DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record, Kim et al (US 2014/0313389 A1), fails to teach/disclose, “notify a user of information related to a disposition position for reproducing the recorded preview image in the one set of the images”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation read in its broadest reasonable interpretations (BRI) does not limit the user as to how the user is being notified of the disposition position for reproducing the recorded preview image (emphasis added). Once the one set of the images are recorded, the user may reproduce the recorded set of the images and visually see the disposition position of the recorded preview image. Kim discloses the ability to capture the preview image which may be a plurality of images captured into one set and reproduce the preview image. Based on this reasoning/rationale, the prior art of rejection will remain. It is highly suggested to amend the claim further to highlight the inventive concept.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US 2014/0313389 A1).
As per claim 1, Kim discloses a digital camera (fig. 1A, electronic device 100) comprising:
an imaging element that images an object (fig. 1A, electronic device 100, camera 130);
an image recording unit that records an image acquired by the imaging element (fig. 1A, electronic device 100, memory unit 110);
an image display unit (fig. 1A, electronic device 100, display 160) that displays a preview image (fig. 2A, S203) which has been acquired by the imaging element and has not yet been recorded in the image recording unit (para 0060); and a processor (fig. 1A, electronic device 100, processor 120),
wherein a plurality of images recorded in the image recording unit are treated as one set (split screen capture mode, para 0096), and
the processor is configured to:
display the preview image on the image display unit (fig. 14B, preview image 1425 is displayed); and
in a case where the preview image is treated as one of the plurality of images (fig. 14B, previously captured images 1421 and 1423) that are recorded in the image recording unit and included in one set (images are captured in split screen capture mode), notify a user of information related to a disposition position for reproducing the recording preview image in the one set of the images (fig. 14B, preview image 1425 visually notifies a user of the disposition position of the images, furthermore see “Response to Arguments” above regarding notification of disposition of images).
As per claim 2, Kim further discloses the digital camera according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to:
record the plurality of images in a recording medium in a case where the plurality of images included in the one set are acquired (fig. 1A, electronic device 100, memory 110, data storage 112, para 0060).
As per claim 4, Kim further discloses the digital camera according to claim 1, further comprising:
a camera body,
wherein the image display unit is an electronic view finder provided in the camera body (figs. 1A and 14B, electronic device 100 is the camera).
As per claim 5, Kim further discloses the digital camera according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to:
display the disposition position on the image display unit (fig. 14b, disposition position (i.e. camera) is displayed on display 160).
As per claim 6, Kim further discloses the digital camera according to wherein the processor is configured to:
display, as the disposition position, information indicating an order in which the image is captured among the plurality of images included in the one set (fig. 14b, 1421 is the first captured image and 1423 is the second captured image).
As per claim 7, Kim further discloses the digital camera according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to:
display the captured image on the image display unit and display the disposition position on the image display unit (fig. 14b, displays captured image(s) and disposition position (i.e. camera button) on the display 160).
As per claim 8, Kim further discloses the digital camera according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to:
delete the image recorded in the image recording unit;
in a case where the image has been deleted, calculate the disposition position according to the number of images still recorded in the image recording unit and not deleted; and
change a disposition of the images treated as the one set according to the calculated disposition position (para 0169 – 0171).
As per claim 11, Kim further discloses the digital camera according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to switch the disposition position between a display state and a non-display state (user may switch between normal imaging mode (i.e. non-display state) and split screen imaging mode (i.e. display state)).
As per claim 15, Kim further discloses the digital camera according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to, in a case where the images are captured and at least one of the images is acquired as one of the images included in the one set, include a newly acquired image in another set, not in the existing one set (user can select “split-screen mode” again and a newly acquired image is included in another set).
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) 3, 10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2014/0313389 A1) in view of Wada et al (US 2022/0191400 A1).
As per claim 3, the digital camera according to claim 1, further comprising:
a camera body,
wherein the image display unit is a display provided on a rear surface of the camera body.
Kim fails to teach the limitation as recited above in claim 3. However, Wada discloses a digital camera 10, wherein the display 40 is on the rear surface of digital camera 10 (Wada, fig. 2, digital camera 10, display 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Kim in view of Wada, as a whole, by incorporating the design of the camera as taught by Wada, into the electronic device as taught by Kim, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of capturing images, thus controlling incoming image data.
As per claim 10, the digital camera according to claim 1,
wherein the digital camera has a video capture function, and
the processor is configured to record, in the image recording unit, a video captured by the video capture function as one of the plurality of images included in the one set.
Kim fails to teach the limitation as recited above in claim 10. However, Wada discloses a digital camera 10 having the ability to capture and process video (Wada, fig. 2, digital camera 10, imaging portion 20, processing portion 30, para 0050 and 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Kim in view of Wada, as a whole, by incorporating the ability to capture video as taught by Wada, into the electronic device as taught by Kim, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of capturing video of a plurality of images, thus being able to save and process video.
As per claim 13, the digital camera according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to change at least one of a size or an aspect ratio of the images treated as the one set.
Kim fails to teach the limitation as recited above in claim 13. However, Wada discloses a digital camera 10 having the ability to change the aspect ratio of image data captured (Wada, fig. 2, digital camera 10, imaging portion 20, processing portion 30, detector 60, para 0105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Kim in view of Wada, as a whole, by incorporating the ability to change the aspect ratio of image data captured as taught by Wada, into the electronic device as taught by Kim, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of capturing a plurality of images, thus being able to change the size of the image data captured.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2014/0313389 A1) in view of Niikawa et al (US 2002/0171747 A1).
As per claim 9, the digital camera according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to:
transmit the plurality of images treated as the one set to an external display device; and
in a case where the plurality of images is transmitted to the external display device, transmit all of the plurality of images treated as the one set as one data.
Kim fails to teach the limitations as recited above in claim 9. However, Niikawa discloses a digital camera 1 with the ability to transfer imagers to an external monitor 223 (Niikawa, fig. 4, digital camera 1, external monitor 223).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Kim in view of Niikawa, as a whole, by incorporating the ability to transfer image data to an external monitor as taught by Niikawa, into the electronic device as taught by Kim, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of displaying image data on an external display, thus seeing image data on a bigger screen.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2014/0313389 A1) in view of Ito et al (US 9,088,722 B2)
As per claim 12, The digital camera according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to change the number of the plurality of images treated as the one set.
Kim fails to teach the limitations as recited above in claim 12. However, Ito discloses an imaging apparatus wherein a layout of a plurality of images captured can be changed (Ito, fig. 15, composite image 301, col. 15 lines 24-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Kim in view of Ito, as a whole, by incorporating the ability to change the layout and number of images in the layout (i.e. set) as taught by Ito, into the electronic device as taught by Kim, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of changing the number of images within a set, thus being able to further specify the number of images within a set.
As per claim 14, the digital camera according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to change a ratio of display regions for each of the plurality of images treated as the one set (Ito, figs. 5 and 6, example of display region ratio being changed).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2014/0313389 A1) in view of Misawa (US 2006/0140621 A1).
As per claim 16, the digital camera according to claim 1, further comprising:
a camera body (Kim, fig. 4a, electronic device); and
information related to the disposition position of the plurality of images is attached according to an order in which the plurality of images have been captured (Kim, para 0067, arrange the order of captured images).
Kim fails to teach a posture detection sensor that detects a posture of the camera body, wherein, in a case where the plurality of images treated as the one set are displayed, the images are displayed according to the posture of the camera body detected at the time of capturing these images. However, Misawa discloses a digital camera, wherein the posture of the camera body 11 is changed, the display posture of the image is changed as well (Misawa, figs. 2 and 3, digital camera 10, camera body 11, display screen 23, see para 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Kim in view of Misawa, as a whole, by incorporating the ability to detect posture of the camera as taught by Misawa, into the electronic device as taught by Kim, because doing so would provide a more efficient way of detecting the posture of the camera, thus being able to view the image as camera is rotated.
As per claim 17, the digital camera according to claim 1, further comprising:
a camera body,
wherein, in a case where an upper surface of the camera body faces upward in a vertical direction, a length of the imaging element in the vertical direction is larger than a length of the imaging element in a horizontal direction (Misawa, fig. 4, CCD 40 is rectangular, therefore when camera body is turned vertical, CCD 40 is larger in the vertical direction than horizontal direction).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H MOREHEAD III whose telephone number is (571)270-3845. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 0930-1800 EST.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/JOHN H MOREHEAD III/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights