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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an applications filed in Korea on 8/31/2023 and 9/27/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed certified copies of the Korean applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/29/2024, 3/19/2025 and 8/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-6 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S et al. US 2016/0110093 in view of Lee et al. US 2016/0212328.
Re claims 1 and 11, S discloses an electronic device (mobile phone or smart phone 100 can execute a camera application and may include a camera module) and a method for controlling an electronic device comprising: a camera (camera application/camera module); at least one processor comprising processing circuitry; at least one display (screen 102); a sensor having a sensing region on a side surface of the electronic device (threshold areas on edges 104, 106 of screen include touch sensors for detecting swipe gestures by a finger of a user)(figures 1A-2, 19A,B,21,31; paragraphs 68-88, 262-274); and a memory (storage unit 208), wherein the memory stores instructions, and wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to: execute a camera application for controlling the camera (device 100 can execute a camera application for controlling the camera) (figure 31; paragraphs 77,88,262); sense a vertical swipe input through the sensor; control a first function, based on the vertical swipe input (user may input a vertical swipe gesture on an edge 104, 106 to control the electronic device) (figures 19A,B; paragraphs 186-194); sense a horizontal swipe input through the sensor; and control a second function, based on the horizontal swipe input (user may input a horizontal swipe gesture on an edge 104, 106 to control the electronic device) (figure 21; paragraphs 204-211). Although the S reference discloses all of the limitations above, it fails to specifically disclose that a first function of a camera is controlled based on a vertical swipe input and that a second function of the camera is controlled based on a horizontal swipe input.
However, Lee et al. discloses that it is well known in the image processing art for an image capturing apparatus to include a touch screen that may display various touch sensitive buttons configured to execute functions of an image photographing device 100, 300 such as autofocus and image capture according to a touch or swipe operation of a user (figures 1, 6-7B; paragraphs 47-56, 87-92). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include the teaching of adjusting different camera functions in accordance with a swipe input operation of a camera user as disclosed by the Lee et al. reference in the electronic device including a touch screen display disclosed by the S reference. Doing so would provide a means for allowing a user of a touch screen electronic device to easily change camera settings by actuating a touch screen on the electronic device through a swipe motion.
Re claims 2 and 12, S further discloses that the sensor is disposed on a side surface of the electronic device and is configured to sense a touch input and a pressure input on the side surface of the electronic device (threshold areas on edges 104, 106 of screen 102 include touch sensors for detecting swipe gestures by a finger of a user) (figures 1-2, 19A,B, 21; paragraphs 68-88, 186-194, 204-211).
Re claims 3 and 13, Lee et al. further discloses an actuator configured to provide a haptic feedback in response to the vertical swipe input and/or the horizontal swipe input (haptic unit 130 creates vibrations that correspond to user commands input on the touch sensitive display) (figures 1, 6-7B; paragraphs 47-56, 87-92).
Re claims 4-6 and 14-16, S further discloses that the sensing region comprises a top portion, a bottom portion, a front portion, and a rear portion, wherein the vertical swipe input comprises an input swiping from the top portion to the bottom portion or from the bottom portion to the top portion, and wherein the horizontal swipe input comprises an input swiping from the rear portion to the front portion or from the front portion to the rear portion (sensing regions in edges 104, 106 of screen 102 includes top and bottom portions for a vertical swiping and includes front and rear portions for horizontal swiping) (figures 19A,B, 21; paragraphs 186-194, 204-211).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S et al. US 2016/0110093 in view of Lee et al. US 2016/0212328 and further in view of Lee US 2014/0354874.
Re claims 7 and 17, the combination of the S and Lee et al. references discloses all of the limitations of claims 2 and 11 above. In addition, Lee et al. discloses that touch screen 272 includes a touch pressure sensor 273 to detect touch pressure (figure 2; paragraph 60). Although the combination discloses all of the limitations above, it fails to specifically disclose that based on input having a pressure higher than a first pressure level being sensed through the sensor, control the camera to maintain focus on a subject; and based on the input having a pressure higher than a second pressure level being sensed through the sensor while maintaining a pressure higher than the first pressure level, control the camera to capture an image of the subject.
