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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 6, 7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eagleston et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0400182), hereinafter referenced as Eagleston.
Regarding claim 1, Eagleston discloses an electronic device comprising: a camera (figure 6 exhibits image capture device 650 as disclosed at paragraph 45); memory comprising one or more storage media storing instructions (figure 6 exhibits memory 660 and storage 665 which store operating instructions as disclosed at paragraph 47); and at least one processor comprising processing circuitry (figure 6 exhibits processor 605 as disclosed at paragraph 46), wherein the instructions cause, when executed by the at least one processor, the electronic device to: based on receiving a first user input for capturing a first image, perform, using the camera, a first capturing operation (figure 4 exhibits step 406 in which a first image is captured in response to a first capturing operation as disclosed at paragraph 41); based on receiving a second user input for capturing a second image while the first capturing operation corresponding to the first user input is performed using the camera, store information regarding the second user input in a storage space (paragraph 41 teaches storing requests in a FIFO “requests may be queued” when the second request is received before the camera is able to capture the images needed for the first request); based on identifying a completion of the first capturing operation, identify whether a time difference between the second user input and the completion of the first capturing operation is less than or equal to a threshold (figure 4 exhibits step 408 in which it is determined that the second capture request was received in a first window as disclosed at paragraph 41); and based on identifying the time difference is less than or equal to the threshold, perform, using the camera, a second capturing operation corresponding to the second user input (figure 4 exhibits step 414 in which a second capturing operation occurs as disclosed at paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 2, Eagleston discloses the electronic device of claim 1, in addition, Eagleston discloses wherein the instructions cause, when executed by the at least one processor, the electronic device to identify the completion of the first capturing operation based on obtaining a processed image from a system layer in accordance with the first user input (paragraph 29 teaches that the capture window includes the time required to process the image, and therefore it is apparent that the processed image must be received in order to the capturing operation to be complete).
Regarding claim 3, Eagleston discloses the electronic device of claim 2, in addition, Eagleston discloses wherein the first capturing operation comprises at least one of an event triggering auto exposure (AE) and auto focusing (AF), an event requesting a capture, a shutter callback event, an AF lock event, and an event obtaining the processed image (paragraph 41 teaches that the capturing operation is an event requesting capture).
Regarding claim 4, Eagleston discloses the electronic device of claim 1, in addition, Eagleston discloses wherein the instructions cause, when executed by the at least one processor, the electronic device to: based on identifying the completion of the first capturing operation, identify whether the storage space is empty (figure 4 exhibits step 408 in which it is determined if a queue for capturing requests has a current request as disclosed at paragraph 41); and based on identifying the storage space is not empty, remove the information regarding the second user input in the storage space and perform the second capturing operation corresponding to the second user input (paragraph 41 teaches that if a capture request is queued then it is carried out in a FIFO manner, it is apparent that in order to not repeat a capture request, a capture request is removed in a FIFO manner when it is acted on by the system).
Regarding claim 6, Eagleston discloses the electronic device of claim 1, in addition, Eagleston discloses wherein the first capturing operation is used to obtain the first image processed by a post processing picture (PPP) method, and wherein the second capturing operation is used to obtain the second image processed by a PPP method (paragraph 29 teaches that both images are processed using a post processing method to fuse the images).
Regarding claim 7, Eagleston discloses the electronic device of claim 1, in addition, Eagleston discloses wherein, to perform the second capturing operation, the instructions cause, when executed by the at least one processor, the electronic device to: identify that the time difference is less than or equal to the threshold; and provide a capture event corresponding to the second user input to a system layer for the camera (figure 4 shows that if the second capture request is received in the first window in step 408 then a capture event is input in step 414).
Regarding claim 9, Eagleston discloses the electronic device of claim 1, in addition, Eagleston discloses wherein the instructions cause, when executed by the at least one processor, the electronic device to: receive a third user input for capturing a third image (figure 2 shows an example of a third capture request which occurs after a second capture window and figure 4 exhibits step 416 in which it can be determined that a third capture request is received within the second window as disclosed at paragraph 42); based on the third user input being received while the second capturing operation is performed, store information regarding the third user input in the storage space (paragraph 42 teaches that capture requests received during the capturing of the second image can also be queued and then carried out after the completion of the second capturing); and based on the third user input being received while the second capturing operation is not performed, perform a third capturing operation corresponding to the third user input (figure 2 shows that if a third capture request 210 is received outside of the second window where the second capturing operation is performed, then a third capturing operation takes place as disclosed at paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 10, Eagleston discloses the electronic device of claim 1, in addition, Eagleston discloses wherein the storage space comprises a queue, an array, or a list for storing information related to user inputs for capturing an image (paragraph 41 teaches queueing the capture requests).
Claim 11, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the device of claim 1.
Claim 12, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the device of claim 2.
Claim 13, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the device of claim 3.
Claim 14, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the device of claim 4.
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.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eagleston.
Regarding claim 5, Eagleston discloses the electronic device of claim 1, in addition, Eagleston discloses wherein the instructions cause, when executed by the at least one processor, the electronic device to, based on identifying the time difference between the second user input and the completion of the first capturing operation is greater than the threshold, not perform the second capturing operation corresponding to the second user input (figure 4 shows that if a capture instruction is received outside of the window in step 408 that second image capturing is not performed in step 414 and the process instead returns to step 402). However, Eagleston fails to explicitly disclose remove the information regarding the second user input in the storage space.
At the time of filing, there was a recognized problem or need in the art to handle a capture command added to the queue outside of the capture window. There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem which were:
Remove the instruction from the queue; or
Leave the instruction in the queue until it is removed as part of the FIFO process.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success since all the solutions handle a capture command added to the queue outside of the capture window. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 15, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the device of claim 5.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eagleston in view of Kim et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0092270), hereinafter referenced as Kim.
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the electronic device of claim 1, however, Kim fails to disclose wherein the second capturing operation comprises playing a shutter sound corresponding to the second user input, and wherein the instructions cause, when executed by the at least one processor, the electronic device to play the shutter sound after a time point of the completion of the first capturing operation.
Kim is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Kim teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of alerting people nearby that an image is being captured would have prompted a predictable variation of Eagleston by applying Kim’s known principal of playing a shutter sound at the start of capturing an image (paragraph 80). When applying this known technique to Eagleston in which the second image is captured after completion of the first image capturing operation (paragraph 41 of Eagleston), it is apparent that he second shutter sound which is played at the start of capturing the second image would occur after a time point of the completion of the first capturing operation.
In view of the motivations such as alerting people nearby that an image is being captured one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Eagleston.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Loukianov (United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0056730) discloses a method for controlling video capture.
Li (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0274193) discloses a method for handling video data.
He et al. (United States Patent 10,491,797) discloses a method for controlling cameras.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00.
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 Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
JASON A. FLOHRE
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/JASON A FLOHRE/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights