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 amendment filed on January 26, 2026 in response to the previous Office Action (10/24/2025) is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the added limitation of “determine whether a flash function is set; when the flash function is not set, drive the camera and obtain an image, without emitting flashlight” is not described in the specification as it relates to the claimed embodiment. Applicant submits that support for the amendments can be found in paragraphs 156-159 and figures 12, 14 and 15 of the published specification. While the specification does describe the limitations, the description appears to only relate to the operation in figure 12 (¶151-153 of Applicant’s published specification). However, the original claims are described as it relates to figures 34 and 35, and the specification states that this operation for displaying pollution information is based on operations of 401 to 407 of FIG. 4 or operations 1001 to 1009 of FIG. 10. Thus, the operation of figure 14 does not correspond to the operation of figure 34. Therefore, the added limitations constitute new matter. For purposes of art examination, the added limitations will be stricken and broadest reasonable interpretation will be exercised.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 8, 11 and 13 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Publication JP2005201679A (Sony).
Regarding 1, Sony discloses an electronic device comprising: a camera (130) configured to capture an image, the camera including a camera lens (131) (fig. 3; ¶18); memory storing instructions: and at least one processor configured to: comprising processing circuitry. wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: determines whether or not the lens is dirty and a display for notifying dirt on the lens and prompting the user to clean the lens may be performed); and display information of the pollution of the surface of the electronic device over the camera lens, the displayed information informing the user to clean the camera lens, based on the determination of the pollution existing on the surface of the electronic device over the camera lens (¶27-28: determines whether or not the lens is dirty and a display for notifying dirt on the lens and prompting the user to clean the lens may be performed).
Regarding claim 3, Sony disclose all of the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Sony also teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: detect a pollution level of the surface of the electronic device over the camera lens by using the obtained image based on an event for measuring the pollution level of the surface of the electronic device over the camera lens (¶27-28: detect dirt on optical parts by comparing the image data as the reference data stored at the time of the initial setting with the image data captured this time, and determines whether or not the lens is dirty).
Regarding claim 4, Sony disclose all of the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Sony also teaches wherein the image for determining whether the pollution contaminates the surface of the electronic device over the camera lens obtained periodically or at a time point when the camera is driven (¶27-28: detect dirt on optical parts by comparing the image data as the reference data stored at the time of the initial setting with the image data captured this time, and determines whether or not the lens is dirty).
Regarding claim 5, Sony disclose all of the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Sony also teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor detect dirt on optical parts by comparing the image data as the reference data stored at the time of the initial setting with the image data captured this time, and determines whether or not the lens is dirty).
Regarding claim 6, Sony disclose all of the aforementioned limitations of claim 5. Sony also teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to display the information of the pollution of the surface of the electronic device over the camera lens when the pollution level is greater than a reference level, the reference level being set as a reference value of a pollution level which can influence a quality of the obtained image. (¶27-28: detect dirt on optical parts by comparing the image data as the reference data stored at the time of the initial setting with the image data captured this time, and determines whether or not the lens is dirty… If it is determined in step S22 that the lens is dirty, a display warning about the lens dirt is
displayed on the display panel 121).
Regarding claim 7, Sony disclose all of the aforementioned limitations of claim 5. Sony also teaches wherein the instructions. when executed by the at least one processor If it is determined in step S22 that the lens is dirty, a display warning about the lens dirt is displayed on the display panel 121).
Regarding claim 8, Sony disclose all of the aforementioned limitations of claim 5. Sony also teaches wherein the instructions. when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively. further cause the electronic device to: display an amount of the pollution level of the surface of the electronic device over the camera lens (¶27-28: detect dirt on optical parts by comparing the image data as the reference data stored at the time of the initial setting with the image data captured this time, and determines whether or not the lens is dirty… If it is determined in step S22 that the lens is dirty, a display warning about the lens dirt is displayed on the display panel 121).
Claims 11 and 13 – 18 are rejected as applied to claims 1 and 3 – 8 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Sony.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication JP2005201679A (Sony) in view of Yu et al. (US 2016/0154559).
Regarding claim 2, Sony disclose all of the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Sony fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: a touch screen including a first layer having a hole formed in the first layer and a second layer having a region corresponding to the hole and omitting pixel elements.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yu teaches a mobile terminal including a body; a camera; a touchscreen provided to the front side of the body and having a plurality of corners; and a controller configured to operate the camera to capture an image upon reception of a first drag input applied to a first corner of the touchscreen and dragged to a center of the touchscreen wherein the touch sensor may be configured in a form of a film having a touch pattern, disposed between the window 151a and a display on a rear surface of the window 151a, or a metal wire which is patterned directly on the rear surface of the window 151a or may be integrally formed with the display. For example, the touch sensor may be disposed on a substrate of the display or within the display (¶109). In light of the teaching of Yu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Yu’s teaching in Sony’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in a mobile terminal configured to be used in consideration of user convenience.
Claim 12 are rejected as applied to claim 2 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Sony in view of Yu et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 – 10 and 19 – 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE 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