However, Lee discloses that it is well known in the image processing art for an image capturing apparatus to perform focus control when a half press function at a first pressure is detected and to perform an image capture when a second pressure greater than a first pressure is detected) (paragraphs 73-74). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include the teaching of performing a focus control when a half press function at a first pressure is detected and performing an image capture operation when a second pressure greater than the first pressure is detected as disclosed by the Lee reference in the electronic device including a touch screen display disclosed by the combination of the S and Lee et al. references. Doing so would provide a means for controlling different camera operations according to a touching pressure applied by a camera user.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S et al. US 2016/0110093 in view of Lee et al. US 2016/0212328 and further in view of Harris et al. US 2015/0350533.
Re claims 8 and 18, the combination of the S and Lee et al. references discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 above. Although the combination discloses all of the limitations above, it fails to specifically disclose that camera settings are controlled to be switched from an automatic image capture mode to a manual image capture mode based on a horizontal swipe input being sensed through the sensor.
However, Harris discloses that it is well known in the image processing art for an image capturing apparatus (100) to allow a camera user to use finger swipe gestures to adjust camera mode settings between manual and automatic image capture modes) (paragraph 30). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include the teaching of allowing a user to use finger swipe gestures to adjust camera mode settings between manual and automatic image capture modes as disclosed by the Harris reference in the electronic device including a touch screen display disclosed by the combination of the S and Lee et al. references. Doing so would provide a means for controlling different camera operations according to a swipe operation performed by a camera user.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S et al. US 2016/0110093 in view of Lee et al. US 2016/0212328 and further in view of Morgenstern US 2016/0360118.
Re claims 9 and 19, the combination of the S and Lee et al. references discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 above. Although the combination discloses all of the limitations above, it fails to specifically disclose that the camera comprises a first camera and a second camera, and the processor is configured to switch the camera such that an image acquired through the first camera is acquired though the second camera based on the vertical swipe input being sensed through the sensor.
However, Morgenstern discloses that it is well known in the image processing art for an image capturing apparatus to include a first camera (212) and a second camera (210), and a processor configured to switch the camera such that an image acquired through the first camera (212) is acquired though the second camera (212) based on the vertical swipe input being sensed through the sensor (camera sources are switched based on a swipe operation on a touch screen display) (figure 2; paragraph 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include the teaching of switching a camera source for capturing images based on a swipe operation on a touch screen display as disclosed by the Morgenstern reference in the electronic device including a touch screen display disclosed by the combination of the S and Lee et al. references. Doing so would provide a means for controlling different camera operations according to a swipe operation performed by a camera user.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S et al. US 2016/0110093 in view of Lee et al. US 2016/0212328 and further in view of Hwang et al. US 2021/0112206.
Re claims 10 and 20, the combination of the S and Lee et al. references discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 above. Although the combination discloses all of the limitations above, it fails to specifically disclose that magnification of a camera may be controlled based on a vertical swipe input.
However, Hwang discloses that it is well known in the image processing art for an image capturing apparatus to calculate a scroll speed corresponding to a swipe touch input by a user and to adjust camera magnification based on the swipe touch operation (figures 5B, 6B; abstract, paragraph 135). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include the teaching of adjusting camera magnification settings based on a swipe touch operation as disclosed by the Hwang reference in the electronic device including a touch screen display disclosed by the combination of the S and Lee et al. references. Doing so would provide a means for controlling different camera operations according to a swipe operation performed by a camera user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Poindexter, Jr. US 2019/0174069 discloses an imaging device including a touch sensitive screen for providing user input and for providing haptic feedback.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly L. Jerabek whose telephone number is (571) 272-7312. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, George Eng can be reached at (571) 272-7495. The fax phone number for submitting all Official communications is (571) 273-7300. The fax phone number for submitting informal communications such as drafts, proposed amendments, etc., may be faxed directly to the Examiner at (571) 273-7312.
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 .
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).
/KELLY L JERABEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699