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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-30 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 4/8/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 2/19/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,120,417 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the content screen" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the user" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-30 depend on claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention for the reasons given above regarding claim 1.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 16 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 21 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 22 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 23 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 23 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 24 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
Claims 25-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509 in view of Paul et al. US 2022/0337741. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 25-27 of the instant application are an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. It is further noted that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509 does not explicitly disclose that the input action is received over at least one of the selective capture buttons as an input action combination selected from the group comprising: actions separated by time intervals, individual inputs, simultaneous inputs, prolonged inputs, scroll inputs, or a combination thereof, among others, wherein upon performing the input action, and option of including additional instructions is provided, wherein the additional instructions are selected from the group comprising text and audio, wherein the artificial intelligence platform processes the captured media content information base on the at least one selective capture button that was used to capture the media content, the input action combination, and the additional instructions, however Paul et al. US 2022/0337741 discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an imaging device to include a touchscreen to provide individual or scroll user inputs/gestures and selectively display text in a accordance with user inputs (paragraph 321). In addition, Paul et al. US 2022/0337741 further discloses that the camera user interface includes camera setting affordances (620a-620e) that adjust camera settings including image processing settings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509 with the teachings disclosed by Paul et al. US 2022/0337741 so that different user input operations may be performed by a camera user in order to adjust different camera capturing and processing settings.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claims 25-27 of the instant application 18/903,825 is encompassed by the combination of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509 and the Paul et al. US 2022/0337741 reference, allowing claims 25-27 of the instant Application 18/903,825 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509 in view of Xu US 2024/0292096. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 28 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. It is further noted that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509 does not explicitly disclose that the multi-shutter camera application and method provides a plurality of selectable cameras, each camera corresponding to a different usage context, such as work, travel, or personal use, wherein each camera comprises a set of selective capture buttons configured according to the corresponding usage context, and wherein the artificial intelligence platform is specific to each camera, such that the artificial intelligence platform processes the captured media content based on a selected camera, allowing the user to switch between cameras to suit different situations, however Xu US 2024/0292096 discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for a plurality of cameras on a mobile phone executing a multicamera strategy scheduling method for allowing a user to select and switch between cameras to suit different operational situations (paragraphs 82-86). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509 with the teachings disclosed by Xu US 2024/0292096 so that a user may use different cameras on an electronic device such as a mobile phone in order to perform different imaging operations in order to suit different situations.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 28 of the instant application 18/903,825 is encompassed by the combination of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509 and the Xu US 2024/0292096 reference, allowing claim 28 of the instant Application 18/903,825 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 29 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509 in view of Paul et al. US 2022/0337741. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 29 of the instant application is an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. It is further noted that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509 does not explicitly disclose that the multi-shutter camera application comprises only one camera corresponding to one usage context, such as work, travel, or personal use, the camera comprising a set of selective capture buttons configured according to the usage context, and wherein the artificial intelligence platform is specific to the camera, such that the artificial intelligence platform processes the captured media content based on the camera, however Paul et al. US 2022/0337741 discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for a computer system to include either a single camera or more than one camera and to include a touchscreen to provide user inputs and gestures to display text in accordance with the user inputs (paragraphs 313-314, 321). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509 with the teachings disclosed by Paul et al. US 2022/0337741 so that a user may use either a single camera or more than one camera on an electronic device in order to perform different imaging operations in order to suit different situations.
In view of the above, since the subject matter recited in claim 29 of the instant application 18/903,825 is encompassed by the combination of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509 and the Paul et al. US 2022/0337741 reference, allowing claim 29 of the instant Application 18/903,825 would result in an unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent.
Claim 30 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 30 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,526,509.
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.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly L. Jerabek whose telephone number is (571) 272-7312. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, George Eng can be reached at (571) 272-7495. The fax phone number for submitting all Official communications is (571) 273-7300. The fax phone number for submitting informal communications such as drafts, proposed amendments, etc., may be faxed directly to the Examiner at (571) 273-7312.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KELLY L JERABEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights