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 .
Claim Objection
2. Claims 6-9 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of claim 6: “… the display panel; and ..." should be changed to --... the display panel, and ...--;
In line 2 of claim 7: “… the panel; and …” should be changed to --... the display panel, and …--;
In line 2 of claim 8: “… the housing, and ..." should be changed to --... the housing; and …--; and
In line 2 of claim 9: “… the housing, and ..." should be changed to --... the housing; and ...--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 16 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,333,111 B2 in view of Law (U.S. Pub. No. US 2016/0241760 A1).
The following is an example for comparing claim 1 of this application with claims 16 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,333,111 B2.
Claim 1 of this application
Claims 16 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,333,111 B2
A cell phone comprising:
A cell phone comprising:
a housing;
a housing;
a network interface;
a display panel disposed in the housing, the display panel comprising:
a first portion configured to display an image, the first portion including a plurality of light-emitting devices; and
the second portion being transparent; and
a user interface comprising a panel comprising a display panel comprising light elements to display an image, and a touch panel disposed on the display panel to receive a touch input, wherein
the panel comprises a first portion and a second portion, the second portion being in the first portion and having a transparent condition, and
a camera unit disposed in the second portion of the display panel.
a camera being in the second portion to photograph an object over the panel through the second portion.
a second portion surrounded by the first portion.
24. The cell phone of claim 16, wherein the second portion is surrounded by the first portion.
Claims 16 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,333,111 B2 anticipate claim 1 of the instant application except for the limitations “the first portion including a plurality of light-emitting devices.”
Law (Figs.1-6) teaches
the first portion including a plurality of light-emitting devices (the display elements may comprise organic light emitting diodes; [0025], lines 12-13).
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 used organic light emitting diodes as taught by Law in a cell phone of U.S. Patent No. US 12,333,111 B2 because organic light emitting diodes offer superior picture quality and physical design benefits over traditional screens for the display device.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 6-9 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law in view of Pilliod (U.S. Pub. No. US 2013/0176484 A1).
As to claim 1, Law (Figs.1-6) teaches a cell phone (a display 100 which may comprise a stand-alone device such as a cell phone, smart phone, …; [0012], lines 37-39; Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (a housing 510; Fig. 5);
a display panel (an array of display elements 512; Figs. 1 and 5) disposed in the housing (the housing 510; Fig. 5), the display panel (the array of display elements 512; Figs. 1 and 5) comprising:
a first portion (a portion excluding a portion of the camera 110) configured to display an image (Fig. 1), the first portion (the portion excluding the portion of the camera 110) including a plurality of light-emitting devices (the pixel generating means comprises one or more organic light emitting diodes; [0028], lines 11-12); and
a second portion (a portion of the camera 110 with the array of camera sensors 112) surrounded by the first portion (the portion excluding the portion of the camera 110) (Fig. 1); and
a camera unit (a camera sensor 112 (e.g., upper leftmost)) disposed in the second portion (the portion of the camera 110 with the array of camera sensors 112) of the display panel (the array of display elements 512) (Figs. 1 and 5).
Law does not expressly teach the second portion being transparent.
Pilliod (Figs. 1-9) teaches
the second portion being transparent (the area of the transparent camera window 106 over the camera 107); [0023], lines 3-4) (Figs. 1A-1D).
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 used a transparent camera as taught by Pilliod in a cell phone of Law because a transparent camera offers uninterrupted, edge-to-edge screen real estate, and hidden sensors in plain sight for a cell phone.
As to claim 2, Law teaches
wherein a touch panel (a touch screen 516) is disposed over the display panel (the array of the display elements 512) (Fig. 5).
As to claim 3, Pilliod teaches
wherein the camera unit (the camera 107) is disposed below the display panel (the display such as a flat panel; [0034], lines 13-15) (Figs. 1A-1D).
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 used a transparent camera as taught by Pilliod in a cell phone of Law because an under-display camera (UDC) conceals the front-facing lens beneath the screen, eliminating the need for notches or punch-hole cutouts.
As to claim 6, Law teaches further comprising:
a second camera unit (a camera sensor 112 (e.g., upper rightmost)) in the second portion (the portion of the camera 110 with the array of camera sensors 112) of the display panel (the array of display elements 512) (Figs. 1-2 and 5); and
wherein the first camera unit (the camera sensor 112 (e.g., upper leftmost)) and the second camera unit (the camera sensor 112 (e.g., upper rightmost)) sense an object over the display panel (the array of display elements 512) (Figs. 1-2 and 5).
