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 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 § 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, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. (US 2019/0082101 A1) in view of Hada (US 2010/0289937).[claim 1]
Regarding claim 1, Baldwin discloses an electronic device (Figure 1) comprising:
at least one camera (Figure 1, 102/104) configured to:
generate a first image by capturing an image of a subject (e.g. Figure 3, First Stream; Figure 9A, 904); and
generate a second image by capturing a magnified image of a part of the subject Figure 3, Second Stream; Figure 9A, 906);
a display configured to receive a touch operation (Figure 1, 2A, 216; Paragraph 0049, 0087); and
a controller (Figure 2A, 206; Paragraph 0045, 0048) configured to:
control the display to display the first image on the display (e.g. Figure 9, 904; Figure 11; Figure 12, 1202)
control the display to display a mark superimposed on a part of the first image corresponding to the part of the subject based on the touch operation (Figure 9, 908; Figure 11, 1104/1106/1116; Figure 12, 1204); and
control the display to display the second image and first image (Figure 9; simultaneous display of images 904 and 906).
Baldwin discloses displaying the first and second image in a picture-in-picture view (e.g. Paragraphs 0071, 0080), but does not explicitly disclose that the second image is superimposed on the first image.
Hada discloses a similar imaging system for displaying a first image and a zoomed-in second image by superimposing the second image upon the first image (e.g. Figure 6A). It would have been obvious to generate and display superimposed image as a picture-in-picture image as taught by Hada in the system of Baldwin to provide a display which may display the first image as a full screen image while displaying the second image in a picture-in-picture format over the first image. By providing a second display option the user may select from different display arrangements according to personal preferences, including a picture-in-picture image as described by both Baldwin and Hada.[claim 19]
Claim 19 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.[claim 20]
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection of claims 1 and 19 above and note that Baldwin discloses implementing the described system/method using a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium causing a computer to perform the operations (e.g. Paragraphs 0111-0113).
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. (US 2019/0082101 A1) in view of Hada (US 2010/0289937) in view of Official Notice.[claim 2]
Regarding claim 2, Baldwin in view of Hada discloses receiving a touch operation on a part of the first image to be magnified, including a resizing operation (Figure 11), but does not explicitly disclose wherein, when displaying the first image on the display, the controller is further configured to display, on the display, a first notification for prompting a user to touch a part of the first image to be magnified.
However, Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the to provide an indication or “notification” that a display element in a GUI is resizable, e.g. through arrows placed on a border or change in a cursor appearance when interacting with the window. By providing such an indication the user may be informed of the ability to resize the element/prompted to perform resizing when interacting with the element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide an indication or “notification” promoting the user to resize the part of the first image to be magnified of Baldwin in view of Hada so that the user may be made aware of the ability to resize the window through interaction with the GUI element.[claim 4]
Regarding claim 4, Baldwin in view of Hada does not disclose wherein the controller is further configured to display information regarding present time on the display along with the first image.
However, Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to display information regarding present time on a display of a device to provide the user with the current time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to include display of the present time in the device of Baldwin in view of Hada so that a user of the device may be made aware of the present time.[claim 5]
Regarding claim 5, Baldwin discloses wherein the at least one camera includes:
a first camera configured to generate the first image by capturing the image of the subject (Figure 1, 102); and a second camera configured to generate the second image by capturing the magnified image of the subject (Figure 1, 104).
However, Baldwin does not explicitly disclose wherein a minimum focus distance of the second camera is smaller than a minimum focus distance of the first camera. However, Official Notice is taken that the minimum focus distance for each camera is a design variable which must be selected in designing the system according to the specific criteria desired for the system. Furthermore, in setting the two minimum focus distances for the two cameras, the minimum focus distance of the first camera may be made larger than, equal to, or smaller than that of the second camera. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the specific minimum focus distances, including minimum focus distances of the second camera which are smaller than that of the first camera, 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 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Additionally note that since the second camera is the primary camera for capturing images of the scene whereas the first camera is only used to provide an indication of the field of view of the second camera, it would have been obvious to provide greater capabilities for the second camera, including a greater range of allowable focus distances.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. (US 2019/0082101 A1) in view of Hada (US 2010/0289937) in view of Brillhart (US 2012/0316783 A1).[claim 3]
Regarding claim 3, Baldwin in view of Hada does not disclose wherein the controller is further configured to display positional information regarding the electronic device on the display along with the first image.
Brillhart discloses a viewing system which displays an image of a target or area of interest and further provides a display of GPS coordinates and compass direction (e.g. Figure 5B). The system of Brillhart provides the user with additional information on the position of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further include GPS coordinates and compass direction as taught by Brillhart in the display of Baldwin in view of Hada to inform the user of a position information including current location and direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10, 12 and 14-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.[claims 6-10, 12 and 14-18]
Regarding claims 6-10, 12 and 14-18 the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the electronic device according to Claim 5, wherein the controller is further configured to: activate the first camera; and then display the first image on the display as a live view, wherein, when the controller receives a touch operation performed on the display that is displaying the first image as a live view, the controller is further configured to: generate the first image as a still image using the first camera; and activate the second camera, and wherein the controller is further configured to: display the first image, which is a still image, on the display; give a mark to a part of the first image, which is a still image, corresponding to the second image; and display the second image on the display as a live view.
While the prior art teaches the use of first and second cameras to capture the first and second images (see e.g. Lassiter, Baldwin), the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the specific operations claimed in claims 6-10, 12 and 14-18.
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 TIMOTHY J HENN whose telephone number is (571)272-7310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday ~10-6.
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.
/Timothy J Henn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639