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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/8/2024 and 4/1/2025 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 11 recites, “A computer-readable storage medium, configured to store a computer program…”. An Examiner is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during examination. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a program for causing a computer to perform a process typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal, per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, given the open-ended language of the disclosure and the broadest reasonable interpretation, the program for causing a computer to perform a process of the claim may include transitory propagating signals. As a result, the claim pertains to non-statutory subject matter.
However, the Examiner respectfully submits that a claim drawn to program that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory computer readable medium” to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
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 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. US 2022/0247929.
Re claim 1, Yang discloses a photographing method, applied to an electronic device (electronic device 100 operates in time lapse shooting mode)(figure 1; paragraphs 110-111, 168), wherein the method comprises: displaying a first image in a photographing interface, wherein the first image is a preview image captured for a first scene (first preview image is captured and displayed in preview interface 302)(figure 2A; paragraphs 51, 168-176); determining, in response to a photographing operation of a user, whether the first scene is the same as a scene in previous photographing; when the first scene is the same as the scene in previous photographing, determining, as a target exposure parameter, an exposure parameter used for previous photographing; and photographing the first scene based on the target exposure parameter (processor 110 detects current shooting scenario, determines a target shooting parameter that matches the current scenario and obtains a plurality of photos by capturing images with the determined target shooting parameters) (paragraphs 51, 168-176).
Re claim 10, claim 10 discloses an electronic device comprising a processor and a memory to store a computer program to invoke and execute the computer program to enable the electronic device to perform the method of claim 1 and includes limitations nearly identical to the limitations disclosed in claim 1 above. Therefore, the rejection provided above in relation to claim 1 also applies to claim 10.
Re claim 11, claim 11 discloses a computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program that comprises instructions to implement the method of claim 1 and includes limitations nearly identical to the limitations disclosed in claim 1 above. Therefore, the rejection provided above in relation to claim 1 also applies to claim 11.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. US 2022/0247929 in view of Veit et al. US 2021/0360157.
Re claim 5, Yang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses determining whether a first scene is the same as a scene in previous photographing (processor 110 detects current shooting scenario, determines a target shooting parameter that matches the current scenario and obtains a plurality of photos by capturing images with the determined target shooting parameters) (paragraphs 51, 168-176). However, although the Yang reference discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above, it fails to specifically disclose that determining whether a first scene is the same as a scene in previous photographing comprises: calculating a similarity between the first image and a third image captured during the previous photographing and when the similarity is less than or equal to a second preset threshold, determining that the first scene is the same as the scene in previous photographing.
Veit discloses that it is well known in the imaging art to analyze motion and light intensity values of a captured scene by comparing to thresholds and to determine a similarity of scenes by comparing to thresholds and to select a same camera mode for capture when scenes are determined to be similar (paragraphs 128-142). 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 calculating a similarity between captured images as disclosed by the Veit reference in the photographing method disclosed by the Yang reference. Doing so would provide a means for easily analyzing and assessing different image capturing parameters of captured images in order to determine similarity of image scenes captured by an imaging device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6-9 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re claims 2-4, the prior art fails to teach or suggest a photographing method, applied to an electronic device having the specific configurations disclosed in claims 2-4, wherein the method comprises: displaying a first image in a photographing interface, wherein the first image is a preview image captured for a first scene; determining, in response to a photographing operation of a user, whether the first scene is the same as a scene in previous photographing; when the first scene is the same as the scene in previous photographing, determining, as a target exposure parameter, an exposure parameter used for previous photographing; and photographing the first scene based on the target exposure parameter, wherein the method further comprises: determining, when the first scene is different from the scene in previous photographing, whether luminance of the first image meets a preset condition; and when the luminance of the first image meets the preset condition, determining, as the target exposure parameter, an exposure parameter used to generate the first image; or when the luminance of the first image does not meet the preset condition, adjusting an exposure parameter until luminance of a second image displayed by using the photographing interface meets the preset condition, and determining, as the target exposure parameter, an exposure parameter used to generate the second image, wherein the second image is another preview image captured for the first scene, the exposure parameter used to generate the first image is different from the exposure parameter used to generate the second image, the preset condition is that a difference between target luminance and current luminance is less than or equal to a first preset threshold and the target luminance is greater than or equal to the current luminance, the target luminance is actual luminance of the first scene, and the current luminance is luminance of a currently captured preview image. The prior art fails to specifically disclose a photographing method applied to an electronic device including determining when a first scene is different from a scene in previous photographing in the exact configuration disclosed in the claims and specification.
