DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 use § 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 applicant regards as his 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.
2. Claim 8-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 8 and 14 recite “activate a two-point viewing area function and simultaneously deactivate an eight-point cropping interface”.
The feature raises a question as to how the system manages mutually exclusive crop control functions, Specially, it is unclear how activating a two-point viewing area function can occur simultaneously with deactivation of the eight-point cropping interface, as the specification would need to define the control logic, state transition, and user interface behavior that governs the replacement of two-point viewing area function with another.
Appropriate clarification and corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
3. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2017/0316566 A1).
As in Claim 1, Lee teaches a method of defining a viewing region on an electronic display (see at least FIGS. 5-7), the method comprising:
selecting only two points on the display (FIGS. 5-7 and FIG. 11, pars. 157, 174, a window 123 cab be created from two input points. Also see 125e in FIG. 11; further see pars. 151-156, 158, 174); and
forming the viewing region wherein the selected two points are located on a border of the viewing region (FIGS. 5-11, pars. 157, 174, the two input points (e.g., 121a-121d) can be placed on a border of the window 123 as shown in FIGS. 7-10; further see pars. 151-156, 158, 174).
As in Claim 2, Lee teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Lee further teaches comprising forming the viewing region wherein the selected two points are located at opposite corners of a rectangular viewing region (FIGS. 5-7 and FIG. 11, pars. 157, 174, a user may input two points corresponding to opposite (diagonal) vertices of a rectangle, and the apparatus creates a rectangular window based on those two points. Also see 125e in FIG. 11; further see pars. 151-156, 158, 174).
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.
4. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0316566 A1) in view of Gilra, Anant (US 2021/0216196 A1).
As in Claim 3, Lee teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Lee further teaches comprising selecting the only two points within an image displayed on the electronic display (Lee, FIGS. 5-7 and FIG. 11, pars. 151-158, 174-175 and see rejection of claim 1-2)
Lee does not appear to explicitly teach cropping the displayed image according to the formed viewing region.
However, in the same field of the invention, Gilra teaches cropping the displayed image according to the formed viewing region (FIGS. 2-3, 6, and 9-10, pars. 32-38, 43, 54-55, 60-61, the system perform cropping operation according to the crop rectangle over an image).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating the rectangular window with the two points, as taught by Lee, and to crop the image according to the crop frame (e.g., rectangular window), as taught by Gilra. The motivation is to specify the desired portion of an image or object to be retained, edited, or processed while excluding unwanted areas.
As in Claim 4, Lee-Gilra teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Lee-Gilra further teaches comprising simultaneously activating an eight-point cropping function on the viewing region after the step of forming the rectangular viewing region (Lee, FIGS. 5-7 and FIG. 11, FIGS. 5-7 and FIG. 11, pars. 151-158, 174-175; Gilra, see FIGS. 2-3, 6, and 9-10, pars. 32-38, 43, 54-55, 60-61).
As in Claim 5, Lee-Gilra teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Lee-Gilra further teaches that the eight-point cropping function is configured to adjust any one of four sides of the rectangular viewing region and any one of four corners of the rectangular viewing region (Lee, FIGS. 8-10, pars. 159-170, for example, the user may control one of the sides as shown in FIGS.8-9 or any of the points as shown in FIG. 10; Gilra, see FIGS. 2-3, 6, and 9-10, pars. 32-38, 43, 54-55, 60-61).
5. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0316566 A1) in view of Gilra, Anant (US 2021/0216196 A1) and further in view of Boler et al. (US 2006/0187241 A1).
As in Claim 6, Lee-Gilra teaches all the limitations of Claim 4. Lee-Gilra does not teach deactivating the eight-point cropping function before the step of forming the rectangular viewing region.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Boler teaches deactivating the eight-point cropping function before the step of forming the rectangular viewing region (pars. 53-57, based on selection of the aspect ratio option, the side handles of the crop outline/frame can be available or unavailable).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating the rectangular window with the two points, as taught by Lee, in view of Gilra’s teachings, and to provide the way to deactivate handles on the crop frame, as taught by Boler. The motivation is to restrict crop adjustments according to the selected aspect ratio and provide only relevant editing controls to prevent unintended modifications.
As in Claim 7, Lee-Gilra and Boler teach all the limitations of Claim 6. Lee-Gilra and Boler further teach disabling any other cropping function before the step of forming the rectangular viewing region (Boler, pars. 53-57, side handles of the crop outline (frame or rectangular window) are only available when variable aspect ratio option 212 is selected).
