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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a control apparatus” in claims 6-9, 13 and 19
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2, 3, 16 and 17 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.[claims 2, 3, 16 and 17]
Claims 2, 3, 16 and 17 recites the limitation "the first screen". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of applying -prior art “the first screen” will be read as “the rear screen” since the rear screen receives a touch operation. Clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotoros et al. (US 2019/0208099 A1) in view of Fujii (US 2011/0098019 A1).[claim 1]
Regarding claim 1, Cotoros discloses a camera (Figure 1), comprising: a camera body (Figure 1, 102);
a lens assembly disposed on the first side of the camera body (Figure 1, 104; Paragraphs 0041-0042);
a camera (Figure 1; Paragraphs 0040-0044);
a front screen on the first side of the camera body (Figure 1, 108); and
a rear screen on a second side opposing the first side of the camera body (Figure 1, 120), configured to receive a touch operation from a user (Paragraphs 0041-0042).
However, Cotoros does not disclose wherein the touch operation determines at least one of a display mode or a parameter of the front screen.
Fujii discloses a similar device including first and second displays (Figure 3, 318 including 11 and 12) and further discloses providing sleep keys arranged on the display which controls a mode of the other display (e.g. a sleep key on a first display is touched to set or cancel a sleep mode on the second display and vice versa). Therefore, it would have been obvious to response to a touch operation to a sleep key on a first or second display to set or cancel a sleep mode on the second or first display in the system of Cotoros as taught by Fujii so that a sleep mode may be selectively set or canceled for the displays. Further note that a parameter of the screen is concurrently set, e.g. an amount of power supplied to the screen.
[claim 4]
Regarding claim 4, Cotoros in view of Fujii discloses wherein the display mode is a full screen display (e.g. the full screen is turned on when the sleep mode is deactivated; see the rejection of claim 1 above).[claims 14 and 18]
Claims 14 and 18 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 1 and 4. Therefore, claims 14 and 18 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 1 and 4.
Claim(s) 5, 11, 12, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotoros et al. (US 2019/0208099 A1) in view of Fujii (US 2011/0098019 A1) in view of Official Notice.[claim 5]
Regarding claim 5, Cotoros in view of Fujii in view of Official Notice does not disclose wherein the camera is an action camera.
Official Notice is further taken that action cameras are well-known in the art as small, rugged cameras which are used to record action. It would have been obvious to apply the teachings of Li in view of Fujii to such an action camera so that the camera may be provided with front and rear displays which may be selectively activated/placed in a sleep mode to allow the camera to display information in both front and rear directions while providing power savings by turning off one of the displays when not needed by the user.[claim 11]
Regarding claim 11, Cotoros in view of Fujii does not explicitly disclose that the touch operation determines the parameter of the front screen for a selfie operation.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to use cameras for a selfie operation so that an image of a user may be captured. Therefore, it would have been obvious to perform a selfie operation using the camera of Cotoros in view of Fujii so that an image of the user may be captured.
Note that a touch operation prior to performing the selfie operation would set a parameter which is used for the subsequent selfie operation as claimed, e.g. an amount of power to be supplied to the front screen determined via the touch operation of Cotoros in view of Fujii.[claim 12]
Regarding claim 12, Cotoros in view of Fujii does not explicitly teach wherein both the front and rear screens are color display devices.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to use color display devices as screens for a camera so that color images and text may be displayed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use color display devices as the front and rear screens of Cotoros in view of Fujii so that color images and text may be displayed.[claim 15]
Claim 15 is method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 11. Therefore, claim 15 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 11.[claim 20]
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection of claim 1 above and note that Cotoros in view of Fujii discloses a camera having a camera body, lens assembly, front screen and rear screen wherein a touch operation determines at least of a display mode or a parameter of the front screen as claimed.
However, Cotoros in view of Fujii does not disclose a movable platform comprising: a handheld unit; and a gimbal disposed on the handheld unit including the camera.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to use movable platforms comprising a handheld unit (e.g. a handle) and a gimbal connected to the handheld unit for holding a camera so that the camera may be stabilized thereby capturing stable images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide a handheld unit and gimbal connected to the camera of Cotoros in view of Fujii so that the camera may be stabilized and stable images captured.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotoros et al. (US 2019/0208099 A1) in view of Fujii (US 2011/0098019 A1) in view of Cho et al. (US 2015/0254044 A1)[claim 10]
Regarding claim 10, Cotoros discloses wherein the front screen is a touch screen or a non-touch screen (Paragraph 0042; note that the front screen must be either a touch screen or a non-touch screen); and
a display area of the rear screen is greater a display area of the front screen (Figure 1; note relative sizes of screen 108 and 120).
