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 .
Acknowledgements
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 3/18/2026, are acknowledged. The amendment to claim 14 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-16 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-10, filed on 03/18/2026, with respect to the claims 1-2, 5-6, 13, and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) have been fully considered
and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made Viljamaa et al. (US 2014/0362257 A1) (herein after referred to as Viljamaa) in view of Bandyopadhyay et al. (US 2012/0009896 A1) (herein after referred to as Bandyopadhyay).
The Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the claim limitations not taught by Viljamaa of with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 13, and 15-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claims in their entirety are addressed in the action below.
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) 1-2, 5-6, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viljamaa et al. (US 2014/0362257 A1) (herein after referred to as Viljamaa) in view of Bandyopadhyay et al. (US 2012/0009896 A1) (herein after referred to as Bandyopadhyay).
Regarding claim 1,Viljamaa discloses a computer system (Viljamaa, Figs 4a–4d, 5a–5g, 6a–6f, [0088] portable electronic devices with cameras) configured to communicate with a display generation component, one or more cameras, and a hardware button (Viljamaa, Figs 4a–4d, 5a–5g, 6a–6f, [0108 – 0118] Viljamaa discloses a portable electronic device with camera(s) and display and a camera physical button 411.), comprising: one or more processors (Viljamaa, Figs 1, processor 108); and memory (Viljamaa, Figs 1, memory 107) storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors (Viljamaa, Figs 1-3, [0094 -0107] and Figs 8-9, [0151 – 0152]), the one or more programs including instructions for: detecting a first press of the hardware button (Viljamaa, Figs 4a–4d, [0108 -0110] and [0117 – 0118]).
However, Viljamaa does explicitly disclose and in response to detecting the first press of the hardware button: in accordance with a determination that the hardware button is associated with launching a camera user interface and the first press is detected while displaying, via the display generation component, the camera user interface, performing a camera operation within the camera user interface and in accordance with a determination that the hardware button is associated with launching the camera user interface and the first press is detected while displaying, via the display generation component, a user interface other than the camera user interface, displaying, via the display generation component, the camera user interface.
In a similar field of endeavor, Bandyopadhyay teaches an mobile device including multiple faces and application launch input element that includes: and in response to detecting the first press of the hardware button: in accordance with a determination that the hardware button is associated with launching a camera user interface and the first press is detected while displaying, via the display generation component, the camera user interface, performing a camera operation within the camera user interface (Bandyopadhyay, Figs 7-10, [0065], [0071]–[0076], [0091]–[0096], [0124]–[0125], Bandyopadhyay teaches a hardware camera button that launches the camera UI and performs camera operations when camera UI is already active.); and
in accordance with a determination that the hardware button is associated with launching the camera user interface and the first press is detected while displaying, via the display generation component, a user interface other than the camera user interface, displaying, via the display generation component, the camera user interface (Bandyopadhyay, Figs 7-10, [0065], [0071]–[0076], [0091]–[0096], Bandyopadhyay teaches pressing the hardware camera button to launch camera functionality from non-camera states.).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to communication systems that have multiple cameras. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Viljamaa with a hardware button being associated with launching a camera user interface as seen in Bandyopadhyay to either launch a camera user interface or perform a camera operation within the camera user interface depending on the current display state as seen in Bandyopadhyay in paragraphs [0065], [0071]–[0076], [0091]–[0096]. The references combined teach the claimed system and method of using a hardware button to either launch a camera user interface or perform a camera operation within the camera user interface depending on the current display state.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also teaches wherein the hardware button is a mechanical button (Viljamaa, Figs 4a–4d camera physical button 411, [108]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay teaches limitations of claim 1 and also teaches wherein performing the camera operation within the camera user interface includes displaying, via the display generation component, a menu including one or more option user interface objects (Viljamaa, Figs 4a–4d, (421/422)) corresponding to one or more media capture settings (Viljamaa, Figs 4a–4d, [0112], [0115]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay teaches the limitations of claim 5 and also teaches wherein at least one option user interface object of the one or more option user interface objects is selectable via a touch-sensitive surface that is in communication with the computer system (Viljamaa, Figs 4a–4d, [0112], [0115]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also teaches wherein performing the camera operation within the camera user interface includes changing a lens selection setting to a respective lens selection (Viljamaa, [0112]).
Claims 15 and 16 rejected as applied to claim 1 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay.
Claim(s) 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viljamaa et al. (US 2014/0362257 A1) (herein after referred to as Viljamaa) in view of Bandyopadhyay et al. (US 2012/0009896 A1) (herein after referred to as Bandyopadhyay) and further in view of Dowe et al. (US 2007/0040810) (herein after referred to as Dowe).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also teaches the use of haptic feedback (Viljamaa [0147]), but the combination fails to explicitly disclose where in the hardware button is a solid state button.
In a similar field of endeavor, Dowe teaches a touch control display device capable of using tactile or haptic feedback in the display for providing information, feedback and warnings as the user adjust the display (Dowe, [0043], [0063]).
In light of the teaching of Dowe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Dowe’s teaching in the system of the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in a more positive user experience while establishing modes of operation, entering control settings, user preferences, and providing warnings and instructions to a user of display device (Dowe, [0043], [0063]).
Claim(s) 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viljamaa et al. (US 2014/0362257 A1) (herein after referred to as Viljamaa) in view of Bandyopadhyay et al. (US 2012/0009896 A1) (herein after referred to as Bandyopadhyay) and further in view of Haynold (US 11,099,650).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also teaches after using the camera mode, the device returns to the locked state (Viljamaa [0112]), but the combination fails to explicitly disclose the one or more programs further including instructions for: in response to detecting the first press of the hardware button: in accordance with a determination that the hardware button is associated with launching a user interface different from the camera user interface and that the first press is detected while displaying the camera user interface: displaying the user interface different from the camera user interface; and forgoing performing the camera operation within the camera user interface.
In the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay, Viljamaa teaches returning to a locked state after using the camera, but the combination is silent as to the process.
In a similar field of endeavor, Haynold teaches leaving a camera mode by pressing button 116 and then switching the camera function off and may provide additional functions such as showing a menu on the screen (Haynold, col.5, ll.59-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay with the teachings of Haynold. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using a button to press to leave a camera mode and switch to a different menu, as taught by Haynold, with the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Claim(s) 7 – 9, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viljamaa et al. (US 2014/0362257 A1) (herein after referred to as Viljamaa) in view of Bandyopadhyay et al. (US 2012/0009896 A1) (herein after referred to as Bandyopadhyay) and further in view of Qiao (CN 115696026).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay teaches the limitations of claim 5 and also teaches displaying setting icons (Viljamaa, Figs 4a–4d). The combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay fails to explicitly disclose the one or more programs further including instructions for: while displaying the menu including the one or more option user interface objects corresponding to one or more media capture settings, detecting a first input directed to a first option user interface object of the one or more option user interface objects; and in response to detecting the first input directed to the first option user interface object, ceasing displaying the menu including the one or more option user interface objects corresponding to one or more media capture setting.
In the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay, Viljamaa teaches displaying icons 421 and 422, but the combination is silent as to the process of what happens when they are operated. In a similar field of endeavor, Qiao teaches when the user clicking the camera parameter in (Qiao, FIG. 5a display trigger button, it can display the camera photographing interface shown in FIG. 6, in the interface, displaying the timing and aspect ratio of the parameter information set, and the timing parameter information set comprises a timing name, state and corresponding icon of three setting options, the parameter information set with aspect ratio comprises name of aspect ratio, state and icon of corresponding three setting options (figs. 5a, 6))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay with the teachings of Qiao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using an icon to press to display an associated different menu, as taught by Qiao, with the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay teaches the limitations of claim 5 and also teaches displaying setting icons (Viljamaa, Figs 4a–4d). The combination fails to explicitly disclose the one or more programs further including instructions for: while displaying the menu including the one or more option user interface objects corresponding to one or more media capture settings, detecting a second input directed to a second option user interface object of the one or more option user interface objects, wherein the second option user interface object includes a display element displayed at a first location; and in response to detecting the second input directed to the second option user interface object, displaying the display element moving from the first location to a second location, wherein the second location is different from the first location and proximate to the hardware button.
In the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay, Viljamaa teaches displaying icons 421 and 422, but the combination is silent as to the process of what happens when they are operated. In a similar field of endeavor, Qiao teaches when the user clicking the camera parameter in FIG. 5 a display trigger button, the display trigger button moves as shown in FIG. 6 (figs. 5a, 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay with the teachings of Qiao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using an icon to press to display an associated different menu and moving the icon to a different location, as taught by Qiao, with the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay teaches the limitations of claim 1. Viljamaa also teaches displaying setting icons (Viljamaa, Figs 4a–4d). The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein performing the camera operation within the camera user interface includes changing a capture timer setting to a respective state.
In the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay, Viljamaa teaches displaying icons 421 and 422, but the combination is silent as to the process of what happens when they are operated. In a similar field of endeavor, Qiao teaches when the user clicking the camera parameter in FIG. 5a display trigger button, it can display the camera photographing interface shown in FIG. 6, in the interface, displaying the timing and aspect ratio of the parameter information set, and the timing parameter information set comprises a timing name, state and corresponding icon of three setting options, the parameter information set with aspect ratio comprises name of aspect ratio, state and icon of corresponding three setting options (figs. 5a, 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay with the teachings of Qiao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using an icon to press to display an associated menu related to timing, aspect ratio or resolution, as taught by Qiao, with the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay teaches the limitations of claim 1. Viljamaa also teaches displaying setting icons (Viljamaa, Figs 4a–4d). The combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay fails to explicitly disclose wherein performing the camera operation within the camera user interface includes changing an aspect ratio setting to a respective aspect ratio.
In the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay, Viljamaa teaches displaying icons 421 and 422, but the combination is silent as to the process of what happens when they are operated.
In a similar field of endeavor, Qiao teaches when the user clicking the camera parameter in FIG. 5a display trigger button, it can display the camera photographing interface shown in FIG. 6, in the interface, displaying the timing and aspect ratio of the parameter information set, and the timing parameter information set comprises a timing name, state and corresponding icon of three setting options, the parameter information set with aspect ratio comprises name of aspect ratio, state and icon of corresponding three setting options (figs. 5a, 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Viljamaa with the teachings of Qiao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using an icon to press to display an associated menu related to timing, aspect ratio or resolution, as taught by Qiao, with the invention of Viljamaa would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay teaches the limitations of claim 1. Viljamaa also teaches displaying setting icons (Viljamaa, Figs 4a–4d). The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein performing the camera operation within the camera user interface includes changing a resolution setting to a respective resolution.
In the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay, Viljamaa teaches displaying icons 421 and 422, but the combination is silent as to the process of what happens when they are operated.
In a similar field of endeavor, Qiao teaches if the user clicks the pull-down option in the camera photographing area, then the target display area of the camera photographing area shown in the parameter information set shown in FIG. 12. In FIG. 12, showing 5 rows of parameter information set, respectively lighting, aspect ratio, jitter preventing, parameter information set of the resolution and the microphone (figs. 11, 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Viljamaa with the teachings of Qiao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using an icon to press to display an associated menu related to timing, aspect ratio or resolution, as taught by Qiao, with the invention of Viljamaa would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Claim(s) 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viljamaa et al. (US 2014/0362257 A1) (herein after referred to as Viljamaa) in view of Bandyopadhyay et al. (US 2012/0009896 A1) (herein after referred to as Bandyopadhyay) and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0059597) (herein after referred to as Chen).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay teaches the limitations of claim 1. In the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay, Viljamaa also teaches displaying setting icons (Viljamaa, Figs 4a–4d). The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein performing the camera operation within the camera user interface includes changing a grid capture guidance setting to a respective state, wherein display of a capture guidance grid in the camera user interface is provided based on the respective state.
In a similar field of endeavor, Chen teaches a camera shooting method and termina that includes wherein performing the camera operation within the camera user interface (Chen See abstract, [0006]-[0010], [0054]-[0065] teaches opening a camera application, displaying mode options and function options in the UI, and performing shooting based on the selected mode and function) includes changing a grid capture guidance setting to a respective state (Chen, [0061] and [0064] also describe selecting “assistive grid” and then selecting “grid”. [0064] states that after the user selects the assistive grid function, the terminal displays the 3x3 grid reference lines in the preview interface.) wherein display of a capture guidance grid in the camera user interface is provided based on the respective state (Chen, [0064]: “if the user selects ‘assistive grid’ … the terminal displays a user interface … [and] after the user returns to the preview interface, the 3×3 grid reference lines are displayed in the preview interface.” [0048] also says the function plug-in includes “assistive grid, in which the user can select whether to use a reference line or determine to use which type of reference line when previewing.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay with the teachings of Chen to allow a user to select an “assistive grid” function plug-in, and upon selection the terminal displays 3×3 grid reference lines in the preview interface as seen in Chen to changing a grid-related camera setting such that display of a capture guidance grid depends on the selected setting state to control the preview flow and a capture flow based on the selected mode and function as taught by Chen in [0064] allowing a user to show the grid only when desired.
Claim(s) 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viljamaa et al. (US 2014/0362257 A1) (herein after referred to as Viljamaa) in view of Bandyopadhyay et al. (US 2012/0009896 A1) (herein after referred to as Bandyopadhyay) and further in view of Ryskamp et al. (US 2014/0101608).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay teaches the limitations of claim 1. In the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay, Viljamaa also teaches pressing the camera button (see rejection of claim 1). The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein performing the camera operation within the camera user interface includes: in accordance with a determination that the first press is a press of a respective type, displaying, via the display generation component, an options menu including one or more user interface objects that, when selected, cause one or more additional operations to be performed; and in accordance with a determination that the first press is not a press of the respective type, performing a second camera operation within the camera user interface.
In the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay, Viljamaa teaches pressing the camera button, but the combination is silent as to all the functions.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ryskamp teaches wherein performing the camera operation within the camera user interface (Ryskamp, [0202]–[0215], especially FIG. 9, describe camera interactions within the HMD UI) includes: in accordance with a determination that the first press is a press of a respective type (Ryskamp, [0203]: the camera button can be pressed for a short time or a long time. A short press leads to card 920; a long press leads to card 934), displaying, via the display generation component, an options menu (Ryskamp, [0205]: “Card 922 is part of a contextual menu with options for operating on the captured photo.”) including one or more user interface objects that, when selected, cause one or more additional operations to be performed (Ryskamp, [0205]: menu options include Share and Delete. [0186]–[0194] describe those options triggering actions such as sharing or deleting the photo); and in accordance with a determination that the first press is not a press of the respective type (Ryskamp, [0203]: if the camera button is pressed for the long time, the scenario continues to card 934 instead of the short-press branch), performing a second camera operation within the camera user interface (Ryskamp, [0208]–[0212]: the long-press branch leads to video, timelapse, and related camera-session flows, rather than the short-press photo path).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Viljamaa and Bandyopadhyay with the teachings of Ryskamp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using long and short press to control camera operations, as taught by Ryskamp, with the invention of Viljamaa would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Supervisory Patent Examiner TWYLER L. HASKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 7:30am-4:30pm.
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, Director Alexander Beck can be reached at (571) 272-3750. 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.
/TWYLER L HASKINS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights