user (col. 4 line 40 – col. 5 line 4) using the second light-emitting element (244) and the second light-receiving element (248) (col. 4 line 40 – col. 5 line 4).
Geng does not disclose a plurality of the pixels, each of the plurality of pixels comprising a transistor, the second light-emitting element configured to emit infrared light, the second light-receiving element configured to receive infrared light, and wherein the display device is configured to detect a brightness around the eye of the user using the first light-receiving element before capturing the image of the fundus of the eye of the user.
However, Ogura teaches a similar electronic device for imaging a fundus, comprising a display device (Fig. 1) comprising a first light-emitting element (13; Fig. 1; ¶0022), a second light-emitting element (15; Fig. 1; ¶0022) configured to emit infrared light (¶0022), and a light-receiving element (5; Fig. 1; ¶0021) configured to receive infrared light (¶0021), wherein the display device is configured to detect a brightness around the eye of the user using the light-receiving element (5) before capturing the image of the fundus of the eye of the user (¶0035). Although Ogura only teaches a single light-receiving element, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Geng to incorporate the second light-emitting element being configured to emit infrared light, the second light-receiving element being configured to receive infrared light, and to incorporate the display device being configured to detect a brightness around the eye of the user using the first light-receiving element before capturing the image of the fundus as taught by Ogura for the purpose using a wavelength range that does not cause miosis (¶0005 of Ogura) and for the purpose of illuminating the fundus of the eye with brightness suitable for evaluation (¶0011 of Ogura) and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Ogura does not teach a plurality of the pixels, each of the plurality of pixels comprising a transistor.
However, Okuyama teaches an electronic device comprising a display device (Fig. 1; ¶0002) which comprises a pixel (abstract) comprising transistor (20, 40; Fig. 2; ¶0034), a light-emitting element (10 Fig. 1; ¶0036), and a light-receiving element (30; Fig. 1; ¶0036), and further teaches a plurality of these pixels (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic device of Geng in view of Ogura to incorporate the transistor and a plurality of pixels as taught by Okuyama for the purpose of having a compact imaging and display unit that combined high-performance imaging and display functions (¶0014 of Okuyama).
Regarding independent claim 7, Geng discloses an electronic device worn on a head of a user, comprising:
a display device (105/705; Figs. 1A, 1B, 7; col. 2 line 43 – col. 3 line 6, col. 11 lines 23-43) comprising a pixel (col. 4; a single pixel is being considered the combination of the display pixels and detector pixels disclosed in col. 4), the pixel comprising:
a first light-emitting element (135; Figs. 1-2; col. 3 lines 7-16);
a second light-emitting element (244; Fig. 2; col. 4 lines 10-39);
a first light-receiving element (246; Fig. 2; col. 4 lines 10-39); and
a second light-receiving element (248; Fig. 2; col. 4 lines 10-39), and
wherein the display device (105/705) is configured to display an image using the first light-emitting element (135) (col. 3 lines 7-16) and to capture an image of a fundus of an eye of the user (col. 4 line 40 – col. 5 line 4) using the second light-emitting element (244) and the second light-receiving element (248) (col. 4 line 40 – col. 5 line 4).
Geng does not disclose a plurality of the pixels, each of the plurality of pixels comprising a transistor, the second light-emitting element configured to emit infrared light, the second light-receiving element configured to receive infrared light, wherein the display device is configured to detect a brightness around the eye of the user using the first light-receiving element before capturing the image of the fundus of the eye of the user, and wherein each of the first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, the first light-receiving element, and the second light-receiving element are provided over a first substrate.
However, Ogura teaches a similar electronic device for imaging a fundus, comprising a display device (Fig. 1) comprising a first light-emitting element (13; Fig. 1; ¶0022), a second light-emitting element (15; Fig. 1; ¶0022) configured to emit infrared light (¶0022), and a light-receiving element (5; Fig. 1; ¶0021) configured to receive infrared light (¶0021), wherein the display device is configured to detect a brightness around the eye of the user using the light-receiving element (5) before capturing the image of the fundus of the eye of the user (¶0035). Although Ogura only teaches a single light-receiving element, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Geng to incorporate the second light-emitting element being configured to emit infrared light, the second light-receiving element being configured to receive infrared light, and to incorporate the display device being configured to detect a brightness around the eye of the user using the first light-receiving element before capturing the image of the fundus as taught by Ogura for the purpose using a wavelength range that does not cause miosis (¶0005 of Ogura) and for the purpose of illuminating the fundus of the eye with brightness suitable for evaluation (¶0011 of Ogura) and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Ogura does not teach a plurality of the pixels, each of the plurality of pixels comprising a transistor, and wherein each of the first light-emitting element, the second light-emitting element, the first light-receiving element, and the second light-receiving element are provided over a first substrate.
However, Okuyama teaches an electronic device comprising a display device (Fig. 1; ¶0002) which comprises a pixel (abstract) comprising transistor (20, 40; Fig. 2; ¶0034), a light-emitting element (10 Fig. 1; ¶0036), and a light-receiving element (30; Fig. 1; ¶0036), and further teaches a plurality of these pixels (abstract). Okuyama further teaches the transistor (20, 40), the light-emitting element (10), and the light-receiving element (30) are over the substrate (inherent from Figs. 1 and 9 and ¶0063 that there must be a substrate that includes the transistor (20, 40), the light-emitting element (10), and the light-receiving element (30) to create display panel (902)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electronic device of Geng in view of Ogura to incorporate the transistor, light-emitting element, and light-receiving element being in/over the same substrate as taught by Okuyama for the purpose of having a compact imaging and display unit that combined high-performance imaging and display functions (¶0014 of Okuyama).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Geng in view of Ogura and further in view of Okuyama discloses the electronic device according to claims 1 and 7, as set forth above. Geng further discloses the first light-emitting element (135) is an organic light emitting element (col. 11 line 60 – col. 12 line 3).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Geng in view of Ogura and further in view of Okuyama discloses the electronic device according to claims 1 and 7, as set forth above. Geng further discloses the first light-emitting element (135) is an organic light-emitting element (col. 11 line 60 – col. 12 line 3) emitting infrared light (col. 6 line 58 – col. 7 line 12).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Geng in view of Ogura and further in view of Okuyama discloses the electronic device according to claims 1 and 7, as set forth above. Geng further discloses diagnosis is made by capturing an image of the eye of the user (implicit that since the images are used to determine optical metrics, that it would further be used for diagnosis; col. 1 lines 31-51)1.
Claim(s) 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng (US 10733439 B1) in view of Ogura (US 20140104570 A1), further in view of Okuyama (JP 2008241827 A), and further in view of Yamazaki (US 20230247864 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Geng in view of Ogura and further in view of Okuyama discloses the electronic device according to claims 4 and 10, as set forth above. Neither Geng, Ogura, nor Okuyama disclose a semiconductor layer of the transistor is single crystal silicon.
However, Yamazaki teaches a similar electronic device comprising a display and a transistor (Tr1; ¶0073), wherein a semiconductor layer of the transistor is single crystal silicon (¶0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Geng in view of Okura and further in view of Okuyama to incorporate the single crystal silicon semiconductor layer of Yamazaki since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim(s) 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng (US 10733439 B1) in view of Ogura (US 20140104570 A1), further in view of Okuyama (JP 2008241827 A), and further in view of Miyaguchi (US 10254829 B2).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Geng in view of Ogura and further in view of Okuyama discloses the electronic device according to claims 1 and 7, as set forth above. Neither Geng, Ogura, nor Okuyama disclose a semiconductor layer of the transistor is an oxide semiconductor.
However, Miyaguchi teaches a similar electronic device comprising a display and a transistor (451; Fig. 30A; col. 27 lines 55-61), wherein a semiconductor layer of the transistor is an oxide semiconductor (col. 27 lines 55-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Geng in view of Okuyama to incorporate the oxide semiconductor layer of Miyaguchi since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shikaumi et al. (US 20120050515 A1) discloses a similar fundus camera wherein an image pickup element determines a light intensity based on image data and forms an image.
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 NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 April 29th, 2026
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Further, this limitation appears to be an intended use limitation. It is noted that the recitation of an intended use limitation must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In this case, the device of Geng is capable of being used for making a diagnoses, and thus meets the limitations of the claim.
Prosecution Insights