As to claim 7, Law teaches further comprising:
a second camera unit (a camera sensor 112 (e.g., upper rightmost)) at a side of the panel (the array of display elements 512) (Figs. 1-2 and 5); and
wherein the first camera unit (the camera sensor 112 (e.g., upper leftmost)) and the second camera unit (the camera sensor 112 (e.g., upper rightmost)) senses an object over the display panel (the array of display elements 512) (Figs. 1-2 and 5).
As to claim 8, Law teaches further comprising:
a second display panel (a right half of the array of display elements 512) connected to the housing (the housing 510) (Figs. 1-2 and 5), and
a second camera unit (the camera sensor 112 (e.g., upper rightmost)) disposed in the second display panel (the right half of the array of display elements 512) (Figs. 1-2 and 5).
As to claim 9, Law teaches further comprising:
a second display panel (a right half of the array of display elements 512) connected to the housing (the housing 510) (Figs. 1-2 and 5), and
a second camera unit (the camera sensor 112 (e.g., bottom leftmost)) disposed at a bottom of the second display panel (the bottom half of the array of display elements 512) (Figs. 1-2 and 5).
As to claim 16, Pilliod teaches wherein:
the second portion being transparent (the area of the transparent camera window 106 over the camera 107) comprises a transparent condition (a transparent condition) between the camera unit (the camera 107) and an object (an object, e.g., a user) over the display panel (the display such as a flat panel; [0034], lines 13-15) (Figs. 1A-1D); and
the camera unit (the camera 107) senses the object (the object, e.g., the user) through the transparent condition (the transparent condition due to the transparent camera window 106) (Figs. 1A-1D).
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 used a transparent camera as taught by Pilliod in a cell phone of Law because a transparent camera offers uninterrupted, edge-to-edge screen real estate, and hidden sensors in plain sight for a cell phone.
As to claim 17, Pilliod teaches wherein:
the second portion being transparent (the area of the transparent camera window 106 over the camera 107) comprises an interference prevention condition (an interference prevention condition due to the transparent camera window 106) to prevent interference (because of transparent camera window 106) between the camera unit (the camera 107) and an object (an object, e.g., a user) over the display panel (the display such as a flat panel; [0034], lines 13-15) (Figs. 1A-1D); and
the camera unit (the camera 107) senses the object (the object, e.g., the user) through the interference prevention condition (the interference prevention condition due to the transparent camera window 106) (Figs. 1A-1D).
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 used a transparent camera as taught by Pilliod in a cell phone of Law because a transparent camera offers uninterrupted, edge-to-edge screen real estate, and hidden sensors in plain sight for a cell phone.
As to claim 18, Pilliod teaches, wherein
the second portion (the area of the transparent camera window 106 over the camera 107) comprises no light-emitting device (Figs. 1C-1D) to provide a transparent condition (a transparent condition) to the second portion the area of the transparent camera window 106 over the camera 107) of the display panel (the display such as a flat panel; [0034], lines 13-15).
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 used a transparent camera as taught by Pilliod in a cell phone of Law because a transparent camera offers uninterrupted, edge-to-edge screen real estate, and hidden sensors in plain sight for a cell phone.
As to claim 19, Pilliod teaches,
wherein the second portion (the area of the transparent camera window 106 over the camera 107) is transparent to prevent interference (due to the transparent camera window 106) when the camera unit (the camera 107) senses an object (an object, e.g., a user) above the display panel (the display such as a flat panel; [0034], lines 13-15) (Figs. 1A-1D).
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 used a transparent camera as taught by Pilliod in a cell phone of Law because a transparent camera offers uninterrupted, edge-to-edge screen real estate, and hidden sensors in plain sight for a cell phone.
As to claim 20, Law and Pilliod teach the cell phone of claim 1.
Law also teaches wherein the camera unit (the camera sensor 112 (e.g., upper leftmost)) comprises a lens (a focusing lens; [0027], lines 19-22), and the camera unit (the camera sensor 112 (e.g., upper leftmost)) senses an object (an object, e.g., a user) between the lens (a focusing lens; [0027], lines 19-22) and the object (the object, e.g., a user).
Pilliod also teaches
according to a transparent condition provided (a transparent condition due to the transparent camera window 106 over the camera 107) (Figs. 1A-1D).
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 used a transparent camera as taught by Pilliod in a cell phone of Law because a transparent camera offers uninterrupted, edge-to-edge screen real estate, and hidden sensors in plain sight for a cell phone.
7. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law in view of Pilliod as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Cho (U.S. Pub. No. US 2009/0181719 A1).
As to claim 4, Law and Pilliod teach the cell phone of claim 1.
