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 .
This action is in response to Amendments and Remarks filed on 04/06/2026
Application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/090886 05/05/2022
Claims 1, 11 and 26 are independent
Claims 21-25 were previously cancelled
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 11, 13-16, 18-20, 26 and 28-30 have been amended
Claims 1-20 and 26-30 are pending
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant's amendments and remarks filed on 04/06/2026. They have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Claims amendments and Remarks with regards to 35 U.S.C § 112(a) are persuasive and these rejections have therefore been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with regards to Prior art rejection has been fully considered, but the amendments are not sufficient to overcome the rejections, not are the Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
However, to expedite prosecution, Examiner has brought in a new reference to teach the limitations of the amended claims as detailed in the following action. Applicants arguments with regards to dependent claim 4, appears to be persuasive and therefore claims 4, 14 and 29 have been objected.
With regards to claims 6-9 and 16-19, since Applicants arguments with regards to Kuwabara was his failure to overcome deficiencies of Wu, Examiner has continued to use the teachings of Kuwabara to reject claims 8 and 18 as detailed in the following action.
With regards to the above arguments, Examiner would like to maintain the rejections as detailed in the following action.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-13, 16-17, 19-20 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fleming et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0109585 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Fleming discloses a computing device (Fig 1- System 100) comprising:
a bus (In ¶0147 Fleming discloses that processor 1212 communicates via a bus 1218);
one or more memories comprising computer-executable code (In ¶0147 Fleming discloses that processor 1212 communicates with memory 1214 and non-volatile memory 1216 via a bus 1218); and
one or more processors (Fig 1 - processor 106) configured to execute the computer-executable code to cause the computing device (In ¶0109 Fleming discloses that machine readable instructions for training manager 132 of Figs 1-5 and shown in Fig 6-11 may be executable program for execution by a computer processor and/or processor circuitry) to:
receive, from an application running on the computing device, a camera close call (In ¶0042, Fleming discloses that the in some examples the user input detection sensor 116 detects the user input requesting the image sensor 122 to be turned off via a user interaction with a graphical user interface);
receive, from the application, information (In Fig 4, Fleming discloses speech context image analyzer, visual context data; See Fig 5, 6) indicating whether is associated with a close of the camera or a mode switch of the camera (In ¶0099 and in Fig 4, Fleming further discloses that the low power operations controller 130 may use the context detection model 450 and in ¶0104 he also discloses that the audio vision based context engine implements the imaging mode controller 432 to cause the image sensor 122 to switch between different modes based on the presence and/or engagement of the user); and
based on the context information or more of the processor or the bus (In ¶0105 Fleming further discloses that following the analysis of the image data, the example vision-based context engine 510 may transmit via a bus for further processing).
Regarding Claim 12, Fleming discloses wherein the camera close call is an application programming interface (API) call to an API of a framework running on the computing device (Throughout his disclosure, Fleming discloses about the use of application programming interface API in order to execute the instructions on a particular computing device).
Regarding Claim 13, Fleming discloses based on the camera close call, issue a camera close event to an interface between the framework and a camera driver the camera driver configured to control a camera sensor of the computing device (Fleming discloses this in the flowchart of Fig 8 where he discloses that when the system receives the image sensor to be off at step 802, an instruction is issued that “sets imaging system to off mode” in step 804. Also see ¶0110-¶0113 where he discloses implementation of executable instructions).
Regarding Claim 16, Fleming discloses wherein based on the context information (In Fig 4, Fleming discloses speech context image analyzer, visual context data; See Fig 5, 6) set the operation mode of the at least one or more of the processors or the bus the one or more processors (In ¶0147 Fleming discloses that processor 1212 communicates with memory 1214 and non-volatile memory 1216 via a bus 1218) are configured to cause the computing device to:
in response to the context information (In Fig 4, Fleming discloses speech context image analyzer, visual context data; See Fig 5, 6) indicating the camera close call is associated with the the camera (In ¶0042, Fleming discloses that the in some examples the user input detection sensor 116 detects the user input requesting the image sensor 122 to be turned off), set the operation mode of the at least one of the one or more processors or the bus (In ¶0147 Fleming discloses that processor 1212 communicates via a bus 1218) to a first operation mode (In ¶0099 and in Fig 4, Fleming further discloses that the low power operations controller 130 may use the context detection model 450 and in ¶0104 he also discloses that the audio vision based context engine implements the imaging mode controller 432 to cause the image sensor 122 to switch between different modes based on the presence and/or engagement of the user); and
in response to the context information indicating the camera close call is associated with the (In ¶0062 Fleming discloses that the low power operation controller 130 causes the circuitry to switch between active and idle modes as separate sub-modes within the interactive modes. He also disclose that the idle mode is a lower power mode that the active mode), set the operation mode of the at least one of the one or more processors or the bus to a second operation mode (Fleming in Fig 3 and in ¶0064-¶0069, Fleming discloses that a balanced mode is a lower power mode than the interactive mode).
Regarding Claim 17, Fleming discloses wherein the second operation mode corresponds to operating the processor at a higher frequency than the first operation mode (It is well known in the art and also as clarified in page 9 of the Remarks document filed on 04/06/2026 that frequency corresponds to CPU clock rate, that when a processor operates in a low-power mode, the clock speed is significantly reduced. Instead of operating at a peak speed, the processor downclocks to minimize hear and conserve battery life. Since Fleming discloses throughout his disclosure about operating in low and lower power mode, it is clear that Fleming discloses operating in a frequency higher than in a low power mode. See Fig 3 of Fleming and ¶0064-¶0069).
Regarding Claim 19, Fleming discloses wherein context information (Fleming: In Fig 4, Fleming discloses speech context image analyzer, visual context data; See Fig 5, 6) indicating the camera close call is associated with the close of the camera comprises context information indicating the camera close call is associated with at least one of: input on a close button of the computing device or input on a home button of the computing device (In ¶0042, Fleming discloses that the in some examples the user input detection sensor 116 detects the user input requesting the image sensor 122 to be turned off via a user interaction with a graphical user interface).
Regarding Claim 20, Fleming discloses wherein the processor is further configured to cause the computing device to: after setting the operation mode, deallocate resources for a camera sensor of the computing device (In ¶0032, ¶0037, ¶0039 and ¶0133 Fleming discloses that to reduce power consumption operations of the device may be switched between higher and lower power modes. It is therefore clear that when the processor switches from a high power mode to a lower one, the resources are deallocated.).
Regarding Claim 1-3, 6-7 and 9-10, these claims are methods claims that has limitation similar to claims 11-13, 16-17 and 19-20. Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 9-10 are therefore rejected on the same grounds as Claim 11-13, 16-17 and 19-20.
Regarding Claim 26-28, these claims are program claims that has limitation similar to claims 11-13. Claims 26-28 are therefore rejected on the same grounds as Claim 11-13.
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 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 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleming et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0109585 A1) in view of Kuwabara (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0356792 A1)
Regarding Claim 18, Fleming discloses context information (In Fig 4, Fleming discloses speech context image analyzer, visual context data; See Fig 5, 6) but fails to clearly disclose wherein the mode switch comprises at least one of: a change between a standard dynamic range mode and a high dynamic range mode, a change between capturing still images and capturing video, or a change between a first camera sensor and a second camera sensor.
Instead in a similar endeavor, Kuwabara discloses wherein the mode switch comprises at least one of: a change between a standard dynamic range mode and a high dynamic range mode, a change between capturing still images and capturing video, or a change between a first camera sensor and a second camera sensor (Kuwabara: Kuwabara teaches in ¶0074 that the mode changeover switch 60 switches an operation mode to any one of still image, recording mode, moving image, reproduction mode, connection mode and the like).
Fleming and Kuwabara are combinable because all are related to camera application programming.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use user input to change mode as taught by Kuwabara in the imaging module disclosed by Fleming.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “change the photographing” as is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fleming and Kuwabara to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
Regarding Claim 8, these claims are methods claims that has limitation similar to claims 18. Claim 8 are therefore rejected on the same grounds as Claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 14 and 29 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.
Claims 5 is objected as it depends on objected claim 4.
Claims 15 is objected as it depends on objected claim 14.
Claims 30 is objected as it depends on objected claim 29.
Reference Cited
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ghosh et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0381658 A1) discloses an information processing apparatus includes a first processor and a second processor. The first processor is operable to perform first processing and second processing in one of a plurality of operating states. The operating states includes a normal state and a power-saving state. The power-saving state is a state in which the first processor consumes less power than the normal state. The second processor is operable to perform the second processing while consuming less power than the first processor does. The second processor detects the first processing that the second processor is not able to perform. The second processor also causes the first processor to transition from the sleep state to the power-saving state to perform the first processing when the first processor is in a sleep state in which a power supply is stopped.
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 PADMA HALIYUR whose telephone number is (571)272-3287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM - 4PM.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/PADMA HALIYUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639 April 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights