DETAILED ACTION
I. 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 .
II. Response to Amendment
The response, filed February 24, 2026, has been entered and made of record. Claims 1,3-9,11, and 12 are pending in the application.
III. Response to Arguments
A. Applicant’s arguments regarding the limitations of claim 2, now included in claim 1, and Takayanagi, have been considered and are persuasive. The rejection based on that reference has been withdrawn. After considering Applicant’s remarks and reconsidering the combination of references, the examiner agrees that that Takayanagi’s disclosure is insufficient to remedy the deficiencies of the other combined references.
B. Applicant’s arguments regarding Baek are moot due to the new grounds of rejection below. The reference will not be used to satisfy the display of a serial number as recited in amended claim 7.
IV. 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 7,11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ip et al.
(US 2012/0098981 A1) in view of Manowitz et al. (US 2001/0028798 A1) in view of Toyoda (US 2012/0182440 A1) in view of Baek et al. (US 2016/0241784 A1) and further in view of Ramirez et al. (US # 6,504,575 B1).
As to claim 7, Ip et al. teaches an electronic device (Fig. 7, image capture system “700”), comprising:
an image capturer (Fig. 7, image capture unit “710”) configured to perform a recording operation on a dynamic image ([0039], lines 5-8);
a display (Fig. 7, display unit “720”) configured to display a recorded image ([0039], lines 5-8);
a sensor (Fig. 7, sensor “750”) configured to sense movement information of the electronic device ([0039], third-to-last and second-to-last lines); and
a controller (Fig. 7, processing unit “730”) coupled to the image capturer, the display, and the sensor (Fig. 7) and configured to ([0039], lines 18 and 19):
generate a photographing start signal according to movement information of the
image capturer (Fig. 2, “S230” and “S240”; {The examiner submits that Ip’s system inherently includes generation of a signal that enables the photography process.}); and
enable the image capturer to perform a photographing operation of the recorded
image according to the photographing start signal (Fig. 7, “S240”) to obtain a static image ([0039], lines 8-10, “…image captured…during a photography process.”).
The claim differs from Ip et al. in that it further requires (1) that the controller performs a zooming operation on a local area of the recorded image by receiving a zooming command, (2) that the controller displays a zoomed image on the display, that the controller generates the photographing start signal based on (3) a magnification of the zooming operation and (4) a duration of the zoomed image in addition to the movement information, and (5) that a photographing completion message is displayed through the display after the photographing operation is completed, (6) which includes a serial number of the static image.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Manowitz et al. discloses an image capture system that performs an automatic photography process (Fig. 7) similar to Ip’s process. Manowitz et al. discloses a camera (Fig. 1, camera device “110”) comprising an optical lens (Fig. 2, lens “220”) that can be set for a specific zoom level ([0041], lines 7-9). Based on the detected camera motion and a zoom setting of the lens (3) ([0056]), a camera controller (Fig. 1, control module “118”) calculates a composite motion threshold and captures an image based on comparison of the detected camera motion to the calculated threshold ([0057], lines 7-11).
Still, a combination of Ip et al. and Manowitz et al. still fails to teach the generation of a photography start signal based on a duration of the zoomed image. However, further in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Toyoda discloses a camera (Fig. 2, camera “100”) that, like Ip et al. and Manowitz et al., performs an automatic photography process (Fig. 4). A controller of Toyoda’s camera continuously controls capture (e.g., Fig. 4, “S1”) and display of preview images (e.g., Fig. 4, “S3”) while a user moves the camera and adjusts its zoom level (1), (2) (Fig. 4, “S7” - No). The controller instructs final image capture if camera motion is temporally constant within a threshold ([0066], lines 1-5) and if zoom speed is temporally constant within a threshold speed range (4) ([0066], lines 5 and 6).
In light of the teaching of Manowitz et al. and Toyoda, the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design Ip’s device for zooming, to account for device stability based on at least the zoom setting of the associated lens, and to enable Ip’s photography process when the device is stable at a specific zoom level and the speed of the zoom lens has remained temporally constant within a certain tolerance. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that equipping Ip’s image capture system with a zoom lens would allow the user to clearly capture objects at comparatively longer or shorter distances. Furthermore, by assessing motion at different zoom levels, the device can capture acceptably clear images during Ip’s automatic photography when otherwise undesirable camera motion is unlikely to affect image quality and can ensure that blur-free images are captured when camera motion is likely to affect image quality (see Manowitz et al., [0054], lines 5-9). Finally, instructing image capture after detecting a constant zoom speed would prevent unintended capture of low-quality images when the user is framing the scene.
Further in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Baek et al. teaches a mobile device with camera functionality and a display (Fig. 6H) that displays text indicating that image capture is complete (5) ([0238]). Lastly, in the same field of endeavor, Ramirez et al. discloses a camera with a display (Fig. 4) that displays an image with its overlaid serial number after capture (6) (Fig. 4, “Image # 315”; col. 7, lines 33-49). In light of the teaching of Baek et al. and Ramirez et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to display text on Ip’s display indicating that the photography process is complete with its serial number because this would provide feedback to the user regarding the progress of the automatic photography, ensuring that he or she is aware of when image capture has been successfully performed, and also inform the user as to how to access the image in the future.
As to claim 11, Ip et al., as modified by Manowitz et al., Toyoda, Baek et al., and Ramirez et al., teaches the electronic device according to claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to obtain the magnification according to a zoom factor of the zooming command (see Manowitz et al., [0056]; {The claimed magnification is Manowitz’s zoom setting, which necessarily has an associated zoom factor.}).
As to claim 12, Ip et al., as modified by Manowitz et al., Toyoda, Baek et al., and Ramirez et al., teaches the electronic device according to claim 7. Although it is not stated expressly in Ip et al., the examiner takes official notice to the use of a gyroscope in a camera for determining its motion as well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a gyroscope as Ip’s motion sensor because these devices can be implemented in small-form factor devices and can produce highly accurate motion measurement.
As Applicant has failed to adequately traverse the examiner’s statement of official notice above, the subject matter of that statement is now considered admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03(c).
V. Allowable Subject Matter
A. Claims 1 and 3-6 allowed, and Applicant is directed to section III above for the examiner’s reasons for allowance of claim 1. Claims 3-6 are allowed because they depend on claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
B. Claims 8 and 9 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. The reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter of claim 8 are same as those as the reasons for allowance of claim 1. Claim 9 is allowable because ti depends on claim 8.
VI. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)272-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
/ANTHONY J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
5/30/2026
Prosecution Insights