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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-15 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1,2, 5, 7 of U.S. Patent 12,328,496 (hereinafter ‘496) in view of KUO et al. (Pub. No: US 2020-0027422). This is a non-provisional double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have issued to patent. Claims 1-2, 7-8, 12-13 are each rejected in view of Claims 1-2, respectfully, of ‘496. Claims 3, 10, 14 are each rejected in view of Claim 7 of ‘496. Claims 6, 11, 15 are each rejected in view of Claim 5 of ‘496. Although the conflicting claim limitations are not recited identically, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same invention except for the following:
As per Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-15, ‘496 does not claim but KUO discloses based on content of the image gallery (Figs. 1-7 [0024] image gallery database of user faces for searching [0031-0032] [0040]); based on a gaze of the particular user (Figs. 1-7 based on gaze position [0024] [0031-0032] [0040]); a particular user using face recognition and/or identification (Figs. 1-7 facial recognition [0024] [0031-0032] [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include based on content of the image gallery; based on a gaze of the particular user; a particular user using face recognition and/or identification as taught by KUO into the system of ‘496 because of the benefit taught by KUO to extend the image capturing customizable system of ‘496 to include a variety of user setting preferences to expand upon the included systems functionality.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-14 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1,2, 12, 14 of U.S. Patent 11,949,976 (hereinafter ‘976) in view of KUO et al. (Pub. No: US 2020-0027422). This is a non-provisional double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have issued to patent. Claims 1-2, 7-8, 12-13 are each rejected in view of Claims 1-2, respectfully, of ‘976. Claims 3, 5, 10, 14 are each rejected in view of Claim 12 of ‘976. Claims 4, 9 are each rejected in view of Claim 14 of ‘976. Although the conflicting claim limitations are not recited identically, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same invention except for the following:
As per Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-14, ‘976 does not claim but KUO discloses based on content of the image gallery (Figs. 1-7 [0024] image gallery database of user faces for searching [0031-0032] [0040]); based on a gaze of the particular user (Figs. 1-7 based on gaze position [0024] [0031-0032] [0040]); a particular user using face recognition and/or identification (Figs. 1-7 facial recognition [0024] [0031-0032] [0040])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include based on content of the image gallery; based on a gaze of the particular user; a particular user using face recognition and/or identification as taught by KUO into the system of ‘976 because of the benefit taught by KUO to extend the image capturing customizable system of ‘976 to include a variety of user setting preferences to expand upon the included systems functionality.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointingout and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as theinvention.
Claims 1, 7, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7, 12 each recite ‘autonomously capture a S1’ whereby it is unclear what is an ‘S1’ in terms of a ‘second image’ or a ‘output second image’. Appropriate clarification is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEKKUCUKSEN et al (Pub. No: US 2020-0020085) in view of SARAYA et al. (Pub. No: US 2018-0041693) in view of KUO et al. (Pub. No: US 2020-0027422).
As per Claim 1 PEKKUCUKSEN discloses A mobile device, comprising (Figs. 1-8 smart phone [0021]):
a first camera with a first field of view (FOV1) and operative to output first images (FIs) (Figs. 1-8 wide angle camera 1 [0008] [0017] [0021-0025] [0027-0029]); a second camera (SC) with a scanning native FOV (FOV2) narrower than FOV1 and operative to output second images (SIs) (Figs. 1-8 a tele camera 2 with a FOV that is narrower – both contain respective camera scanning FOVs [0008] [0017] [0021-0025]); and a processor configured to (Figs. 1-8 processor 102 [0008-0010] [0014] [0017] [0021-0025])
PEKKUCUKSEN does not disclose but SARAYA discloses autonomously capture a SI (Figs. 1-6 capture based on predefined [0040-0043]) and to personalize the autonomous capturing of the SI according to a preference of a particular user based on content (Figs. 1-6 capture based on user preference - image application 612 may perform a predefined operation to obscure at least a portion of a person's body upon determining one or more rules in the profiles 615 do not permit depiction of the person in an image generated by the camera 619 [0040-0043])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include autonomously capture a SI and to personalize the autonomous capturing of the SI according to a preference of a particular user based on content as taught by SARAYA into the system of PEKKUCUKSEN because of the benefit taught by SARAYA to provide an intelligent image capture scheme that would facilitate user capture preferences whereby PEKKUCUKSEN is directed towards image capture, analysis and selection and would benefit from the ability to control image capture to a user specification to improve upon user functionality.
PEKKUCUKSEN and SARAYA do not disclose but KUO discloses an image gallery (Figs. 1-7 image gallery database of user faces for searching [0032]); a particular user based on content of the image gallery (Figs. 1-7 [0024] database of user faces for searching [0031-0032] [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an image gallery; a particular user based on content of the image gallery as taught by KUO into the system of PEKKUCUKSEN and SARAYA because of the benefit taught by KUO to include further image capturing customizable features that include a variety of user setting preferences to expand upon the included systems of PEKKUCUKSEN and SARAYA to increase user-functionality preferences and settings in the related image capturing environments.
As per Claim 2 PEKKUCUKSEN discloses The mobile device of claim 1, wherein the processor is additionally configured to (Figs. 1-8 operation of two cameras [0008] [0017] [0021-0025])
PEKKUCUKSEN does not disclose but SARAYA discloses capture an FI autonomously (Figs. 1-6 capture based on predefined [0040-0043]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 2).
As per Claim 4 PEKKUCUKSEN discloses The mobile device of claim 1, wherein
PEKKUCUKSEN does not disclose but SARAYA discloses the autonomous capturing of the SI (See said analysis for Claim 1)
PEKKUCUKSEN and SARAYA do not disclose but KUO discloses uses face recognition and/or identification (Figs. 1-7 [0024] database of user faces for searching and recognition [0031-0032] [0040]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 4).
As per Claim 5 PEKKUCUKSEN discloses The mobile device of claim 1, wherein the autonomous capturing of the SI is based on (See said analysis for Claim 1)
PEKKUCUKSEN and SARAYA do not disclose but KUO discloses a gaze of the particular user (Figs. 1-7 based on gaze position [0024] [0031-0032] [0040]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 5).
As per Claim 6 PEKKUCUKSEN discloses The mobile device of claim 1, wherein the mobile device is a smartphone (Figs. 1-8 smart phone [0021]).
As per Claim 7 PEKKUCUKSEN discloses A mobile device, comprising (Figs. 1-8 smart phone [0021]):
a first camera with a first field of view (FOV1) and operative to output first images (FIs) (See said analysis for Claim 1); a second camera (SC) with a scanning native FOV (FOV2) narrower than FOV1 and operative to output second images (SIs) (See said analysis for Claim 1); and a processor configured to (See said analysis for Claim 1)
PEKKUCUKSEN does not disclose but SARAYA discloses autonomously capture a SI and to personalize the autonomous capturing of the SI according to a preference of a particular user (See said analysis for Claim 1)
PEKKUCUKSEN and SARAYA do not disclose but KUO discloses capture based a gaze of the particular user (Figs. 1-7 based on gaze position [0024] [0031-0032] [0040]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 7).
As per Claim 8 PEKKUCUKSEN discloses The mobile device of claim 7, wherein the processor is additionally configured to (See said analysis for Claim 2)
PEKKUCUKSEN does not disclose but SARAYA discloses capture an FI autonomously (Figs. 1-6 capture based on predefined [0040-0043]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 8).
As per Claim 9 PEKKUCUKSEN discloses The mobile device of claim 7, wherein
PEKKUCUKSEN does not disclose but SARAYA discloses the autonomous capturing of the SI (See said analysis for Claim 1)
PEKKUCUKSEN and SARAYA do not disclose but KUO discloses uses face recognition and/or identification (See said analysis for Claim 4)
As per Claim 11 PEKKUCUKSEN discloses The mobile device of claim 7, wherein the mobile device is a smartphone (Figs. 1-8 smart phone [0021]).
As per Claim 12 PEKKUCUKSEN discloses A mobile device, comprising (Figs. 1-8 smart phone [0021]): a first camera with a first field of view (FOV1) and operative to output first images (FIs) (See said analysis for Claim 1); a second camera (SC) with a scanning native FOV (FOV2) narrower than FOV1 and operative to output second images (SIs) (See said analysis for Claim 1); and a processor configured (See said analysis for Claim 1)
PEKKUCUKSEN does not disclose but SARAYA discloses autonomously capture a SI and to personalize the autonomous capturing of the SI according to a preference of a particular user (See said analysis for Claim 1)
PEKKUCUKSEN and SARAYA do not disclose but KUO discloses using face recognition and/or identification (See said analysis for Claim 4) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 12).
As per Claim 13 PEKKUCUKSEN discloses The mobile device of claim 12, wherein the processor is additionally configured to (See Said analysis for Claim 12)
PEKKUCUKSEN does not disclose but SARAYA discloses capture an FI autonomously (Figs. 1-6 capture based on predefined [0040-0043]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 13).
As per Claim 15 PEKKUCUKSEN discloses The mobile device of claim 12, wherein the mobile device is a smartphone (Figs. 1-8 smart phone [0021]).
Allowable Subject Matter
REASON FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 3, 10, 14 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the 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, and but for the outstanding double patenting and 35 U.S.C. section 112(b) rejections contained herein.
Claims 3, 10, 14 is/are allowed, but for the outstanding rejections contained herein. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 3 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The mobile device of claim 1, wherein the autonomous capturing of the SI uses a tracking algorithm" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 10 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The mobile device of claim 7, wherein the autonomous capturing of the SI uses a tracking algorithm" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 14 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The mobile device of claim 12, wherein the autonomous capturing of the SI uses a tracking algorithm" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record PEKKUCUKSEN et al (Pub. No: US 2020-0020085) for Claims 3, 10, 14, does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. PEKKUCUKSEN only discloses a handheld device that includes two cameras for capturing wide/tele images, each image having a respective field of view smaller than a wide field of view.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EILEEN M ADAMS whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service. Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights