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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant failed to include Claim 5 in its entirety – and all intervening claims – in the independent claims. Since then, it has come to the attention of the Examiner that Claim 5 should have been wholly rejected based solely on the prior art provided in the non-final rejection. Given that it is the responsibility of the Applicant to review the provided prior art in its entirety – not just the portions cited in the non-final rejection – and given the fact that the Applicant failed to incorporate Claim 5 in its entirety along with all intervening claims into the independent claims, the fact that the Examiner failed to recognize that Claim 5 should have been wholly rejected based on the provided prior art is rendered moot. As a result, this action will be made final.
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.
(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, 4, 6, & 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimosato (WO 2021240992 A1, hereinafter, "Shimosato").
Regarding Claim 1, Shimosato teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to execute an operation app of an optical system device including a plurality of lenses of different focal lengths including a zoom lens (Shimosato, pg. 4, para. 1, ln. 1, "The zoom lens drive unit 113 drives the zoom lens…"), and cause a display to display a first user interface that clearly indicates a section of optical zoom of the zoom lens for a zoom function of the lens included in the operation app (Shimosato, Step S309, pg. 7, ln. 3-5, "…the focal length related to the magnifying power in the zoom is 100 mm in the non-zoom state, 400 mm in the optical zoom state, and 800 mm in the optical zoom and the electronic zoom state. These three focal lengths [zoom state] are switched [toggled] in order each time the zoom button 74 is pressed."), wherein the first user interface includes an operation component on which scales that indicate focal lengths matching magnifications of the optical zoom and the digital zoom are indicated (Shimosato, Step S309, pg. 7, ln. 3-5, "…the focal length related to the magnifying power in the zoom is 100 mm in the non-zoom state, 400 mm in the optical zoom state, and 800 mm in the optical zoom and the electronic zoom state. These three focal lengths [zoom state] are switched [toggled] in order each time the zoom button 74 is pressed.").
Regarding Claim 4, Shimosato teaches the circuitry causes the display to display the first user interface that includes an oval button indicating a section of a value matching a variable focal length of the zoom lens (Shimosato, Fig. 1, pg. 7, para. 4, ln. 2-5, "In the present embodiment, the focal length related to the magnifying power in the zoom is 100 mm in the non-zoom state, 400 mm in the optical zoom state, and 800 mm in the optical zoom and the electronic zoom state. These three focal lengths (zoom state) are switched (toggled) in order each time the zoom button 74 is pressed." Figure 1 shows that zoom button 74 is oval shaped.).
Regarding Claim 6, Shimosato teaches the optical system device (Shimosato, pg. 11, para. 7, ln. 4-5, "…the present invention can be applied to digital cameras, personal computers, PDAs, smartphones, form telephone terminals, portable image viewers, game machines, and the like.").
Regarding Claim 8, Shimosato teaches the optical system device includes a camera (Shimosato, pg. 11, para. 7, ln. 4-5, "…the present invention can be applied to digital cameras, personal computers, PDAs, smartphones, form telephone terminals, portable image viewers, game machines, and the like.").
Regarding Claim 9, Shimosato teaches an information processing method comprising: executing an operation app of an optical system device including a plurality of lenses of different focal lengths including a zoom lens (Shimosato, pg. 4, para. 1, ln. 1, "The zoom lens drive unit 113 drives the zoom lens…"); and causing a display to display a user interface that clearly indicates a section of optical zoom of the zoom lens for a zoom function of the lens included in the operation apps wherein the first user interface includes an operation component on which scales that indicate focal lengths matching magnifications of the optical zoom and the digital zoom are indicated (Shimosato, Step S309, pg. 7, ln. 3-5, "…the focal length related to the magnifying power in the zoom is 100 mm in the non-zoom state, 400 mm in the optical zoom state, and 800 mm in the optical zoom and the electronic zoom state. These three focal lengths [zoom state] are switched [toggled] in order each time the zoom button 74 is pressed.").
Regarding Claim 10, Shimosato teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program, which when executed by a computer causes the computer to execute a method, the method comprising: executing an operation app of an optical system device including a plurality of lenses of different focal lengths including a zoom lens (Shimosato, pg. 4, para. 1, ln. 1, "The zoom lens drive unit 113 drives the zoom lens…"); and causing a display to display a user interface that clearly indicates a section of optical zoom of the zoom lens for a zoom function of the lens included in the operation app (Shimosato, Step S309, pg. 7, ln. 3-5, "…the focal length related to the magnifying power in the zoom is 100 mm in the non-zoom state, 400 mm in the optical zoom state, and 800 mm in the optical zoom and the electronic zoom state. These three focal lengths [zoom state] are switched [toggled] in order each time the zoom button 74 is pressed."), wherein the first user interface includes an operation component on which scales that indicate focal lengths matching magnifications of the optical zoom and digital zoom are indicated (Shimosato, Step S309, pg. 7, ln. 3-5, "…the focal length related to the magnifying power in the zoom is 100 mm in the non-zoom state, 400 mm in the optical zoom state, and 800 mm in the optical zoom and the electronic zoom state. These three focal lengths [zoom state] are switched [toggled] in order each time the zoom button 74 is pressed.").
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 2, 3, & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimosato in view of Bagaria & Srivastava (US 10594925 B2, hereinafter, "Bagaria").
Regarding Claim 2, Shimosato teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Bagaria teaches the circuitry is further configured to cause the display to display a second user interface that continuously indicates a range from a minimum magnification to a maximum magnification that can be set to all of a plurality of the lenses (Bagaria, Fig. 7B, [0074], ln. 9-10, "…the first region 793 of the graphical element 791 can act as an arced slider or virtual dial to allow the user 781A to provide a zoom level control input via a graphical user interface."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Bagaria with those of Shimosato because it is well known in the art to display a second user interface that continuously indicates a range from minimum to maximum magnifications that can be set to a plurality of lenses.
Regarding Claim 3, Shimosato and Bagaria teach the limitations of dependent Claim 2 as noted above. Bagaria teaches the circuitry causes the display to display the second user interface that continuously indicates the range including a range of digital zoom (Bagaria, Fig. 7B, [0074], ln. 9-10, "…the first region 793 of the graphical element 791 can act as an arced slider or virtual dial to allow the user 781A to provide a zoom level control input via a graphical user interface."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Bagaria with those of Shimosato because it is well known in the art for a user interface to continuously indicate the range of a digital zoom.
Regarding Claim 5, Shimosato and Bagaria teach the limitations of dependent Claim 3 as noted above. Bagaria teaches the first user interface is indicated on an outer circumference of an arc shape and is rotatably provided around a center of the arc shape (Bagaria, Fig. 7B, [0074], ln. 9-10, "…the first region 793 of the graphical element 791 can act as an arced slider or virtual dial to allow the user 781A to provide a zoom level control input via a graphical user interface."). Bagaria does not teach on the operation component, the section of the optical zoom is clearly indicated separately from a section of the digital zoom. However, Shimosato teaches on the operation component, the section of the optical zoom is clearly indicated separately from a section of the digital zoom (Shimosato, Step S309, pg. 7, ln. 3-5, "…the focal length related to the magnifying power in the zoom is 100 mm in the non-zoom state, 400 mm in the optical zoom state, and 800 mm in the optical zoom and the electronic zoom state. These three focal lengths [zoom state] are switched [toggled] in order each time the zoom button 74 is pressed.").
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimosato in view of Mitsumori & Kobayashi (WO 2021166264 A1, hereinafter, "Mitsumori").
Regarding Claim 7, Shimosato teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Mitsumori teaches the optical system device includes an external apparatus, and wherein the circuitry is further configured to remotely control the optical system device by communication via the operation app (Mitsumori, Fig. 3, pg. 4, para. 7, ln. 1-6, "The screen of the camera application is a landscape screen with the camera key 14 at the top. For example, a monitor screen 20 is displayed at the center of the touch screen 10. The user points the camera lens 17 at the subject and confirms the subject on the monitor screen 20. The user holds the end of the earpiece 15 side of the smartphone 1 with the left hand HL and the end of the mouthpiece with the right hand HR. The user performs a touch operation on the touch screen 10 with the thumb R1 of the right hand HR while holding down the camera key 14 with the index finger R2 of the right hand HR."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Mitsumori with those of Shimosato because it is well known in the art to utilize an external apparatus and remotely control an optical system via an app.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEVEN DANIEL BARRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0432. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0730-1630.
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, Lin Ye can be reached on 517-272-7372. 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.
/STEVEN DANIEL BARRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights