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 .
Remarks
In response to applicant’s amendment, dated 07/28/2026, the examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-5. Claims 1-5 are pending.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim(s) 1-5 as being unpatentable over Ueda, et al. (CN 1726696) in view of Baldwin (US 9,057,931), the applicant amended claims 1-5 to include the limitation “wherein the first lens is not surrounded by the first display portion”. The examiner notes, as does the applicant, that Ueda discloses this new limitation of a first lens (Ueda: Fig. 2, ref.#$ 110) that is not surrounded by the first display portion (Ueda: Fig. 1, ref.# 108).
The applicant argues that Ueda appears to disclose that the first lens is not surrounded by the alleged first display portion and the second lens is also not surround by the alleged second display portion. (emphasis added by applicant) The examiner notes this corresponds to the rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 04/29/2026 wherein Baldwin was used to modify Ueda to wherein a lens is surrounded by a second display portion and is located away from the center of the second display portion. The applicant argues “a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to provide only the second lens to be surrounded by the second display portion, as recited in amended Claims 1-5, because such a teaching is contrary to the teachings in Ueda wherein both imaging parts (110 and 111) in Ueda are similarly structured and are not surrounded by the display part (108) and the back display part (109) but instead are located in the casing. Baldwin does not cure this deficiency in Ueda as there is no teaching or suggestion in Baldwin of an additional camera or display” (emphasis added by applicant. Further, the applicant argues that the combination of Ueda and Baldwin would be “improper hindsight reconstruction”.
In response to applicant’s arguments that there is no suggestion to combine reference, the examiner recognized that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 445 (CCPA). In this case, the examiner maintains that one skill in the art prior to the effective fling date of the claimed invention would be motivated to modify Ueda in view of Baldwin wherein the second lens is surrounded by the second display portion, and is located away from a center of the second display portion in order so that the user can focus on an appropriate region of the screen as taught by Baldwin.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgement on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was withing the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443, F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Thus, the examiner has considered applicant’s arguments in light of the amended claims and maintain the rejection.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda, et al. (CN 1726696) in view of Baldwin (US 9,057,931).
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
414
441
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ueda – Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
248
247
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Baldwin – Figure 4(b)
Regarding claim 1, Ueda discloses “a first display portion (Fig. 2, ref.# 108) including a first EL element, and a first camera (Fig. 2, ref.# 110) including a first lens on a first surface; and a second display portion (Fig. 2, ref.# 109) including a second EL element, and a second camera (Fig. 2, ref.# 111) including a second lens on a second surface opposite to the first surface (See Fig. 2), wherein at least one of the first display portion and the second display portion is configured to display an image of a photographic subject taken by the first camera or the second camera before taking the image (page 5 of translation, 4th paragraph), wherein the first lens is not surrounded by the first display portion (See Fig. 2A)”
Regarding claim 2, Ueda discloses “a first display portion (Fig. 2, ref.# 108) including a first EL element, and a first camera (Fig. 2, ref.# 110) including a first lens on a first surface; and a second display portion (Fig. 2, ref.# 109) including a second EL element, and a second camera (Fig. 2, ref.# 111) including a second lens on a second surface opposite to the first surface (See Fig. 2), wherein the first display portion is configured to display an image of a photographic subject taken by the first camera before taking the image, and to emit white flash light when taking the image, wherein the second display portion is configured to display an image of a photographic subject taken by the second camera before taking the image, and to emit white flash light when taking the image (page 5 of translation, 4th paragraph), wherein the first lens is not surrounded by the first display portion (See Fig. 2A)”.
Regarding claim 3, Ueda discloses “a first display portion (Fig. 2, ref.# 108) including a first EL element, and a first camera (Fig. 2, ref.# 110) including a first lens on a first surface; and a second display portion (Fig. 2, ref.# 109) including a second EL element, and a second camera (Fig. 2, ref.# 111) including a second lens on a second surface opposite to the first surface (See Fig. 2), wherein at least one of the first display portion and the second display portion is configured to display an image of a photographic subject taken by the first camera or the second camera before taking the image, and to emit white flash light when taking the image (page 5 of translation, 4th paragraph)” and “wherein the first lens is not surrounded by the first display portion (See Fig. 2A)”.
Regarding claim 4, Ueda discloses “a first display portion (Fig. 2, ref.# 108) including a first EL element, and a first camera (Fig. 2, ref.# 110) including a first lens on a first surface; and a second display portion (Fig. 2, ref.# 109) including a second EL element, and a second camera (Fig. 2, ref.# 110) including a second lens on a second surface opposite to the first surface (See Fig. 2), wherein at least one of the first display portion and the second display portion is configured to display an image of a photographic subject taken by the first camera or the second camera before taking the image, and to emit white flash light when taking the image (page 5 of translation, 4th paragraph” and “wherein the first lens is not surrounded by the first display portion (See Fig. 2A)”.
Regarding claim 5, Ueda discloses “a first display portion (Fig. 2, ref.# 108) including a first EL element, and a first camera (Fig. 2, ref.# 110) including a first lens on a first surface; and a second display portion (Fig. 2, ref.# 109) including a second EL element, and a second camera (Fig. 2, ref.# 111) including a second lens on a second surface opposite to the first surface (See Fig. 2), wherein at least one of the first display portion and the second display portion is configured to display an image of a photographic subject taken by the first camera or the second camera before taking the image, and to emit white flash light when taking the image (page 5 of translation, 4th paragraph)” and “wherein the first lens is not surrounded by the first display portion (See Fig. 2A)”.
Regarding claims 1-5, Ueda does not teach “wherein the second lens is surrounded by the second display portion, and is located away from a center of the second display portion”. However, a display integrated camera wherein a lens is surrounded by a display portion and wherein the lens is located away form a center of the display was well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Baldwin (See Figure 4(b); column 5, lines 37-43) (Note: Reference numbers 420, 422 and 424 in Figure 4(b) correspond with the reference numbers 520, 522 and 524 respectively in column 5 with an obvious typographical error.) Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ueda wherein the second lens is surrounded by the second display portion, and is located away from a center of the second display portion in order so that the user can focus on an appropriate region of the screen as taught by Baldwin.
Further, regarding claim 3, modified Ueda does not teach wherein the white flash light is emitted for more than or equal to 1 millisecond”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the flash time wherein the white flash light is emitted for more than or equal to 1 millisecond, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, regarding claim 5, modified Ueda does not teach wherein the second lens has a larger diameter than the first lens”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second lens with a large diameter than the first lens, since choosing the size of each lens would involve discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable which involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Thorn (US 9,596,401) and Shoemaker, et al. (US 9,086,610) teach a phone with a camera and display on the front and rear of the phone.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RODNEY FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2118. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/RODNEY E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
September 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights