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 .
The response received on 2025 September 16 has been placed in the file and was considered by the examiner. An action on the merit follows.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 9/16/2025 have been fully considered. Response to these amendments is provided below.
Summary of Amendment/ Arguments and Examiner’s Response:
The applicant has amended the claims and has argued that the prior art does not teach the newly claimed limitations.
All arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection, below.
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 15-18, 20, 23 and 25 are 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the computing device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the computing device” in the second to last line, when “the computing device” and “a computing device” is separately claimed. It is unclear as to which computing device the applicant is referring to by the way the claim is constructed.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 12, 15-18, 24, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20130222516 (Do et al) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8760489 (Osher et al) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 201500012854 (Choi et al).
Regarding claim 1, Do et al discloses a method comprising: capturing, by an image sensor (fig. 4, item 150) fixed to a computing device (fig. 4, item 100, fig. 1, item 10), an image (page 2, paragraph 33, fig. 1, item 20) formatted in a first aspect ratio, the aspect ratio of the transmission device (page 2, paragraph 37); determining an angle of rotation of the computing device, rotation angle information (page 3, paragraph 35) based on a current posture of the computing device, i.e. device rotation angle (page 3, paragraph 35) and a default posture of the computing device, i.e. the basic state/ image storage direction (page 2, paragraph 30, page 3, paragraph 35), wherein the current posture of the computing device has an upper edge, the upper edge of the image 20; generating, by an image signal processor (fig. 4, 5, item 110) configured to provide an output to a plurality of applications, i.e. output to items 11-115 of fig. 5, a rotated image by rotating the image based on the angle of rotation of the computing device (fig. 8, item 405, “set rendering angle of image” which is according to the rotation angles of item 401 and 403) to which the image sensor that captured the image is fixed, (fig. 1, computing device has fixed image sensor), such that an upper edge of the image aligns with the upper edge of the current posture of the computing device, because the image aligns with the desired positioning that aligns the upper edges (fig. 2, item 30), generating, by the image signal processor, a processed image by cropping the rotated image from the first aspect ratio to a second aspect ratio that is defined by an application (fig. 8, item 405, “set rendering…whether image is resized”, page 3, paragraph 38, 39, the application of fig. 5, item 115), as an output aspect ratio (page 3, paragraph 38- 39); generating, by the image signal processor, an output stream using the processed image by rendering the images as they are transmitted (fig. 8); and providing, by the image signal processor, the output stream to the application by displaying the image at the application (page 1, paragraph 14),
Do et al does not disclose expressly the image signal processor is of the computing device (corresponding to the device that obtains the image), and the enhanced output stream is provided to the application, thereby removing a need for the application to further rotate and crop the processed image prior to displaying the processed image at the computing device or prior to transmitting the processed image from the computing device to another computing device, the image signal processor of the computing device is configured to provide an output to a plurality of applications configured on the computing device, and an application is of a plurality of applications.
Osher et al discloses the image signal processor is of the computing device (fig. 1, item 104), corresponding to the device that obtains the image (fig. 1, item 120), in which the enhanced output stream is processed (fig. 3, step 316), and the enhanced output stream is provided to the application (fig. 3, item 318), thereby removing a need for the application to further rotate and crop the processed image prior to transmitting the processed image from the computing device to another computing device (fig. 3, after step 316, there is no need to further rotate the image prior to transfer at step 318).
Do et al and Osher et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. communication of images.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to process the image at the imaging device.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust system by guaranteeing the processing is carried out by the first user’s capabilities.
Do et al (as modified by Osher et al) does not disclose expressly the image signal processor of the computing device is configured to provide an output to a plurality of applications configured on the computing device, and an application is of a plurality of applications.
Choi et al discloses the image signal processor of the computing device (fig. 2) is configured to provide an output to a plurality of applications (fig. 2, output of 210c) configured on the computing device, and an application is of a plurality of applications (fig. 1, item 220a is one of 220a-220d).
Do et al (as modified by Osher et al) & and Choi et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. display of computing content.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an image signal processor be configured for a plurality of applications.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more compact, efficient system by allowing multiple applications to be carried out by one processor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the image enhancement processing of Do et al with the enhancement processing on the imaging device of Osher et al and the multiple applications in an image signal processor of Choi et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 8. Claim 8 distinguishes from claim 1 only in that claim 8 claims a computing device, comprising: a processing system; an image sensor fixed to the computing device; and a computer-readable storage medium having encoded thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, cause the computing device to: capture an image using the image sensor, wherein the image is formatted in a first aspect ratio, and carry out the rest of method claim 1. Do et al teaches further this feature, i.e. a computing device (fig. 4), comprising: a processing system (fig. 4, item 100); an image sensor fixed to the computing device (fig. 4, item 140, fig. 1); and a computer-readable storage medium having encoded thereon computer-readable instructions (fig. 4, item 110, 175, fig. 4, item 110-115) that, when executed by the processing system, cause the computing device to: capture an image using the image sensor (fig. 4, item 150, fig. 1, image captured), wherein the image is formatted in a first aspect ratio (fig. 1, aspect ratio of fig. 1, item 10), and carry out the rest of method claim 1 (fig. 6 and as explained above).
Regarding claim 15, Do et al discloses an image signal processor (Fig. 4, item 140, 110) configured to provide an output to a plurality of applications configured on the computing device (fig. 5, item 111-114), comprising: an image sensor fixed to a computing device (fig. 4, item 140, fig. 1); and a computer-readable storage medium having encoded thereon computer-readable instructions (fig. 4, item 110, 175, fig. 4, item 110-115) that when executed by the image signal processor, causes the image signal processor to: receive an image from the image sensor (fig. 4, item 150, fig. 1, image captured), wherein the image is formatted in a first aspect ratio, the aspect ratio of the transmission device (page 2, paragraph 37); receive angle of rotation of the computing device, rotation angle information (page 3, paragraph 35), based on a current posture of the computing device, i.e. device rotation angle (page 3, paragraph 35) and a default posture of the computing device, i.e. the basic state/ image storage direction (page 2, paragraph 30, page 3, paragraph 35), wherein the current posture of the computing device has an upper edge (fig. 1); and further the method of Do et al includes processing to generate a rotated image by rotating the image based on the angle of rotation of the computing device such that an upper edge of the image aligns with the upper edge of the computing device (fig. 8, item 405, “set rendering angle of image” which is according to the rotation angles of item 401 and 403) , because the image aligns with the desired positioning that aligns the upper edges (fig. 2, item 30); generate a processed image by cropping the rotated image from the first aspect ratio to a second aspect ratio that is defined by an application, (fig. 8, item 405, “set rendering…whether image is resized”, page 3, paragraph 38, 39, the application of fig. 5, item 115), of the plurality of applications, as an output aspect ratio (page 3, paragraph 38- 39); generate an output stream using the rotated image, by rendering the images as they are transmitted using the rotated image to generate the final output (fig. 8); and provide the output stream to the application (fig. 1, page 1, paragraph 14). Osher et al discloses the image signal processor is of the computing device (fig. 1, item 104), corresponding to the device that obtains the image (fig. 1, item 120), in which the enhanced output stream is processed (fig. 3, step 316), and the enhanced output stream is provided to the application, i.e. the processing of the images occurs on the ISP prior to transmission (fig. 3, item 318), thereby removing a need for the application to further rotate and crop the processed image prior to transmitting the processed image from the computing device to another computing device (fig. 3, after step 316, there is no need to further rotate the image prior to transfer at step 318). Choi et al discloses the image signal processor of the computing device (fig. 2) is configured to provide an output to a plurality of applications (fig. 2, output of 210c) configured on the computing device, and an application is of a plurality of applications (fig. 1, item 220a is one of 220a-220d).
Regarding claim 2, Do et al discloses rotating the image comprises: selecting a predefined rotation posture, i.e. the rendering angles of table 3, 4 on page 7for the image using the angle of rotation (page 7, tables 3, 4, “rotation angles”); and applying the predefined rotation posture to the image (fig. 8, item 405).
Regarding claim 3, Do et al discloses the predefined rotation posture comprises one of a ninety-degree rotation posture, a one-hundred-eighty-degree rotation posture, or a two-hundred-seventy-degree rotation posture (page 7, table 3, “rendering angles” include 90 degrees (-270), 180 degrees ((-180) and 270 degrees (-90)).
Regarding claim 5, Do et al discloses the application is prevented from further rotating and cropping the processed image, because there is no step to further rotate and crop the processed image after step 405 when “no” and “o” is followed in the steps of item 407 and 409.
Regarding claim 6, Do et al discloses the output stream is a live video stream, since the images are processed for a video call constantly (page 2, paragraph 34); and the application is a communications application for live video conferencing (page 2, paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 11, Do et al discloses the angle of rotation of the computing device is determined by a position sensor of the computing device (pages 4-5, paragraph 58, 69).
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 5 are equally applicable to claim 12. Claim 5 distinguishes from claim 12 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Regarding claim 16, Do et al discloses the angle of rotation of the computing device is determined by a position sensor (pages 4-5, paragraph 58, 69, fig. 4, item 170) and is received from an operating system (fig. 4, item 110).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2 and 3, respectively. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claims 2 and 3 are equally applicable to claims 17 and 18. Claims 17 and 18 distinguish from claims 2 and 3 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 6. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 6 are equally applicable to claims 24 and 25. Claims 24 and 25 distinguish from claim 6 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Do et al (as modified by Osher et al and Choi et al) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20090147297 (Stevenson).
Regarding claim 7, Do et al (as modified by Osher et al and Choi et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Do et al further discloses the rotated image is cropped from the first aspect ratio to the second aspect ratio (fig. 8, item 405, “set rendering…whether image is resized”, page 3, paragraph 38, 39, the application of fig. 5, item 115), and that the output is a stream of images (fig. 8 run for images input for video).
Do et al (as modified by Osher et al and Choi et al) does not disclose expressly cropping an image further comprises: receiving a predetermined resolution for the output image defined by the computing device; and cropping the image while maintaining the predetermined resolution for the output image.
Stevenson discloses cropping an image further comprises: receiving a predetermined resolution for the output image defined by the computing device using the desired aspect ratio (page 8, paragraph 59); and cropping the image while maintaining the predetermined resolution for the output image (page 8, paragraph 59).
Do et al (as modified by Osher et al and Choi et al) & Stevenson are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. cropping images.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to predetermine the resolution.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more user-friendly system by automatically determining the correct resolution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine with the method of Do et al (as modified by Osher et al and Choi et al) with the resolution determination of Stevenson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 14, Do et al discloses the rotated image is cropped from the first aspect ratio to the second aspect ratio (fig. 8, item 405, “set rendering…whether image is resized”, page 3, paragraph 38, 39, the application of fig. 5, item 115), and that the output is a stream of images (fig. 8 run for images input for video). Stevenson discloses receiving a predetermined resolution for the output image that is cropped (page 8, paragraph 59); and the predetermined resolution is maintained while the image is cropped (page 8, paragraph 59).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 14. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 14 are equally applicable to claim 20. Claim 20 distinguishes from claim 14 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Do et al (as modified by Osher et al and Choi et al) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8610830 (Corlett et al).
Regarding claim 21, Do et al (as modified by Osher et al and Choi et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Do et al (as modified by Osher et al and Choi et al) does not disclose expressly another application of the plurality of applications, defines a different output aspect ratio compared to the output aspect ratio defined by the application.
Corlett et al discloses an video output application that defines an output aspect ratio for video output (fig. 2A), the video output application being one of the plurality of applications displayed in fig. 1, and that there is another application of the plurality of application, i.e. any of the apps of fig. 1, items 30, 34 or even the display of the apps of fig. 1, that defines a different output aspect ratio compared to the output aspect ratio defined by the video output application, i.e. any of the aspect ratios used that is different than that show in fig. 2A, such as the output ratio of each of the icons of fig. 1, or any other aspect ratio in displaying applications of fig. 1.
Do et al (as modified by Osher et al and Choi et al) & Corlett et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. display on devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have other apps have different aspect ratios defined.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a user-friendly system by allowing items to be displayed properly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine with the method of Do et al (as modified by Osher et al and Choi et al) with the other aspect ratio of Corlett et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 21. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 21 are equally applicable to claims 22 and 23. Claims 22 and 23 distinguish from claim 21 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Conclusion
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 KATHLEEN YUAN DULANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M1:9am-5pm, th1:9am-1pm, fri1 9am-3pm, m2: 9am-5pm, t2:9-5 th2:9am-5pm, f2: 9am-5pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 9/30/2025