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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on January 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 – 19 pending
Claims 8 – 9 and 14 – 19 are withdrawn.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4 – 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nikhara (US 2022/0116519).
Regarding claim 1, Nikhara discloses, in at least figures 1 and 2, a system for video conferencing and collaborative communication comprising: a display screen (16, 232/116) capable of displaying digital images or video (¶40, 48, 83); and a camera (12/234/238) positioned behind and along a center axis of the display screen (¶40, 48), wherein the camera comprises a processor and a rolling shutter (¶62: camera sensor 234 is a rolling shutter camera sensor, camera sensor 234 may capture the image row by row over the time), the processor controlling movement of the rolling shutter synchronized with a progressive scan signal of the display screen (fig. 11; ¶89: sync camera with display).
Regarding claim 2, Nikhara discloses the limitations of claim 1. Nikhara also teaches wherein the display screen comprises an active matrix of transparent organic light emitting diodes (¶4: OLED, AMOLED).
Regarding claim 4, Nikhara discloses the limitations of claim 1. Nikhara also teaches wherein the display screen has a transparency of at least 15% (¶48, 54: transparent layers).
Regarding claim 5, Nikhara discloses the limitations of claim 2. Nikhara also teaches wherein the rolling shutter is positioned so that its field of view captures the active matrix of transparent organic light emitting diodes (fig. 2; 4).
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
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) 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikhara in view of Kanai (US 2022/0368833).
Regarding claim 3, Nikhara discloses the limitations of claim 1. Nikhara teaches the display may be a liquid crystal display (LCD), a light-emitting diode (LED) display, an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display, an active matrix organic light-emitting diode (AMOLED), or other display (¶4). Nikhara fails to explicitly disclose wherein the display screen comprises a micro-LED display.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kanai teaches electronic device with a camera behind a display, wherein the display can be an OLED (Organic Light Emitting Device) display layer, a liquid crystal display layer, MicroLED, or a display layer based on any other display principle (¶69). In light of the teaching of Kanai, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nikhara with the micro-led display as taught by Kanai. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of thesubstitution would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 6 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikhara in view of Tan (US 2014/0362172).
Regarding claim 6, Nikhara discloses the limitations of claim 1. Nikhara fails to explicitly disclose wherein the rolling shutter is configured to permit the camera to capture images at a rate of at least 60 frames per second.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tan teaches a system and method for video frame sequence control wherein a camera can be operated at 60HZ and a display refresh rate operates at 120HZ (¶42-43). In light of the teaching of Tan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Tan’s teaching in Nikhara’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result reduction of crosstalk in the captured image.
Regarding claim 7, Nikhara in view of Tan discloses the limitations of claim 6. Tan also teaches wherein the display screen is configured to display images at a refresh rate of 120hz (¶42).
Claim(s) 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikhara in view of Moon (US 2022/0321754).
Regarding claim 11, Nikhara discloses the limitations of claim 10. Nikhara also teaches that the device may include a transmitter for transmitting data to another device (¶41). Nikhara fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is connected to an external digital content source through a USB port, an HDMI port, or a DisplayPort.
In a similar field of endeavor, Moon teaches a device with a camera behind the display with an interface 177 and connecting terminal 178, for connecting to external devices, that can include a USB and HDMI (¶38-39). In light of the teaching of Moon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that applying the know technique of using a USB or HDMI as a transmitter, as taught by Moon, to the invention of Nikhara would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Claim(s) 12 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikhara in view of Kim (US 2017/0351580).
Regarding claim 12, Nikhara discloses the limitations of claim 10. Nikhara also teaches outputting video signals (¶37) that the device may include a transmitter for transmitting data to another device (¶41). Nikhara fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is connected to an external terminal device through an OTG USB port.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim teaches a mobile terminal with a display screen and camera that may be connected to the external device through a universal serial bus on-the-go (USB OTG) method (¶143-155). In light of the teaching of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that applying the know technique of using an USB OTG, as taught by Kim, to the invention of Nikhara would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system with high-speed communication and large-capacity communication.
Regarding claim 13, Nikhara in view of Kim discloses the limitations of claim 12. Nikhara also teaches wherein the processor further outputs Human Interface Device (HID) event data (¶46: button, touch interface).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE T. SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm EST.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639