DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
1. Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment to the Claims, Specification, Abstract, and Substitute Drawings filed January 24, 2025 are received and entered.
2. Claims 5, 8 – 10, and 12 – 13 are amended. Claim 11 is cancelled. Claims 14 – 21 are newly added. Claims 1 – 10 and 12 – 21 are pending and are under examination in this action.
3. 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 USC § 112(d)
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
5. Claims 7 – 8 and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(das being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, these claims require only that the first area has a size that is less than, equal to, or greater than a size of the second area. This covers all possibilities of all relative sizes between the first area and the second area.
Since all possibilities are covered by the recitations of these claims, these claims are non-limiting and are therefore rejected under 35 USC 112(d).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, these claims require only that the first area is a preset area or a random area in a media content image. This covers all possibilities of the types of areas in which the first area can be located.
Since all possibilities are covered by the recitations of these claims, these claims are non-limiting and are therefore rejected under 35 USC 112(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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)(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.
7. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Katz et al. (U.S. Pub. 2024/0267627).
Regarding claim 1, Katz teaches: a media content display method, comprising:
receiving a display operation for target media content (FIGS. 2, 3E, 3F; paragraphs [0092], [0094]; dual resolution images having first segment(s) 202 and second segment 204 are captured for display [display operation]. These segments together are “target media content” and correspond to first segments 374, 376, and 378 and second segment 372 of FIG. 3F); and
displaying a media content image of the target media content in response to the display operation (FIG. 3F; paragraph [0094]; screen 370 displays second segment 372 and sensor segment options 374, 376, and 378. Since these segments are actually displayed at this point, they are a “media content image”), wherein the media content image comprises a first image and a second image (FIG. 3F; paragraph [0094]; first segment option 374 [first image] and second segment 372 [second image] are both displayed as part of the “media content image”), the first image is in a first display state (FIGS. 2, 3F; paragraphs [0051], [0094]; first sensor segment 202, which corresponds to first segment option 374 [first image] has a high resolution [first state]), and the second image is in a second display state (FIGS. 2, 3F; paragraphs [0051], [0094]; second sensor segment 204, which corresponds to second segment 372 [second image] has a lower [binning] resolution [second state]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz, as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Katz teaches: an electronic device (FIG. 4; paragraph [0075]; mobile device 400), comprising:
at least one processor (FIG. 4; paragraph [0075]; application processor 430); and
a non-transitory memory (FIG. 4; paragraph [0081]; memory 450).
Katz fails to explicitly disclose: instructions stored on the memory, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations.
However, it was well-known and conventional before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention for operations and processes performed by an electronic device to be the result of using a processor to execute instructions stored in a memory.
Accordingly, it is implied and/or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to store instructions in memory 450 of the mobile device 400 of Katz that, when executed by the processor thereof, perform the disclosed functions and operations.
The remainder of this claim requires the same subject matter rejected above with regard to claim 1. Accordingly, the remainder of this claim is rejected for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1. A duplication of the above rejection is not included in this Office Action for the purpose of brevity.
Regarding claim 13, Katz teaches: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (FIG. 4; paragraph [0081]; memory 450).
Katz fails to explicitly disclose: the medium storing instructions that cause at least a processor to perform operations.
However, it was well-known and conventional before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention for operations and processes performed by an electronic device to be the result of using a processor to execute instructions stored in a memory.
Accordingly, it is implied and/or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to store instructions in memory 450 of the mobile device 400 of Katz that, when executed by the processor thereof, perform the disclosed functions and operations.
The remainder of this claim requires the same subject matter rejected above with regard to claim 1. Accordingly, the remainder of this claim is rejected for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1. A duplication of the above rejection is not included in this Office Action for the purpose of brevity.
10. Claims 2 – 3, 5 – 8, 10, 12 – 15, and 17 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, as evidenced by Shuman et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0331235).
Regarding claims 2, 14, and 21, Katz fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the first image is in the first display state and the second image is in the second display state comprises: the first image is in a clear display state and the second image is in a blurry display state.