Re claim 6, the prior art fails to teach or suggest a photographing method, applied to an electronic device having the specific configurations disclosed in claim 6, wherein the method comprises: displaying a first image in a photographing interface, wherein the first image is a preview image captured for a first scene; determining, in response to a photographing operation of a user, whether the first scene is the same as a scene in previous photographing; when the first scene is the same as the scene in previous photographing, determining, as a target exposure parameter, an exposure parameter used for previous photographing; and photographing the first scene based on the target exposure parameter, wherein the determining whether the first scene is the same as a scene in previous photographing comprises: calculating a similarity between the first image and a third image captured during the previous photographing; and when the similarity is less than or equal to a second preset threshold, determining that the first scene is the same as the scene in previous photographing, wherein the calculating a similarity between the first image and a third image captured during the previous photographing comprises: obtaining a first histogram corresponding to the first image, wherein the first histogram represents an association relationship between a quantity of pixels of the first image and a gray level; obtaining a second histogram corresponding to the third image, wherein the second histogram represents an association relationship between a quantity of pixels in the third image and a gray level; and calculating a similarity diff between the first histogram and the second histogram by using the following formula: diff =
d
i
f
f
n
=
∑
k
=
0
n
H
1
k
-
H
2
k
2
H
1
k
+
H
2
(
k
)
/
, wherein H1[[(k)]] is a quantity of pixels corresponding to a gray level k in the first histogram, H2[[(k)]] is a quantity of pixels corresponding to a gray level k in the second histogram, and n =255. The prior art fails to specifically disclose a photographing method applied to an electronic device including determining when a first scene is different from a scene in previous photographing in the exact configuration disclosed in the claims and specification.
Re claims 7-9, the prior art fails to teach or suggest a photographing method, applied to an electronic device having the specific configurations disclosed in claims 7-9, wherein the method comprises: displaying a first image in a photographing interface, wherein the first image is a preview image captured for a first scene; determining, in response to a photographing operation of a user, whether the first scene is the same as a scene in previous photographing; when the first scene is the same as the scene in previous photographing, determining, as a target exposure parameter, an exposure parameter used for previous photographing; and photographing the first scene based on the target exposure parameter, wherein the method further comprises: wherein the method further comprises: determining, in response to the photographing operation of the user, whether a dynamic range DR parameter of a first preview image reaches a preset threshold, wherein the first preview image is a preview image displayed in the photographing interface when the electronic device receives the photographing operation of the user; when the DR parameter reaches the preset threshold, separately processing a photographed raw image in a first processing manner and a second processing manner, to separately obtain a fourth image and a fifth image, wherein YUV of the fourth image is different from YUV of the fifth image, and the first preview image and the raw image are images captured for a same scene; performing fusion processing on the fourth image and the fifth image to obtain a target image; and displaying the target image. The prior art fails to specifically disclose a photographing method applied to an electronic device including determining when a first scene is different from a scene in previous photographing in the exact configuration disclosed in the claims and specification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al. US 2022/0053143 discloses a mobile device capable of capturing and displaying a preview image and determining a similarity between the preview image and a background image.
Park et al. US 2021/0136297 discloses an electronic device for capturing and displaying a preview image and comparing a scene to a set threshold.
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