Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 19/029,202

SCALED PERSPECTIVE ZOOM ON RESOURCE CONSTRAINED DEVICES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 17, 2025
Priority
Jun 15, 2017 — divisional of 10/757,319 +2 more
Examiner
FOSSELMAN, JOEL W
Art Unit
2637
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Snap Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
716 granted / 915 resolved
+16.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
923
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.3%
-34.7% vs TC avg
§103
67.6%
+27.6% vs TC avg
§102
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
§112
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 915 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Species 5 in the reply filed on 08/11/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the elected species is described differently in the requirement for restriction than specific sections of the specification. The previous restriction requirement is withdrawn and claims 1-20 are being examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pylvanainen et al. (US 2014/0240553, hereinafter Pylvanainen) in view of Fisher et al. (US 2016/0050360, hereinafter Fisher). Re claim 1, Pylvanainen discloses, A method comprising: generating an image using an image sensor of a user device (S405, S410); receiving, at the user device, a selection indicating a depiction of a physical object in a first region in the image, the image comprising a second region that excludes the first region (pars [0038], [0040], and [0048], S450); generating a zoom video sequence by resizing the first region from an initial size to a resized size, decreasing a scaling of the resized first region in each successive frame of the zoom video sequence as the user device moves closer to or away from the physical object, and adjusting a scaling of the second region in the zoom video sequence as the user device moves closes closer to or away from the physical object (pars [0046]-[0047], S440, S445); and storing the zoom video sequence on the user device (S455). Pylvanainen fails to explicitly disclose limitations which are disclosed by Fisher as follows: a user selection indicating a depiction of a physical object in a first region in the image (pars [0128], [0198]). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine a user selection indicating a depiction of a physical object in a first region in the image of Fisher with the method of Pylvanainen in order to allow a user to select any desired portion to maintain during the dolly zoom. Re claim 2, the combination of Pylvanainen and Fisher discloses the limitations of claim 1 including wherein the first region includes the depiction of the physical object, and the second region includes a remaining area of the image complementing the first region (Pylvanainen pars [0038], [0040], and [0048], Fisher par [0198]). Re claim 7, the combination of Pylvanainen and Fisher discloses the limitations of claim 1 including wherein the physical object is one of a human face, a segment of a human body, or a shape in the image (Pylvanainen pars [0038], [0040], and [0048], Fisher par [0198]). Re claim 8, the combination of Pylvanainen and Fisher discloses the limitations of claim 1 including further comprising: stabilizing the depiction of the physical object in the zoom video sequence such that the depiction of the physical object remains in an initial area in the zoom video sequence (Pylvanainen pars [0046]-[0047], S440, S445). Claims 11, 12, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected for the reasons stated in claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 1, respectively. The device and storage device as claimed would have been obvious and expected by the method of Pylvanainen and Fisher. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-6, 9, 10, 13-16, and 19 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 JOEL W FOSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3728. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00 M-F. 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. /JOEL W FOSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12751097
PIXEL ARRAY AND IMAGE SENSOR INCLUDING THE SAME
1y 10m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12745006
Ball Bearing Sensor Shift Arrangement for Camera With Fixed Magnets
1y 9m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12739486
CAMERA INCLUDING IMAGE SENSOR AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS COMPRISING SAME
2y 6m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12739508
DRIVING DEVICE AND ASSEMBLING METHOD THEREFOR, AND CAMERA MODULE
2y 1m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12739525
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR LONG EXPOSURE PHOTOGRAPHY IN A MULTI-CAMERA DEVICE
1y 12m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+13.7%)
2y 7m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 915 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month