However, Cotoros in view of Fujii does not explicitly disclose wherein the front screen is configured to display an image obtained by the camera; and
both the front screen and the rear screen are configured to display image information obtained by the lens assembly; or the rear screen is configured to display image information and the front screen is configured to display acquisition parameters corresponding image information or display the parameter of the front screen.
Cho discloses a similar device including front and rear display screens (e.g. Figure 1) and further discloses that the front screen is configured to display an image obtained by the camera (Figures 4 and 5) and further discloses wherein both the front screen and the rear screen are configured to display image information obtained by the lens assembly (Figures 4 and 5A) or the rear screen is configured to display image information and the front screen is configured to display acquisition parameters corresponding image information or display the parameter of the front screen (Figure 5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to display images and image information as taught by Cho in the device of Cotoros in view of Fujii so that a user may view images or image information on the front display according to a set display operation of the front display.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotoros et al. (US 2019/0208099 A1) in view of Fujii (US 2011/0098019 A1) in view of Li (CN105141852A).[claim 13]
Regarding claim 13, Cotoros in view of Fujii discloses a control apparatus, in communication with the lens assembly, the front screen, and the rear screen (Figure 3, 312 or 362; Figure 10, 1116; Paragraph 0122). However, Cotoros in view of Fujii does not teach that the control apparatus is configured to: in response to the front screen displays image information being obtained by the lens assembly, control, based on the touch operation received by the rear screen, the lens assembly to adjust an image acquisition parameter, and control front screen to display the adjusted image acquisition parameter.
Li discloses a camera having first and second display devices wherein in response to a first screen displays image information being obtained by the lens assembly, control, based on the touch operation received by the second screen and the lens assembly to adjust an image acquisition parameter, (Paragraph 0054; touching screen to focus object on display screen 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to use the screens of Cotoros in view of Fujii to allow a touch to focus operation so that a user may easily control focusing of the lens and capture images with desired objects in focus. However, Cotoros in view of Fujii in view of Li does not explicitly disclose displaying acquisition parameters corresponding image information or displaying the parameter of the front screen.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to display a cursor or other mark to designate an object which is selected for focusing, e.g. when the object is touched in a touch-to-focus operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to display the acquisition parameter using the display screens of Cotoros in view of Fujii in view of Li, e.g. a cursor indicating the focus position parameter, so that a user may easily determine which part of the scene is selected for focusing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 16 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6-9 and 19 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 2, 3, 16 and 17]
Regarding claims 2, 3, 16 and 17, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest wherein the touch operation is single-finger down-sliding to render the first screen to display a control center, allowing a selection of a switch function that turns on/off by tapping the rear screen.
While the use of a slide operation to activate a control center on an electronic device is generally known in the art (e.g. control center on Apple iOS), the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest such an operation on a screen of a camera body to control a display mode or a parameter of another screen on an opposite side of a camera as recited in these claims.[claims 6-9 and 19]
Regarding claims 6-9 and 19, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a control apparatus, in communication with the lens assembly, the front screen and the rear screen, wherein upon receiving the touch operation on the rear screen, the control apparatus obtains a control command to control at least one of the display mode or the parameter of the front screen based at least in part on a configuration file or in response to obtaining the touch operation on the rear screen and generating control demands based on the touch operation, a control apparatus of camera obtains the control command so as to control at least one of the display mode or the parameter of the front screen based at least in part on a configuration file, wherein the control apparatus is in communication with a lens assembly, the front screen and the rear screen.
While configuration files are generally known in the prior art, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the use of a configuration file in setting a display more or parameter of a front screen as recited in these claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. US 2023/0188639 A1
Iyer et al. US 2021/0112196 A1
Zheng US 2020/0272398 A1
Park et al. US 10,645,292 B2
Myung et al. US 2020/0050416 A1
Ha et al. US 2019/0121396 A1
Oliver et al. US 2019/0114021 A1
Kim et al. US 2018/0077271 A1
Mitsunaga US 2016/0004376 A1
Ishihara et al. US 2014/0192244 A1
Web et al. US 2011/0157017 A1
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