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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/3/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 4/22/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 11, 12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee US Patent Pub. # 2024/0077956).
As to claim 1, Lee discloses a method in an electronic device (electronic device 101), the method comprising:
detecting, with one or more sensors (sensor module 176), a partially deformed geometric form factor (folded) defined by a first device housing (first display surface 310) of the electronic device (101) being pivoted about a hinge (folding axis 390) relative to a second device housing (second display surface 320) of the electronic device (101) partially between an axially displaced open position (unfolded) and a closed position (folded) (Para 111, 119-121, 131, and 177);
also detecting, with one or more other sensors (sensor module 176), gesture input (gesture sensor) indicating a camcorder support condition is supporting the electronic device (101) in three-dimensional space while the partially deformed geometric form factor (intermediate state) is occurring (Para 74 and 119); and
enabling, with one or more processors (processor 120) in response to detecting the partially deformed geometric form factor (intermediate state) and the camcorder support condition being applied to the second device housing (320) of the electronic device (101), a video recording mode (captured image) of operation of an image capture device (camera module 180) of the electronic device (101) (Para 226-232).
As to claim 2, wherein the gesture input (176) comprises a lifting operation (gyro sensor or acceleration sensor) elevating the electronic device (101) from a first position to a second position in the three-dimensional space (Para 74 and 119).
As to claim 5, Lee teaches wherein the gesture input (176) comprises a camcorder grip (user's gripping state) being applied to the electronic device (101) (Para 225 and 226).
As to claim 6, Lee teaches wherein the camcorder grip (user's gripping state) is defined by a heel (touch (e.g., palm touch)) of a hand supporting a first minor surface of the second device housing (region of a cover display) (Para 411).
As to claim 7, Lee teaches wherein the camcorder grip (user's gripping state) is further defined by one or more fingers (finger touch region 3200) supporting a second minor surface (back of second display 3220) of the second device housing (3220) separated from the first minor surface (edge of 3220) by a width of the second device housing (3220) (Para 435).
As to claim 8, Lee teaches wherein the camcorder grip (user's gripping state) is further defined by a thumb supporting (finger touch region 3200) a third minor surface (front surface of 3220) of the second device housing (3220) extending from the first minor surface (edge of 3220) to the second minor surface (3210) (Para 435).
As to claim 11, Lee teaches wherein the partially deformed geometric form factor (folded) comprises the first device housing (310) of the electronic device (101) being pivoted about the hinge (390) relative to the second device housing (320) of the electronic device (101) such that the first device housing (310) and second device housing (320) define substantially an orthogonal angle (unfolded (or folded) state at a predetermined angle) (Para 131).
As to claim 12, this claim differs from claim 1 only in that the claim 1 is a method claim whereas claim12 is an electronic device claim. Thus claim 12 is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to claim 1 above.
As to claim 16, Lee teaches wherein the one or more other sensors (176) comprise grip sensors (user's gripping state) carried by a device housing (310 and 320) of the electronic device (101) (Para 225 and 226).
As to claim 17, Lee teaches wherein the one or more other sensors (176) comprise an orientation detector (a gesture sensor, a gyro sensor, an atmospheric pressure sensor, a magnetic sensor, an acceleration sensor, a grip sensor, a proximity sensor, a color sensor, an infrared (IR) sensor, a biometric sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, or an illuminance sensor) (Para 74).
As to claim 18, Lee discloses a method in an electronic device (electronic device 101), the method comprising:
detecting, with at least a first sensor (sensor module 176), a first device housing (first display surface 310) of the electronic device (101) being pivoted about a hinge (folding axis 390) relative to a second device housing (second display surface 320) to a deformed geometry (unfolded (or folded) state at a predetermined angle) where the first device housing (310) and second device housing (320) define a substantially orthogonal angle (unfolded (or folded) state at a predetermined angle) (Para 111, 119-121, 131, and 177);
detecting, with at least a second sensor (176), a rotational lifting operation (gyro sensor or acceleration sensor) of the electronic device in three-dimensional space (Para 74 and 119); and
in response to the at least a first sensor (176) detecting the deformed geometry (unfolded (or folded) state at a predetermined angle) and the at least a second sensor (176) detecting the rotational lifting operation (gyro sensor or acceleration sensor), causing, with one or more processors (processor 120), an image capture device (camera module 180) of the electronic device (101) to enter a video recording mode (captured image) of operation (Para 226-232).
As to claim 19, Lee teaches wherein the lifting operation (gyro sensor or acceleration sensor) causes a rotation of the electronic device (101) in the three-dimensional space by at least ninety degrees (Para 74 and 119).
As to claim 20, Lee teaches wherein the lifting operation (gyro sensor or acceleration sensor) causes a gravity direction to pass through a width of both the first device housing (310) and the second device housing (320) .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 3, 4, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Patent Pub. # 2024/0077956) in view of Kumar Agrawal (US Patent Pub. # 2024/0319768).
As to claim 3, note the discussion above the regards to claim 1. Lee does not teach wherein the gesture input comprises a lifting operation moving the electronic device to a position in the three-dimensional space where a gravity direction passes through a width of the first device housing and the second device housing. Kumar Agrawal teaches wherein the gesture input (motion detector 604) comprises a lifting operation (spatial orientation) of an electronic device (electronic device 100) moving the electronic device (100) to a position in the three-dimensional space (three-dimensional space) where a gravity direction (gravitational direction) passes through a width of the first device housing and the second device housing (spatial orientation) (Para 104). 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 provided a motion detector as taught by Kumar Agrawal to the electronic device of Lee, to have an improved electronic device that not only provides a compact geometric form factor but that allows for the use of a larger display surface area as well (Para 4 of Kumar Agrawal).
As to claim 4, Kumar Agrawal teaches wherein the gesture input (604) comprises a lifting operation (spatial orientation) moving the electronic device (100) to a position in the three-dimensional space (three-dimensional space) where another image capture device (intelligent imager 501) captures one or more images of an eye (emotional detector 702 or gaze detector 612) of a user (raised eyebrow, grin, or other feature) of the electronic device (100) (Para 104, 118, 125, and 126).
As to claim 10, Lee teaches further comprising detecting, with the one or more sensors (176), the first device housing (310) moving about the hinge (390) relative to the second device housing (320) to either the axially displaced open position (fully folded state) or the closed position (fully unfolded state) (Para 131). Lee does not teach disabling, with the one or more processors, the video recording mode of operation of the image capture device of the electronic device. Kumar Agrawal teaches disabling (not in use), with the one or more processors (one or more processors 114), the video recording mode (image capture) of operation of the image capture device (front-facing imager) of the electronic device (100) (Para 60, 153, and 154). 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 provided a transition to the peek position as taught by Kumar Agrawal to the electronic device of Lee, to have an improved electronic device that not only provides a compact geometric form factor but that allows for the use of a larger display surface area as well (Para 4 of Kumar Agrawal).
As to claim 13, Kumar Agrawal teaches wherein the one or more processors (114) are operable to cause the image capture device (front-facing imager) to cease (not in use) the video recording mode (image capture) of operation when the first device housing is pivoted about the hinge relative to the second device housing to either the axially displaced open position (peek position) or the closed position (retracted position) (Para 60, 153, and 154).
As to claim 14, Kumar Agrawal teaches wherein the one or more processors (114) are operable to cause the image capture device (front-facing imager) to cease (not in use) the video recording mode (image capture) of operation in response to the one or more other sensors (604) detecting cessation of support of the electronic device (100) in the camcorder orientation in the three-dimensional space (three-dimensional space) (Para 60, 104, 118, 125, 126, 153, and 154).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Patent Pub. # 2024/0077956) in view of Ito (US Patent Pub. # 2023/0188827).
As to claim 9, note the discussion above the regards to claim 1. Lee teaches while the first device housing (310) was moving about the hinge (390) relative to the second device housing (320) (Para 131). Lee does not teach wherein the video recording mode of operation of the image capture device of the electronic device results in the image capture device capturing one or more video clips, further comprising performing, by the one or more processors, a cropping operation to remove from the one or more video clips any video segments captured by the image capture device while the first device housing was moving about the hinge relative to the second device housing. Ito teaches wherein the video recording mode of operation of the image capture device (camera 100) of the electronic device (100) results in the image capture device (100) capturing one or more video clips, further comprising performing, by the one or more processors (system control unit 208), a cropping operation (highlight recording flag is enabled or not) to remove from the one or more video clips any video segments (images are not recorded) captured by the image capture device (100) (Para 76-82). 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 provided a highlight recording flag as taught by Ito to the electronic device of Lee, to provide an electronic device including at least one memory and at least one processor which function as: an acquisition unit configured to acquire eyeball information of a user; and a recording unit configured to, on a basis of the eyeball information acquired by the acquisition unit, record an image corresponding to a field of view of the user, in a case where a state of the user satisfies a predetermined condition (Para 6 of Ito).
As to claim 15, this claim differs from claim 9 only in that the claim 9 depends on claim 1 whereas claim 15 depends on claim 12. Thus claim 15 is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to claim 9 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER K PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1704. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Sinh N Tran can be reached at 571-2727564. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER K PETERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 1/5/2025