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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed with the application on 4/9/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US Patent Pub. # 2022/0060674).
As to claim 1, Kim discloses an electronic device (electronic device 1000) comprising:
a display (display 1300) (Para 35);
a first camera (second camera module 1100b) having an optical system configured movably to adjust a magnification (zoom) of an image to be captured and having a first field of view which changes within a specific range (zoom function adjustment) by the movement of the optical system (Para 29, 52 and 53);
a second camera (first camera module 1100a) having a wider field (wide-angle camera) of view than the first field of view (Para 32);
at least one processor (image processing device 1200) (Para 38); and
memory (memory 1500) storing computer-executable instructions (various programs), wherein the instructions (various programs), when being executed by the at least one processor (1200) individually or collectively, (Para 37) causes the electronic device (1000) to:
identify an object region (region of interest (ROI)) in a first image (first image data IDT1) captured by the second camera (1100a);
determine a first zoom magnification (zoom parameter) based on an area of the object region (ROI) and at least one pre-set reference ratio (preset aspect ratio) (Para 40);
display, through the display (1300), a preview screen comprising a second image (scaled second image data IDT2) scaled (scaled) from at least part of the first image (entire image area through the second area A2), based on the first zoom magnification (entire image area) (Para 166);
receive a user (user) input for the second image (IDT2) (Para 166); and
drive a zoom operation of the first camera (1100b) such that a zoom magnification of the first camera (1100b) is adjusted based on a second zoom magnification (1100a) determined based on the user input (Para 166 and 167).
As to claim 2, Kim teaches determine at least one object ratio of an area occupied by the object region (ROI) in the second image (IDT2); and adjust the at least one first zoom magnification (zoom parameter) based on whether the at least one object ratio (target zoom ratio) corresponds to the at least one pre-set reference ratio (preset aspect ratio) (Para 40).
As to claim 3, Kim teaches acquire a third image captured by the first camera (1100b); and determine the second zoom magnification (zoom parameter) such that a ratio of a region (ROI) occupied in the third image (IMG (t=t2)) corresponds to the reference ratio (target zoom ratio), wherein the region is a region (ROI) in which a subject corresponding to the object region (ROI) is captured (Para 88- 91).
As to claim 4, Kim teaches the electronic device (1000) to display, through the display (1300), a preview image comprising the third image (converted image data CDT) (Para 129).
As to claim 5, Kim teaches wherein the first zoom magnification (zoom parameter) is a magnification for digital zoom (digital zoom) which enlarges or reduces an image through image processing for image data acquired through the second camera, and wherein the second zoom magnification (zoom parameter) is a magnification for optical zoom (optical zoom) which adjusts a magnification of an image acquired through the first camera (1100b) by controlling the optical system of the first camera(1100b) (Para 29, 38, 52 and 53).
As to claim 11, this claim differs from claim 1 only in that the claim 1 is an electronic device claim whereas claim 11is a method claim. Thus claim 11 is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to claim 1 above.
As to claims 12-15, these claims differ from claim 2-5 only in that the claim 2-5 depend on claim 1 whereas claims 12-15 depend on claim 11. Thus claims 12-15 are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to claims 2-5 above.
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.
Claims 6-9 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Patent Pub. # 2022/0060674) in view of Manzari (US Patent Pub. # 2017/0359504).
As to claim 6, note the discussion above in regards to claim 1. Kim does not teach acquire depth-of-field information for a subject included in the first image; determine a first effect intensify for the second image based on the depth-of-field information; and blur at least a part of the second image based on the first effect intensify. Manzari teaches acquire depth-of-field information (depth map) for a subject (subject) included in the first image (image) Para 243; determine a first effect intensify for the second image based on the depth-of-field information (depth map); and blur (varying blur intensities) at least a part of the second image based on the first effect intensify (Para 253). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a depth map as taught by Marzari to the electronic device of Kim, to provide an electronic devices with faster, more efficient methods and interfaces for managing camera effects (Para 5 of Marzani).
As to claim 7, Kim teaches the preview screen (1300) further including a fourth image (IMG (t=t3)), and wherein the fourth image includes an image scaled from the first image based on a third magnification (zoom parameter) obtained by multiplying the first zoom magnification by a pre-set ratio (preset aspect ratio) (Para 40).
As to claim 8, Manzari teaches determine a second effect intensity (varying blur intensities) different from the first effect intensity (varying blur intensities) based on the third magnification (zoom); and blur (blur) at least a part of the fourth image based on the second effect intensity (varying blur intensities) (Para 231 and 253).
As to claim 9, Manzari teaches the electronic device (800) to adjust the first effect intensity (varying blur intensities) based on a change in the first zoom magnification (zoom) (Para 231).
As to claims 16-19, these claims differ from claim 6-9 only in that the claim 6-9 depend on claim 1 whereas claims 16-19 depend on claim 11. Thus claims 16-19 are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to claims 6-9 above.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US Patent Pub. # 2022/0060674) in view of Misawa (US Patent Pub. # 2011/0242369).
As to claim 10, note the discussion above in regards to claim 1. Kim does not teach identify a face in the first image; and determine a region corresponding to the identified face as the object region. Misawa teaches identify a face (face) in the first image; and determine a region corresponding to the identified face (face) as the object region (Para 141 and 142). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a face as taught by Misawa to the electronic device of Kim, to provide a technique in which, in a stereoscopic imaging device including a plurality of imaging optical systems, it is possible to take a wide-image in which a principal subject is shifted from the center, and also take a tele-image in which the principal subject is enlarged, at the same time (Para 10 of Misawa).
As to claim 20, this claim differs from claim 10 only in that the claim 10 depends on claim 1 whereas claim 20 depends on claim 11. Thus claim 20 is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to claim 10 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER K PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1704. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Sinh N Tran can be reached at 571-2727564. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER K PETERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 8/22/2026
Prosecution Insights