DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant's communication filed on 11/14/2025, wherein:
Claim 1, and 4-8 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claim have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim et al. (US 20130148002 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20110117971 A1, “Ryu” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an information processing terminal (Fig. 1) comprising:
an image capture unit that captures an image of a subject (Fig. 1 and ¶0045 – one side 10a of first panel 10), the image capture unit including a camera (Fig. 1 and ¶0045 – lens unit 112) and a camera orientation part configured to dispose the camera at a front surface (Fig. 1 – hinge portion 11); and
a body unit having a planar rectangular shape (Fig. 1 – second panel 20) and including a display unit disposed at a predetermined surface of the body unit (Fig. 1 – display 30 and ¶0043, 0045) , the display unit being operable with a touch panel and configured to display a captured image captured by the image capture unit that includes the subject (Fig. 6 and ¶0083-0088), wherein the image capture unit is supported by a rotation axis disposed in parallel with a long direction of the display unit to rotate relative to the body unit such that the image capture unit rotates about the rotation axis (Fig. 1 and Fig. 6 disclose the first panel 10 rotating around axis parallel to the long side of the display unit), and the image capture unit and the body unit are fixable in a state in which ,an angle between the front surface of the camera orientation part and a surface on which the display unit is disposed is 90 degrees when an axis perpendicular to the front surface of the camera orientation part becomes parallel to a surface of the display unit (Fig. 1, Fig. 6, and ¶0083-0088 disclose that the angle beta between image capturing unit 10 and display unit 20 can be 90 degree), and the subject is capturable in the state by operating the touch panel while a length direction of the front surface of the camera orientation part and the display unit is directed at the subject (Fig. 6 – element 32b and ¶0083-0088).
However the reference is silent on details about wherein the image capture unit is supported by a rotation axis disposed in parallel with a short direction of the display unit to rotate relative to the body unit such that the image capture unit rotates about the rotation axis.
Ryu discloses wherein the first unit is supported by a rotation axis disposed in parallel with a short direction of the second unit to rotate relative to the body unit such that the first unit rotates about the rotation axis (Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Kim to incorporate hinge rotation design for rotating axis parallel with short side from Ryu because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to improve user experience by implementing different hinge design for providing portrait display orientation.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of Kim and Ryu discloses the information processing terminal according to claim 1, wherein from the state where the angle between the front surface of the camera orientation part and the surface on which the display unit 90 degrees, the image capture unit is rotatable about the rotational axis by 270 degrees (Kim – Fig. 3 and Fig. 5-6 disclose the camera body portion 10 being able to rotate 270 degree from 0 degree in Fig. 3 to form approximately 90 degree with display part 20).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim et al. (US 20130148002 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20110117971 A1, “Ryu” hereinafter) and Li (US 20140184829 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Kim and Ryu discloses the information processing terminal according to claim 1, however, silent on details of claim 4.
Li discloses that the subject is capturable in the state from an external terminal on which the captured image is displayed without operating the touch panel (abstract and Fig. 1 disclose remote control device for capturing image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Kim and Ryu to incorporate wireless remote control for capturing image from Li because doing so would improve user experience by providing convenient method to trigger image capturing. The combined teaching would provide the ability to capture image without operating touch screen.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim et al. (US 20130148002 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20110117971 A1, “Ryu” hereinafter) and Watanabe (JP 2001136254 A).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Kim and Ryu discloses the information processing terminal according to claim 5, however, silent on further details of claim 6.
Watanabe discloses when the image capture unit is rotated by 270 degrees from a position at which the angle between the front surface of the camera orientation part and the surface on which the display unit is 90 degrees, the front surface of the camera orientation part is parallel with the surface on which the display unit is disposed, and the camera is directed away from the surface on which the display unit is disposed (Watanabe - Fig. 2, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 disclose universal joint include rotation axis parallel with the short side of hosing 1a allowing camera module to rotate relative to housing 1a containing display 5 and forming 90 degree facing toward the display side of the housing. Fig. 5 and 6 having different placement of camera module 9 however, the rotation capability is similar using the same joint in Fig. 2. The camera unit is capable of rotating in axis b/c/d provide flexibility to rotate the camera unit 9 relative to body 1a wherein from the state where the angle between the front surface of the camera orientation part and the surface on which the display unit 90 degrees, the image capture unit is rotatable about the rotational axis by 270 degree; Fig. 2 discloses rotation axis allowing camera unit to rotating away from the surface on which the display unit is disposed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Kim and Ryu to incorporate dual axis hinge from Watanabe because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to provide more versatile hinge structure for camera module.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim et al. (US 20130148002 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20110117971 A1, “Ryu” hereinafter) and Wang (US 20100142130 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of Kim and Ryu discloses the information processing terminal according to claim 1, however, silent on further details about a stand rotatable about a second rotational axis that is parallel to the rotational axis of the image capture unit
Wang discloses a stand rotatable about a second rotational axis that is parallel to a side of device body (Fig. 1 and Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Kim and Ryu to incorporate a stand from Wang because doing so would apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP §2141 -III) to improve user’s comfort for using device for long time (Wang – Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7928. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JINSONG HU, can be reached on (571) 272-3965. 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).
/DUNG HONG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643