Law and Pilliod do not expressly teach wherein: the camera unit performs one of a sensing mode and a photographing mode to sense an object; and the sensed object is not displayed on the display panel in the sensing mode, and the sensed object is displayed on the display panel in the photographing mode.
Cho (Figs. 1-8) teaches wherein:
the camera unit (the mobile communication terminal having the camera; [0067], line 2) performs one of a sensing mode (an image sensor mode in S809) and a photographing mode (S811 to S814) to sense an object (Fig. 8); and
the sensed object is not displayed on the display panel in the sensing mode (control photographed image data transmitted to correspondent mobile communication terminal S810 in the image sensor mode (S809)), and the sensed object is displayed on the display panel in the photographing mode (control mobile communication terminal to operate according to particular command signal (S811)) (Fig. 8).
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 used both a sensor mode and a photographing mode as taught by Cho in a cell phone of Law as modified by Pilliod because both a sensor mode and a photographing mode allow for advanced computational photography, lossless RAW editing, and third-party app integration.
As to claim 5, Law and Pilliod teach the cell phone of claim 1,
Law and Pilliod do not expressly teach wherein: the camera unit performs one of a sensing mode and a photographing mode to sense an object; and a symbol corresponding to the sensed object is displayed on the display panel in the sensing mode, and the sensed object is displayed on the display panel in the photographing mode.
Cho (Figs. 1-8) teaches wherein:
the camera unit (the mobile communication terminal having the camera; [0067], line 2) performs one of a sensing mode (an image sensor mode in S809) and a photographing mode (S811 to S814) to sense an object (Fig. 8); and
a symbol corresponding to the sensed object is displayed on the display panel in the sensing mode (the camera unit 110 may perform a function of moving a pointer that is displayed on the display screen 130 in correspondence to the extracted motion of the subject; [0030], lines 5-8), and the sensed object is displayed on the display panel in the photographing mode (control mobile communication terminal to operate according to particular command signal (S811)) (Fig. 8).
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 used both a sensor mode and a photographing mode as taught by Cho in a cell phone of Law as modified by Pilliod because both a sensor mode and a photographing mode allow for advanced computational photography, lossless RAW editing, and third-party app integration.
8. Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law in view of Pilliod as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Horie (U.S. Pub. No. US 2006/0103808 A1).
As to claim 10, Law and Pilliod teach the cell phone of claim 1.
Law and Pilliod do not expressly teach wherein: the camera unit senses a user having a plurality of user portions; one of the user portions has a priority; and the cell phone performs a function of the cell phone according to the sensed user portion having the priority.
Horie (Figs. 1-9) teaches wherein:
the camera unit (the camera 59) senses a user (a user 56) having a plurality of user portions (e.g., eye, head, nose, and mouth) (Fig. 5a);
one (eye) of the user portions (e.g., eye, head, nose, and mouth) has a priority (the user can easily focus on the eye on the displayed figure; [0072], lines 23-26) (Fig. 5a); and
the cell phone (the cellular phone 54) performs a function (a function of measuring the distance) of the cell phone (the cellular phone 54) according to the sensed user portion having the priority (the eye) ([0072], lines 1-26) (Fig. 5a).
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 measured a distance as taught by Horie in a cell phone of Law as modified by Pilliod because a cell phone measures the distance between a user and the camera according to the eye of the user.
As to claim 11, Law and Pilliod teach the cell phone of claim 1.
Law and Pilliod do not expressly teach wherein: the camera unit senses a user having a plurality of user portions; one of the user portions has a priority; and the cell phone performs a function of the cell phone according to the sensed user and the sensed user portion having the priority.
Horie (Figs. 1-9) teaches wherein:
the camera unit (the camera 59) senses a user (a user 56) having a plurality of user portions (e.g., eye, head, nose, and mouth) (Fig. 5a);
one (eye) of the user portions (e.g., eye, head, nose, and mouth) has a priority (the user can easily focus on the eye on the displayed figure; [0072], lines 23-26) (Fig. 5a); and
the cell phone (the cellular phone 54) performs a function (a function of measuring the distance) of the cell phone (the cellular phone 54) according to the sensed user (the user 56) and the sensed user portion having the priority (the eye) ([0072], lines 1-26) (Fig. 5a).
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 measured a distance as taught by Horie in a cell phone of Law as modified by Pilliod because a cell phone measures the distance between a user and the camera according to the eye of the user.
As to claim 12, Law and Pilliod teach the cell phone of claim 1.
Law and Pilliod do not expressly teach wherein: the camera unit senses an object through the second portion of the display panel; a portion of the sensed object is extracted; and a function of the cell phone is performed according to the extracted portion of the sensed object.
Horie (Figs. 1-9) teaches wherein:
the camera unit (the camera 59) senses an object (a user 56) through the second portion of the display panel (from the object screen; [0072], line 14) (Fig. 5a);
a portion of the sensed object is extracted (only a specific portion is extracted from the object screen; [0072], lines 13-14) (Fig. 5a); and
a function (a function of measuring the distance) of the cell phone (the cellular phone 54) is performed according to the extracted portion of the sensed object (only the specific portion extracted from the object screen) ([0072], lines 1-16) (Fig. 5a).
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 measured a distance as taught by Horie in a cell phone of Law as modified by Pilliod because a cell phone measures the distance between a user and the camera according to the eye of the user.
As to claim 13, Law and Pilliod teach the cell phone of claim 1.
Law and Pilliod do not expressly teach wherein: the camera unit senses an object including a user through the second portion of the display panel; the user is extracted from the sensed object; and a function of the cell phone is performed according to the extracted user.
Horie (Figs. 1-9) teaches wherein:
the camera unit (the camera 59) senses a user (a user 56) through the second portion of the display panel (from the object screen; [0072], line 14) (Fig. 5a);
the user is extracted from the sensed object (only a specific portion, i.e. the user, is extracted from the object screen; [0072], lines 13-14) (Fig. 5a); and
a function of the cell phone is performed according to the extracted user.
a function (a function of measuring the distance) of the cell phone (the cellular phone 54) is performed according to the extracted user (only the specific portion, i.e., the user, extracted from the object screen) ([0072], lines 1-16) (Fig. 5a).
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 measured a distance as taught by Horie in a cell phone of Law as modified by Pilliod because a cell phone measures the distance between a user and the camera according to the eye of the user.
As to claim 14, Law and Pilliod teach the cell phone of claim 1.
Law and Pilliod do not expressly teach wherein: the camera unit senses an object including a user through the second portion of the display panel; the user having a plurality of body portions, one of which has a priority, is extracted from the sensed object; and a function of the cell phone is performed according to at least one of the extracted user and the extracted body portion with the priority.
Horie (Figs. 1-9) teaches wherein:
the camera unit (the camera 59) senses an object including a user (a user 56) through the second portion of the display panel (the portion of the camera 59) (Fig. 5a);
the user (the user 56) having a plurality of body portions (e.g., eye, head, nose, and mouth), one (the eye) of which has a priority (the user can easily focus on the eye on the displayed figure; [0072], lines 23-26), is extracted from the sensed object (only a specific portion, i.e. the eye, is extracted from the user 56; [0072], lines 13-14) (Fig. 5a); and
a function (a function of measuring the distance) of the cell phone (the cellular phone 54) is performed according to at least one of the extracted user (the user 56) and the extracted body portion with the priority (the eye) ([0072], lines 1-26) (Fig. 5a).
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 measured a distance as taught by Horie in a cell phone of Law as modified by Pilliod because a cell phone measures the distance between a user and the camera according to the eye of the user.
As to claim 15, Law and Pilliod teach the cell phone of claim 1.
Law and Pilliod do not expressly teach wherein: the camera unit senses an object through the second portion of the display panel; and a status of the sensed object is determined as a user input to perform a function of the cell phone.
Horie (Figs. 1-9) teaches wherein:
the camera unit (the camera 59) senses an object (a user 56) through the second portion of the display panel (the portion of the camera 59) (Fig. 5a);
a status (a distance between the cellular phone 54 and the user 56) of the sensed object (the sensed user 56) is determined as a user input to perform a function (a function of measuring the distance) of the cell phone (the cellular phone 54).
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 measured a distance as taught by Horie in a cell phone of Law as modified by Pilliod because a cell phone measures the distance between a user and the camera according to the eye of the user.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yin (U.S. Patent No. US 10,284,697 B2) is cited to teach a terminal device including a screen, a first camera, and a movement mechanism, where the first camera is disposed on a movable component of the movement mechanism, the movement mechanism is disposed on the back of the screen, and the movable component is configured to drive the first camera to move from the back of the screen to a position at which the first camera can be seen from in front of the terminal device.
Adachi (U.S. Pub. No. US 2013/0147731 A1) is cited to teach a method performed by an information processing apparatus including a display and a touch panel disposed on or integrally formed with the display that detects a touch input by a user.
Inquiry
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kwang-Su Yang whose telephone number is (571)270-7307. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during 9:00am-6:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen, can be reached on (571)272-7772. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KWANG-SU YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights