DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach a scanning Tele camera having a native scanning Tele field of view that is scanned within a wide field of view during continuous zoom video operation. Bates discloses first and second optical channels for imaging a selective narrow FOV within the wide FOV (Para. 0066). Additionally, the smaller field of view is scanned and the imaging device is a gimbaled narrow field of view camera (Para. 0009). Bates additionally discloses a scan mirror for directing the mirror anywhere within the wide FOV (Fig. 9 and Para. 0064). Bates also disclose the system performs continuous zoom between the first and second optical channels, that zoom benefits from super resolution, and super resolution is enabled by actuating the mirror in the first optical channel (Para. 0071).
No claim amendments were submitted in regards to applicant’s response dated 01/12/2026. All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/09/2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 01/11/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patents No. 9,927,600, No. 10,070,060, No. 11,640,047, No. 11,531,209, No. 12,108,151, No. 11,733,064, No. 12,184,980, No. 12,265,320 & No. 12,101,575 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1-2, 6-8, 10-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldenberg et al. (herein after will be referred to as Goldenberg) (US 20180024329) in view of Cohen et al. (herein after will be referred to as Cohen) (US 20180184010) and in further view of Bates et al. (herein after will be referred to as Bates) (US 20110164108).
Regarding claim 1, Goldenberg discloses a zoom camera, comprising:
a Wide camera with a Wide field of view (FOV.sub.W) and operative to output Wide images (WIs); [See Goldenberg [0011 and Fig. 3A] Wide camera.]
a folded Tele camera (FTC) including an optical path folding element (OPFE), the FTC having a native Tele FOV (n-FOV.sub.T) narrower than FOV.sub.W, [See Goldenberg [0011 and Fig. 3A] Folded tele camera.]
the FTC being operative to output folded Tele images (FTIs) and to perform optical image stabilization (OIS) by actuating the OPFE; and [See Goldenberg [0005] Folded tele. Also, see 0012-0013, OIS functionality for camera using OPFE.]
Goldenberg does not explicitly disclose
an OPFE actuator configured to adjust an orientation of the OPFE to scan the n-FOV.sub.T within the FOVW; and
a camera controller operatively coupled to the Wide camera and to the FTC and
configured to stream a video image stream that displays a continuous zoom-in action into, or a continuous zoom-out action out off a non-center area within FOV.sub.W,
wherein the video images are provided with a smooth transition when switching from displaying WIs to displaying FTIs or vice versa.
However, Cohen does disclose
a camera controller operatively coupled to the Wide camera and to the FTC and [See Cohen [0042] Sensor control module connected to wide and tele cameras.]
wherein the video images are provided with a smooth transition when switching from displaying WIs to displaying FTIs or vice versa. [See Cohen [0028 and 0047] Smooth transition between outputting wide/tele images.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Goldenberg to add the teachings of Cohen, in order to improve upon optical zoom from commonly encountered problems and disadvantages [See Cohen [0011]].
Goldenberg (modified by Cohen) do not explicitly disclose
an OPFE actuator configured to adjust an orientation of the OPFE to scan the n-FOV.sub.T within the FOVW; and
configured to stream a video image stream that displays a continuous zoom-in action into, or a continuous zoom-out action out off a non-center area within FOV.sub.W,
However, Bates does disclose
an OPFE actuator configured to adjust an orientation of the OPFE to scan the n-FOV.sub.T within the FOVW; and [See Bates [0022 and 0064] Actuated mirror with vertical/horizontal actuators. Also, see 0009, scanning the smaller field of view across a scene.]
configured to stream a video image stream that displays a continuous zoom-in action into, or a continuous zoom-out action out off a non-center area within FOV.sub.W, [See Bates [0071] Continuous zoom between two resolutions captured by two optical channels. Also, see Fig. 11.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Goldenberg (modified by Cohen) to add the teachings of Bates, in order to improve upon drawbacks associated when imaging a wide/panoramic image and a narrow high resolution image [See Bates [0010]].
Regarding claim 2, Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Goldenberg discloses
the Wide camera including a Wide camera lens, wherein the Wide camera is operative to perform OIS by actuating the Wide camera lens. [See Goldenberg [0008] OIS enabled cameras, the lens module is tilted to cancel camera shake. Also, see 0006. Also, see 0011 and fig. 3, wide camera.]
Regarding claim 6, Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Goldenberg does not explicitly disclose
wherein the smooth transition is achieved by performing a rotation correction of the FTIs.
However, Cohen does disclose
wherein the smooth transition is achieved by performing a rotation correction of the FTIs. [See Cohen [0054 #7] Rotation between the images.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Goldenberg does not explicitly disclose
wherein the smooth transition is achieved by executing registration between the WIs and the FTIs.
However, Cohen does disclose
wherein the smooth transition is achieved by executing registration between the WIs and the FTIs. [See Cohen [0051] Global registration for inputs of wide/tele.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Goldenberg does not explicitly disclose
wherein the smooth transition is achieved by executing a localization between the WIs and the FTIs for performing position matching.
However, Cohen does disclose
wherein the smooth transition is achieved by executing a localization between the WIs and the FTIs for performing position matching. [See Cohen [0054 #6] Localization between the images for feature matching.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Goldenberg does not explicitly disclose
wherein the smooth transition is achieved by blending the WIs and FTIs.
However, Cohen does disclose
wherein the smooth transition is achieved by blending the WIs and FTIs. [See Cohen [0006] Fusing wide/tele images.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Goldenberg does not explicitly disclose
wherein the switching from displaying WIs to displaying STIs is performed at an up-transfer ZF value (ZF.sub.UP), wherein the switching from displaying STIs to displaying WIs is performed at a down-transfer ZF value (ZF.sub.DOWN), and wherein ZF.sub.UP≥ZF.sub.DOWN.
However, Cohen does disclose
wherein the switching from displaying WIs to displaying STIs is performed at an up-transfer ZF value (ZF.sub.UP), wherein the switching from displaying STIs to displaying WIs is performed at a down-transfer ZF value (ZF.sub.DOWN), and wherein ZF.sub.UP≥ZF.sub.DOWN. [See Cohen [Fig. 4]]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Goldenberg discloses
wherein the Wide camera has an effective focal length of 2.5 mm-20 mm. [See Goldenberg [0011] Wide camera (i.e. non-folded camera) with 3-5mm focal length.]
Regarding claim 17, Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Goldenberg discloses
wherein the zoom camera is included in a smartphone. [See Goldenberg [0075] Smart phone.]
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldenberg (US 20180024329) in view of Cohen (US 20180184010) in view of Bates (US 20110164108) and in further view of Price et al. (herein after will be referred to as Price) (US 20140071309).
Regarding claim 3, Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Goldenberg does not explicitly disclose
wherein data from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) is used to calculate an expected pixel shift in the WIs and FTIs.
However, Price does disclose
wherein data from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) is used to calculate an expected pixel shift in the WIs and FTIs. [See Price [0014] Gyroscope and accelerometer information are used to identify an amount of pixel shift.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) to add the teachings of Price, in order to utilize obvious electronic devices for assisting the image processing. This will improve upon the image processing.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldenberg (US 20180024329) in view of Cohen (US 20180184010) in view of Bates (US 20110164108) in view of Price (US 20140071309) and in further view of Baldwin (US Patent No. 9,232,138).
Regarding claim 4, Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Goldenberg does not explicitly disclose
wherein the zoom camera in addition is configured to perform electronic image stabilization (EIS).
However, Baldwin does disclose
wherein the zoom camera in addition is configured to perform electronic image stabilization (EIS). [See Baldwin [Fig. 1] Camera with EIS or OIS.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) to add the teachings of Baldwin, in order to apply EIS and OIS across their respective ranges of effectiveness [See Baldwin [Col. 2 lines 5-6]]. EIS and OIS each have their own respective advantages and disadvantages.
Regarding claim 5, Goldenberg (modified by Cohen, Bates and Baldwin) disclose the device of claim 4. Furthermore, Goldenberg does not explicitly disclose
wherein data from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) is used to calculate an expected pixel shift in the WIs and STIs.
However, Price does disclose
wherein data from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) is used to calculate an expected pixel shift in the WIs and STIs. [See Price [0014] Gyroscope and accelerometer information are used to identify an amount of pixel shift.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Goldenberg (modified by Cohen, Bates and Baldwin) to add the teachings of Price, in order to utilize obvious electronic devices for assisting the image processing. This will improve upon the image processing.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldenberg (US 20180024329) in view of Cohen (US 20180184010) in view of Bates (US 20110164108) and in further view of Roulet et al. (herein after will be referred to as Roulet) (US 20190213710).
Regarding claim 9, Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Goldenberg does not explicitly disclose
wherein the smooth transition is achieved by applying blurring on the WIs and/or the FTIs.
However, Roulet does disclose
wherein the smooth transition is achieved by applying blurring on the WIs and/or the FTIs. [See Roulet [0032-0033] Apply image blur for continuous zoom optical system.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) to add the teachings of Roulet, in order provide an alternative way of providing the smooth transition in Cohen to maintain a high quality of image information [See Roulet [0006]].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldenberg (US 20180024329) in view of Cohen (US 20180184010) in view of Bates (US 20110164108) and in further view of Baldwin (US Patent No. 9,232,138).
Regarding claim 13, Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Goldenberg does not explicitly disclose
wherein the FTC is operative to maintain a selected scene within a particular position within n-FOV.sub.T, and wherein the actuation for OIS is performed at high frequencies of 50 Hz or higher, and wherein an actuation for maintaining the selected scene within the particular position within n-FOV.sub.T is performed at low frequencies of 20 Hz or lower.
However, Baldwin does disclose
wherein the FTC is operative to maintain a selected scene within a particular position within n-FOV.sub.T, and wherein the actuation for OIS is performed at high frequencies of 50 Hz or higher, and wherein an actuation for maintaining the selected scene within the particular position within n-FOV.sub.T is performed at low frequencies of 20 Hz or lower. [See Baldwin [Col. 4 1st para.] OIS frequency range between 0 and 10 Hz, where as EIS operates at higher frequencies which depend on frame rate of the camera. Example of 30fps equates 30Hz for EIS. Therefore, when running at 60fps or higher, the EIS frequency will be at 60Hz or higher.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) to add the teachings of Baldwin, in order to apply EIS and OIS across their respective ranges of effectiveness [See Baldwin [Col. 2 lines 5-6]].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldenberg (US 20180024329) in view of Cohen (US 20180184010) in view of Bates (US 20110164108) and in further view of Varekamp (US 20220139023).
Regarding claim 13, Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) disclose the device of claim 1. Furthermore, Goldenberg does not explicitly disclose
wherein for providing the smooth transition, the zoom camera performs one or more calculation steps, and
wherein in at least one of the one or more calculation steps hardware acceleration is used.
However, Cohen does disclose
wherein for providing the smooth transition, the zoom camera performs one or more calculation steps, and [See Cohen [0047]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Goldenberg to add the teachings of Cohen, in order to improve upon optical zoom from commonly encountered problems and disadvantages [See Cohen [0011]].
Goldenberg (modified by Cohen) do not explicitly disclose
wherein in at least one of the one or more calculation steps hardware acceleration is used.
However, Varekamp does disclose
wherein in at least one of the one or more calculation steps hardware acceleration is used. [See Varekamp [0135] Blending two images together via hardware acceleration.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Goldenberg (modified by Cohen and Bates) to add the teachings of Varekamp, in order to speed up the calculation/processing time for image processing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210185198
WO 2018/167581
US 20190155002
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486