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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy of Japanese patent application number 2024-021146, filed on Feb. 15, 2024, has been received and made of record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: recites the limitation "a second case" in claim 3. Please correct it to recite “the second case" to conform with antecedent basis to claim 3.
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 1-3, 7-9, 11, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (US 2008/0012954 A1, hereinafter “Sasaki”) in view of Uchida (JP 7158185, hereinafter “Uchida”). Note that all text citations for Uchida refer to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki discloses an electronic device, comprising one or more processors and/or circuitry (Sasaki, Figs. 1 exhibits CPU as disclosed at Paragraph 0020) configured to:
perform acquisition processing to acquire a captured image (Sasaki, Paragraph 0009 teaches acquiring images through image capturing and reading out images from memory); and
perform control processing such that a plurality of captured images acquired by the acquisition processing are arranged and displayed in order of image capturing in a plurality of image display regions (Sasaki, Paragraph [0008] teaches that images are displayed chronologically as shown in Figs. 4 “The display means successively displays a representative image which belongs to each of the plurality of image groups and images chronologically adjacent to the representative image or images which belong to image groups which are adjacent to the image group to which the representative image belongs”), it is controlled in the control processing to display a display item, which indicates delimitation, in a region outside the plurality of image display regions (Sasaki, Paragraph 0040 states “Displayed above the plurality of images arranged in the horizontal direction are horizontal lines L1, L2, and L3 delimited every event. “As shown in Figs. 4).
However, Sasaki fails to disclose wherein in a case where a delimiting image, which indicates a delimitation in order of image capturing, is included in the images acquired by the acquisition processing, it is controlled in the control processing to display a display item, which indicates delimitation, in a region outside the plurality of image display regions, without displaying the delimiting image in the plurality of image display regions. Instead, Sasaki teaches using time events (T1, T2, T3) as time delimiter detected by the CPU Fig. 3 to show them as visible line/dot delimiters (L1, L2, L3 and D1, D2, D3) in the image display. While it uses the concept of a representative (Sasaki, Paragraph 001, Fig.4) named images: (P1, P2 and P3) in Fig. 4 to designate each image group, these representative images are normal display images and not separate delimiting image as in the claim.
Uchida is analogous because it teaches a user interface for displaying images with delimitation. In addition, Uchida discloses in a case where a delimiting image, which indicates a delimitation in order of image capturing, is included in the images acquired by the acquisition processing (Uchida, Paragraph 0047-0048 teaches determining that a delimiter information image is present), it is controlled in the control processing to display a display item, which indicates delimitation, in a region outside the plurality of image display regions, without displaying the delimiting image in the plurality of image display regions (Uchida, Figs. 7 shows displaying a delimiter information 701 without displaying the delimiter information image as disclosed at Paragraph 0048-0049). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sasaki with the teachings of Uchida such that in a case where a delimiting image is present in the images acquired to display a display item (such as Sasaki’s lines L1, L2 and L3) without displaying a delimiting image in order to minimize the display space taken up by delimiting information, thereby providing both an indication of delimitation and a maximum number of images being displayed.
The motivation for doing so, is that this limitation in Sasaki is met. Sasaki invention can easily be modified by dedicating one (or more) of the representative images as a separate delimitating image. And in case the user has a delimiting image in the captured images list, even within the same time interval (which Sasaki uses a basis for delimitation detection), the display screen as taught by Uchida can show delimitation without showing the delimiting image. This feature allows the user to clearly designate one of the captured images as the delimiting image, enhancing the usability of the invention.
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki and Uchida combination teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, in addition Sasaki discloses controlling the orientation/location of the delimiting item (Sasaki, Paragraph 0040: The display method is not limited to such an example as long as images that belong to the same events are visualized. For example, horizontal lines may be displayed below a plurality of images. Instead, images that belong to the same event may be surrounded by windows having the same color. Instead, the same icon may be superimposed with images that belong to the same event).
Regarding claim 3, Sasaki and Uchida combination teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, additionally discloses wherein in the control processing, in a first case, it is controlled to display the delimiting image without displaying the display item, and in a second case, it is controlled to display the display item without displaying the delimiting image. Sasaki and Uchida combination teaches the electronic device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), in addition for the first case, Uchida teaches in Paragraph [0037] When multi-streaming is ON, the delimiter paper setting 5203 allows the user to choose whether to delete the delimiter image when a delimiter is detected, or to include it in either the group before or after the delimiter.
For the second case in claim 3, Uchida teaches (Uchida, Paragraph 0043) when multi-streaming is disabled, the system will add delimitation information item 701(Uchida, Fig. 7) before the image when separation information image is detected. -
Claim 7, Sasaki and Uchida combination teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, in addition claim 7 discloses using text as delimiter. Sasaki and Uchida combination teaches the electronic device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), additionally Uchida teaches using text as delimitation; among other types (Uchida, Paragraph 0035). Hence this limitation is addressed.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7, in addition it discloses where the display item is displayed outside the plurality of image display regions, in the control processing, it is controlled to display the text outside the plurality of image display regions. Uchida teaches using text as delimitation (among other types) (Uchida, Paragraph. 0048), stores it as delimiter information (701 in Fig. 7) in the image list 700 which manages an image list as shown in Fig. 7, according to the settings in the delimiter paper setting 5203, and displayed in a different zone
In this case, in S605, the application 401 stores the image acquired in S601 in the image list 700, with delimiter information 701 added immediately before it, as shown in 702 of Figure 7.
By doing so, the user can utilize the full size of the screen with images and moving the delimiter text into a different region maximizing the display zone.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 3, in addition it discloses delimiting image is an image which does not include text. Sasaki and Uchida combination teaches the electronic device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), Uchida teaches using text as delimitation (among other types) (Uchida, Paragraph 0035: The delimiter method 5202 allows you to select from various delimiter methods such as barcode delimiter, OCR delimiter, blank delimiter, and mark delimiter). The disclosure in Uchida addresses this limitation, granting the user a lot of freedom in choosing the delimiter format.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 3, in addition it teaches a level is set for the delimiting image type, in case the level is less that than that level. Sasaki and Uchida combination teaches the electronic device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), Uchida teaches a delimiting method to select a certain delimiter type (Uchida, Paragraph 0034-36)
Claim 14, is a method claim, rejected for the same reason of claim 1, (see claim 1 analysis).
Claim 15, is a program claim, rejected for the same reason of claim 1, (see claim 1 analysis).
Claim 4 and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki and Uchida combination as applied above, in view of Shimizu (US 2023/0333675 A1, hereinafter ‘Shimizu’).
For claim 4, Sasaki and Uchida combination teaches the electronic device according to claim 3, except wherein the first case is a case of displaying one image, and the second case is a case of displaying a plurality of images in the plurality of image display regions.
However, Shimizu discloses one way to display single image (Shimizu, Paragraph 0043: In the reproduction mode, when an enlargement button 207 is pressed in a state where one image displayed on the display unit 111, Fig. 2).
In a second case, Shimizu also teaches a method to show plurality of images (Shimizu, in the same Paragraph 0043, Fig. 2: When the reduction button 208 is pressed a plurality of times, the number of images to be displayed at a time increases in accordance with the number of presses. This is shown in Fig. 5A, FIG. 5B and FIG 5C. As illustrated in FIG. 5A, when the number of displayed images is four, as illustrated in FIG. 5B, when the number of displayed images is 36, as illustrated in FIG. 5C, when the number of displayed images is 100).
Shimizu is analogous because it teaches a user interface for displaying plurality of images, it addresses the same field of endeavor of Sasaki and Uchida. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sasaki and Uchida with the teaching of Shimizu to display one image in one case and in another case to display plurality of images.
The rationale for doing so, is that this limitation in claim 4 is addressed, and the user will have the choice to display a single or plurality of images as recorded in the captured list.
Claim 12 is dependent on claim1, in addition it discloses the plurality of image display regions are M number of rectangular regions, each having a predetermined shape and not in contact with one another, The combination of Sasaki and Uchida does not teach that.
However, Shimizu teaches a method to show plurality of images with rectangular shapes in the same area without touching each other (Shimizu, Paragraph [0043], Fig. 5A, FIG. 5B and FIG 5C).
Shimizu is analogous because it teaches a user interface for displaying plurality of images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sasaki and Uchida with the teaching of Shimizu to display plurality of images in the same are without touching each other.
This way the current limitation is addressed, and the screen surface is maximized by a large number of images displayed into array, yet the images are clear and don’t touch each other’s boundaries.
Claim 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki in view of Uchida in view of Park (US 20170026584 A1).
Claim 5, Sasaki in view of Uchida teaches the electronic device according to claim 3, however, the combination of Sasaki and Uchida does not teach displaying plurality of images less than a predetermined number, and another case where the number of plurality of images is at least a predetermined number.
Park teaches a method where the maximum number of quick view images to be displayed on a screen is according to an input of the user (Park, Paragraph 0085)
Park is analogous because it teaches a user interface for displaying plurality of images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sasaki and Uchida with the teaching of Park to make the value of M is changeable by user operation.
The reason for doing such modification, is that the user can control how many images to display in the screen.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5, it discloses that a predetermined number is a value of a physical size of the display surface on which the plurality of image display regions is displayed. The combination of Sasaki and Uchida does not disclose that.
Park teaches that the image can be enlarged to a predetermined size (Park, Paragraph 0117. For example, the image processing apparatus 100 or 1100a may enlarge the generated quick view image by a predetermined size and may display the enlarged quick view image on a screen of the image processing apparatus 100 or 1100a. Also, the image processing apparatus 100 or 1100a may enlarge the generated quick view image by a predetermined size and may display the enlarged quick view image for a predetermined period of time. Also, the image processing apparatus 100 or 1100a may enlarge and display a plurality of quick view images at preset time intervals. Also, the image processing apparatus 100 or 1100a may learn a previous usage pattern of the user and may determine a method of displaying the quick view image.)
Park is analogous because it teaches a user interface for displaying plurality of images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sasaki and Uchida to include the teaching of Park to display plurality of images based on a predetermined number, for example based on the physical size of the screen. With this modification, the user has control on the predetermined size of the displayed image, in order to display the complete area of the captured image.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki in view of Uchida in view of Sugahara (US 20070269090 A1).
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 3, in addition it discloses configuration to perform similarity determination between images. The combination of Sasaki and Uchida does not teach that.
Sugahara discloses a method to contrast two subsequent images (Sugahara, Paragraph 0044-45, 0072-73 Fig. 5 based on the number of the pixels comparison).
Sugahara is analogous because it teaches a user interface for displaying plurality of images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sasaki and Uchida with the teaching of Sugahara to perform similarity determination between images.
By doing so, the system will display a delimiting image instead of a delimiting thumbnail to avoid any visual illusion between two consecutive images if they are determined closely similar.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki in view of Uchida in view of Shimizu in view of Park.
Claim 13 is dependent on claim 12, while the combined teachings of Sasaki, Uchida and Shimizu address claim 12 disclosure, the combination of Sasaki and Uchida and Shimizu is silent on claim 13 limitation, where the value of M is changeable by user operation
Park teaches a method where the maximum number of quick view images to be displayed on a screen is according to an input of the user (Park, Paragraph 0085)
Park is analogous because it teaches a user interface for displaying plurality of images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sasaki and Uchida and Shimizu with the teaching of Park to make the value of M is changeable by user operation.
This way the user has full control on the number of simultaneously displayed images, and can decide upfront how many images to display without compromising the clarity of the images.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUHAMMAD AWNI ALJUNDI whose telephone number is (571)270-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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.
/MOUHAMMAD AWNI ALJUNDI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
-
Prosecution Insights