However, Shuman teaches: wherein the first image is in the first display state and the second image is in the second display state comprises: the first image is in a clear display state and the second image is in a blurry display state (paragraph [0148]; high resolution images are clear whereas low resolution images are blurry. When combined with Katz, the “first image” thereof [first segment 202 or first segment option 374] would be clear and the “second image” thereof [second segment 204 or second segment 372] would be blurry).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Katz and Shuman to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a device that captures and displays a first image at a high resolution and a second image at a low resolution, as taught by Katz, are known. Additionally, it is known that high resolution images are clear and low resolution images are blurry, as evidenced by Shuman. The combination of the known teachings of Katz and well-known teachings evidenced by Shuman would yield the predictable result of a device that captures a first image at a high resolution and a second image at a low resolution, and displays the first image to be clear and the second image to be blurry based on the differences in resolution. Such a combination merely requires applying the known interpretation of high resolution images as being clear and low resolution images as being blurry to the teachings of Katz to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Katz and Shuman to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, the combination of Katz and Shuman teaches: wherein displaying the media content image of the target media content comprises: displaying, in the clear display state, the first image in the media content image that is captured by a first capture apparatus (FIGS. 4. 5B; paragraphs [0114], [0119]; the first segment option 374 [first image] that has a high resolution [first state] that is clear [as taught by Shuman as set forth above with regard to claims 2, 14, and 21] may be captured as part of FOV segment 564 by a first camera 410 / 560), and displaying, in the blurry display state, the second image in the media content image that is captured by a second capture apparatus (FIGS. 4. 5B; paragraphs [0114], [0119]; the second segment 372 [second image] that has a low resolution [second state] that is blurry [as taught by Shuman as set forth above with regard to claims 2, 14, and 21] may be captured as part of FOV 572 by a second camera 420 / 570).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Katz and Shuman to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claims 2, 14, and 21.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, the combination of Katz and Shuman teaches: wherein displaying the media content image of the target media content comprises: displaying, in the clear display state, the first image located in a first area of the media content image (FIGS. 2, 3F; first sensor segment 202 which corresponds to first segment option 374 [first image] is displayed as a ROI in a first area of the “media content image”. As set forth above with regard to claims 2, 14, and 21, the “first image” is displayed in a “clear display state” as evidenced by Schuman), and displaying, in the blurry display state, the second image located in a second area of the media content image, wherein the first area and the second area are different image areas of the media content image (FIGS. 2, 3F; second sensor segment 204 which corresponds to second segment 372 [second image] is displayed in a second area of the “media content image” surrounding the “first area”. As set forth above with regard to claims 2, 14, and 21, the “second image” is displayed in a “blurry display state” as evidenced by Schuman).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Katz and Shuman to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claims 2, 14, and 21.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Katz teaches: wherein the first image and the second image are captured by different capture apparatuses (FIGS. 4. 5B; paragraphs [0114], [0119]; as set forth above with regard to claims 3, and 15, the first segment option 374 [first image] is captured by first camera 410 / 560 and the second segment 372 [second image] is captured by second camera 420 / 570).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Katz and Shuman to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claims 2, 14, and 21.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Katz teaches: wherein a size of the first area is less than or equal to a size of the second area, or the size of the first area is greater than the size of the second area (FIGS. 2, 3F; a size of the first area in which the “first image” is displayed as first sensor segment 202 or first segment option 374 is displayed less than a size of the second area in which the “second image” is displayed as second sensor segment 204 or second segment 372).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Katz and Shuman to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claims 2, 14, and 21.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Katz teaches: wherein the first area is a preset area or a random area of the media content image, and the second area is an image area other than the first area of the media content image (The particular areas of display for the “first image” in the “first area” and the “second image” in the “second area” must necessarily either be preset or randomized since this claim covers all possibilities).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Katz and Shuman to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claims 2, 14, and 21.
Regarding claim 10, Katz fails to explicitly disclose: wherein after displaying the media content image of the target media content, the method further comprises: receiving an image position adjustment operation for the target media content; and adjusting a relative position of the first image and the second image in response to the image position adjustment operation.
However, it was well-known and conventional in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention for users to edit captured images in such a manner that includes adjusting the relative position of captured objects.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to utilize well-known and conventional photo editing techniques to adjust the relative position of the first and second images of Katz.
11. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ganguly et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0049339).
Regarding claim 9, Katz fails to explicitly disclose: wherein after displaying the media content image of the target media content, the method further comprises: switching the second image from the blurry display state to the clear display state in response to a state switching operation for the second image.
However, Ganguly teaches: wherein after displaying the media content image of the target media content, the method further comprises: switching the second image from the blurry display state to the clear display state in response to a state switching operation for the second image (paragraph [0015]; there are camera sensors with image sensors that operate in either a low image resolution mode or a high image resolution mode. These images sensors can switch from low image resolution mode to high resolution image mode).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Katz and Ganguly to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a device that captures and displays a first image at a high resolution and a second image at a low resolution, as taught by Katz, are known. Additionally, the teachings of cameras having image sensors that can switch between operating in low resolution and high resolution modes, as taught by Ganguly, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Katz and Ganguly would yield the predictable result of a device that captures a first image at a high resolution and a second image at a low resolution, where the second image can be switched to a high resolution, i.e., clear image. Such a combination merely requires utilizing known features of known cameras in known manners to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Katz and Ganguly to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 4 and 16 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LUBIT whose telephone number is (571)270-3389. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, ~6am - 3pm.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/RYAN A LUBIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626