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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/23/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 02/19/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows. Claim 10 defines a computer program embodying functional descriptive material. However, the claim does not define a computer-readable medium or memory and is thus non-statutory for that reason (i.e., “When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized” - Guidelines Annex IV). That is, the scope of the presently claimed computer program can range from paper on which the program is written, to a program simply contemplated and memorized by a person.
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 & 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitsumori & Kobayashi (WO 2021166264 A1, hereinafter, "Mitsumori").
Regarding Claim 1, Mitsumori teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: an app execution unit that can execute an operation app of an optical system device including a plurality of lenses of different focal lengths including a zoom lens (Mitsumori, Fig. 1, pg. 10, para. 8, ln. 1-2, "…a smartphone 1 having a plurality of camera lenses 17…"); and a display control unit that causes a display unit 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 (Mitsumori, Fig. 16, pg. 8, para. 8, ln. 1-2, "…the smartphone 1 displays the zoom setting screen ZS…").
Regarding Claim 6, Mitsumori teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Mitsumori teaches the optical system device (Mitsumori, Fig. 1, pg. 10, para. 8, ln. 1-2, "…a smartphone 1 having a plurality of camera lenses 17…").
Regarding Claim 7, Mitsumori teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Mitsumori teaches the optical system device is an external apparatus, and remotely controls 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.").
Regarding Claim 8, Mitsumori teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Mitsumori teaches the optical system device is a camera (Mitsumori, Fig. 1, pg. 10, para. 8, ln. 1-2, "…a smartphone 1 having a plurality of camera lenses 17…").
Regarding Claim 9, Mitsumori teaches executing an operation app of an optical system device including a plurality of lenses of different focal lengths including a zoom lens (Mitsumori, Fig. 1, pg. 10, para. 8, ln. 1-2, "…a smartphone 1 having a plurality of camera lenses 17…"); and causing a display unit 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 (Mitsumori, Fig. 16, pg. 8, para. 8, ln. 1-2, "…the smartphone 1 displays the zoom setting screen ZS…").
Regarding Claim 10, Mitsumori teaches executing an operation app of an optical system device including a plurality of lenses of different focal lengths including a zoom lens (Mitsumori, Fig. 1, pg. 10, para. 8, ln. 1-2, "…a smartphone 1 having a plurality of camera lenses 17…"); and causing a display unit 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 (Mitsumori, Fig. 16, pg. 8, para. 8, ln. 1-2, "…the smartphone 1 displays the zoom setting screen ZS…").
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsumori in view of Bagaria & Srivastava (US 10594925 B2, hereinafter, "Bagaria").
Regarding Claim 2, Mitsumori teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Bagaria teaches the display control unit displays 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 Mitsumori because it is well known in the art to use an arced slider to control zoom between a minimum and maximum range.
Regarding Claim 3, Mitsumori teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 2 as noted above. Bagaria teaches the display control unit displays 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 Mitsumori because it is well known in the art to continuously indicate the range of a digital zoom.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsumori in view of Shimosato (WO 2021240992 A1, hereinafter, "Shimosato").
Regarding Claim 4, Mitsumori teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Shimosato teaches the display control unit displays the first user interface that is 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.). 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 Shimosato with those of Mitsumori because it is well known in the art to use oval buttons to indicate a variable focal length.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art of record – taken alone or in combination – fails to teach or render obvious the display control unit displays the first user interface that is an operation component on which scales that indicate focal lengths matching magnifications of the optical zoom and the digital zoom are indicated is indicated on an outer circumference of an arc shape, and that is rotatably provided around a center of the arc, and on the operation component, the section of the optical zoom is clearly indicated separately from a section of the digital zoom.
Conclusion
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