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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 26, 35, 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peterson et al. (US 2020/0311957 A1) hereinafter referenced as Peterson.
Regarding claim 26, Peterson discloses
An electronic device comprising:
a device orientation sensor (203/205; [0041]; fig. 3);
a first image sensor (110; fig. 2);
a second image sensor (115; fig. 2);
machine readable instructions (Inherent for the processor to carry out the process of fig. 5; [0045])); and
at least one processor circuit (405; fig. 4) to be programmed by the machine readable instructions to ([0045]):
determine a detected orientation of the electronic device based on data from the device orientation sensor (509; fig. 5);
select one of the first image sensor or the second image sensor based on the detected orientation of the electronic device, the first image sensor (110) associated with a first orientation (Portrait orientation); of the electronic device, the second image sensor (115) associated with a second orientation (landscape orientation) of the electronic device (505, 511; fig. 5; [0029], [0056]-[0058]); and
activate the selected one of the first image sensor or the second image sensor to collect image data (507; fig. 5).
Regarding claim 35, it recites similar limitations to claim 26 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 26).
Regarding claim 44, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 26. Thus, claim 44 is an inherent variation of claim 26 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 26).
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.
Claim(s) 27, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Leng et al. (US 2024/0007583 A1) hereinafter referenced as Leng.
Regarding claim 27, Peterson discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 26), however, Peterson, fails to explicitly disclose generating a virtual sensor device to encapsulate and control the first and second image sensor. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Leng.
In a similar field of endeavor, Leng discloses wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to generate a virtual sensor device (Camera HAL3 API; fig. 1a), the virtual sensor device to encapsulate and control the first image sensor and the second image sensor, the virtual sensor device to be exposed to components of the electronic device ([0068]; Camera application obtains the images captured by the physical cameras from the HAL).
Peterson teaches a device having a portrait image sensor and a landscape image sensor wherein the device switches between the two sensors based on the orientation of the device. Leng teaches generating a virtual sensor device that encapsulates the two physical image sensors of a device so that applications are only exposed to the virtual sensor device and do not interact with the physical cameras directly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Peterson by applying the technique of Leng to achieve the predictable result of controlling the two cameras more stably according to selected applications.
Regarding claim 36, it recites similar limitations to claim 27 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 27).
Claim(s) 28, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Li et al. (CN105530385) hereinafter referenced as Li.
Regarding claim 28, Peterson discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 26), however, Peterson, fails to explicitly disclose the sensors enter a standby mode after an application that utilizes sensed image data is launched. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Li.
In a similar field of endeavor, Li discloses wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to enter the (Step 101).
Peterson teaches selecting between two cameras when capturing images. Li teaches that when a camera application launches the camera to be used is set to a standby state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Peterson by applying the technique of setting the cameras in a standby mode in response to the camera application being launched to achieve the predictable result of saving power until the cameras are actually required.
Regarding claim 37, it recites similar limitations to claim 28 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 28).
Claim(s) 29-30, 38-39, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Li further in view of Yeo et al. (US 2019/0236765 A1) hereinafter referenced as Yeo.
Regarding claim 29, Peterson and Li, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 28), however, the combination, fails to explicitly disclose activating one of the sensors and leaving the other sensor in a standby mode. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Yeo.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yeo discloses wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to activate the selected one of the first image sensor or the second image sensor and cause the selected one of the first image sensor or the second image sensor to enter a stream mode, and the other one of the first image sensor or the second image sensor is to remain in the standby mode ([0064]; When the first camera is active, the second camera is in a low power mode and when the second camera is active, the first camera is in a low power mode.).
The combination teaches switching between two cameras. Yeo teaches when selecting one camera to be active, the other camera is set to a low power mode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the undisclosed state of the non-selected camera with a low-power state to achieve the predictable result of saving power when an image from that camera is not used.
Regarding claim 30, Peterson discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 36), in addition, Peterson discloses,
wherein the detected orientation corresponds to the first orientation (Portrait orientation), the selected one of the first image sensor or the second image sensor is the first image sensor (110 is the portrait camera), and one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to:
detect a change in orientation of the electronic device to the second orientation (505; fig. 5);
select the second image sensor after the change to the second orientation (511; fig. 5);
activate the second image sensor to collect image data after the change to the second orientation (505; fig. 5).
However, Peterson, fails to explicitly disclose the state of the non-selected camera. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Yeo.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yeo discloses place the first image sensor into a standby mode after [selecting the second image sensor].
Peterson teaches detecting a change from a portrait orientation to a landscape orientation and, in response, changing the selected camera from the portrait camera to the landscape camera. Yeo teaches placing inactive cameras in a low power mode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the undisclosed state of the non-selected camera with a low-power state to achieve the predictable result of saving power when an image from that camera is not used.
Regarding claim 38, it recites similar limitations to claim 29 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 29).
Regarding claim 39, it recites similar limitations to claim 30 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 30).
Regarding claim 45, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 30. Thus, claim 45 is an inherent variation of claim 30 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 30).
Claim(s) 31-34, 40-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Silvester (US 2012/0229380 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Peterson discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 26), in addition, Peterson discloses, wherein the first orientation corresponds to a portrait orientation of the electronic device ([0029]).
However, Peterson, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed location of the first image sensor on the device. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Silvester.
In a similar field of endeavor, Silvester discloses the first image sensor (203; fig. 2) is positioned adjacent to a first edge of the electronic device that corresponds to a horizontal edge of the electronic device when the electronic device is in the portrait orientation.
Peterson teaches a portrait image sensor and a landscape image sensor. Silvester teaches a portrait image sensor and a landscape image sensor wherein the portrait image sensor is located on a horizontal edge of the device when in the portrait orientation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the position of the portrait image sensor in Peterson with the position of the portrait image sensor in Peterson to achieve the predictable result of avoiding the fingers of a user.
Regarding claim 32, Peterson and Silvester, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 31), in addition, Peterson discloses, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to select the first image sensor based on the detected orientation of the electronic device corresponding to the portrait orientation (fig. 5; [0029]).
Regarding claim 33, Peterson discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 26), in addition, Peterson discloses, wherein the second orientation corresponds to a landscape orientation of the electronic device ([0029]).
However, Peterson, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed location of the first image sensor on the device. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Silvester.
In a similar field of endeavor, Silvester discloses the second image sensor (204 fig. 2) is positioned adjacent to a second edge of the electronic device that corresponds to a horizontal edge of the electronic device when the electronic device is in the landscape orientation.
Peterson teaches a portrait image sensor and a landscape image sensor. Silvester teaches a portrait image sensor and a landscape image sensor wherein the landscape image sensor is located on a horizontal edge of the device when in the landscape orientation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the position of the portrait image sensor in Peterson with the position of the portrait image sensor in Peterson to achieve the predictable result of avoiding the fingers of a user.
Regarding claim 34, Peterson and Silvester, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 33), in addition, Peterson discloses, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to select the second image sensor based on the detected orientation of the electronic device corresponding to the landscape orientation (fig. 5; [0029]).
Regarding claim 40, it recites similar limitations to claim 31 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 31).
Regarding claim 41, it recites similar limitations to claim 32 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 32).
Regarding claim 42, it recites similar limitations to claim 33 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 33).
Regarding claim 43, it recites similar limitations to claim 34 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 34).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Babon et al. (US 2023/0088309 A1) teaches a device having a landscape image sensor (160) and a portrait image sensor (150; fig. 1).
Choi et al. (US 2023/0011755 A1) teaches leaving the non-selected image sensors in a standby mode to minimize latency with regard to camera switching ([0105]).
Liu et al. (US 2021/0360172 A1) teaches seamless transitioning between two cameras (fig. 7).
Jeong (WO 2022/0186496 A1) teaches switching cameras that are not being used to a standby state.
Siu (US 2022/0201224 A1) teaches a device having a portrait image sensor and a landscape image sensor (figs. 1-2) and selecting between the two based on an orientation (fig. 6A).
Lee et al. (US 2018/0295292 A1) teaches switching cameras that are not being used to a standby state ([0053]).
Hamel et al. (US 2014/0176767 A1) teaches switching cameras that are not being used to a standby state ([0094]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BERARDESCA whose telephone number is (571)270-3579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 10-8, Fri 10-2.
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.
PAUL M. BERARDESCA
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/PAUL M BERARDESCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 1/10/2026