6. Claims 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0316566 A1) in view of Boler et al. (US 2006/0187241 A1).
As in Claim 8, Lee teaches a method of defining a viewing region on an electronic display having an active eight-point cropping interface (see at least FIGS. 5-7), the method comprising:
selecting only two points on the electronic display (FIGS. 5-7 and FIG. 11, pars. 157, 174, a window 123 cab be created from two input points. Also see 125e in FIG. 11; further see pars. 151-156, 158, 174); and
forming the viewing region wherein the selected two points are located on a border of the viewing region (FIGS. 5-7 and FIG. 11, pars. 157, 174, a window 123 cab be created from two input points. Also see 125e in FIG. 11; further see pars. 151-156, 158, 174).
Lee does not appear to explicitly teach activating a two-point function and simultaneously deactivating the eight-point cropping interface.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Boler teaches activating a two-point function and simultaneously deactivating the eight-point cropping interface (pars. 53-57, based on selection of the aspect ratio option, the side handles of the crop outline/frame can be available or unavailable).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating the rectangular window with the two points, as taught by Lee, and to provide the way to deactivate handles on the crop frame, as taught by Boler. The motivation is to restrict crop adjustments according to the selected aspect ratio and provide only relevant editing controls to prevent unintended modifications.
As in Claim 9, Lee-Boler teaches all the limitations of Claim 8. Lee-Boler further teaches forming the viewing region wherein the selected two points are located at opposite corners of a rectangular viewing region (Lee, FIGS. 5-7 and FIG. 11, pars. 157, 174, a user may input two points corresponding to opposite (diagonal) vertices of a rectangle, and the apparatus creates a rectangular window based on those two points. Also see 125e in FIG. 11; further see pars. 151-156, 158, 174).
As in Claim 11, Lee-Boler teaches all the limitations of Claim 9. Lee-Boler further teaches reactivating the eight-point cropping function on the viewing region after the step of forming the rectangular viewing region (Lee, FIGS. 5-7 and FIG. 11, FIGS. 5-7 and FIG. 11, pars. 151-158, 174-175; Boler, FIGS. 8-10, pars. 53-57)
As in Claim 12, Lee-Boler teaches all the limitations of Claim 9. Lee-Boler further teaches that the eight-point cropping function is configured to adjust any one of four sides of the rectangular viewing region and any one of four corners of the rectangular viewing region (Lee, FIGS. 8-10, pars. 159-170, for example, the user may control one of the sides as shown in FIGS.8-9 or any of the points as shown in FIG. 10; Boler, FIGS. 8-10, pars. 53-57).
Claim 14 is substantially similar to Claim 8 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 15 is substantially similar to Claim 9 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 11 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to Claim 12 and rejected under the same rationale.
7. Claims 10, 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2017/0316566 A1) in view of Boler et al. (US 2006/0187241 A1) and further in view of Gilra, Anant (US 2021/0216196 A1).
As in Claim 10, Lee-Boler teaches all the limitations of Claim 8. Lee-Boler further teaches comprising selecting the only two points within an image displayed on the electronic display (Lee, FIGS. 5-7 and FIG. 11, pars. 151-158, 174-175 and see rejection of claim 1-2).
Lee-Boler does note teach cropping the displayed image according to the formed viewing region.
However, in the same field of the invention, Gilra teaches teach cropping the displayed image according to the formed viewing region (FIGS. 2-3, 6, and 9-10, pars. 32-38, 43, 54-55, 60-61, the system perform cropping operation according to the crop rectangle over an image).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating the rectangular window with the two points, as taught by Lee, in view of Boler’s teachings, and to crop the image according to the crop frame (e.g., rectangular window), as taught by Gilra. The motivation is to specify the desired portion of an image or object to be retained, edited, or processed while excluding unwanted areas.
As in Claim 13, Lee-Boler teaches all the limitations of Claim 8. Lee-Boler does not teach deactivating any other cropping interface before the step of forming the viewing region.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Gilra teaches deactivating any other cropping interface before the step of forming the viewing region (pars. 53-57, side handles of the crop outline (frame or rectangular window) are only available when variable aspect ratio option 212 is selected).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for creating the rectangular window with the two points, as taught by Lee, in view of Boler’s teachings, and to deactivate any crop functions, as taught by Gilra. The motivation is to restrict crop adjustments according to the selected aspect ratio and provide only relevant editing controls to prevent unintended modifications.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 10 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to Claim 13 and rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights