Analysis of Successful Cases: Determining the Existence of Technological Insights in Creative Judgments.

Basic Case Overview:

A certain technology limited company is primarily engaged in the field of information and communication technology, having independently developed multiple patents.

The case at hand pertains to a patent involving the control of a mobile phone camera. Its core solution revolves around: when a second electronic device detects a first request for camera usage permission from a first electronic device, the second electronic device initiates the camera and displays a first interface. Subsequently, when the second electronic device detects one or more operations performed by the user on the first interface resulting in a second request, it executes corresponding operations on the camera of the second electronic device. Thus, allowing the user to control the camera of the second electronic device via the first interface displayed on the second electronic device while it is being controlled by the first electronic device.

However, during the application process, the examiner issued examination opinions intending to reject the application, prompting the applicant to commission our company for patent rebuttal.

Case Focus

In this case, the key point of contention is focused on: how to determine in creative judgments whether comparative documents provide technological insights to solve the technical problem addressed by the present application?

In response to this case, our staff conducted in-depth analysis of the technical characteristics of the patent design involved and the prior art documents before the filing date. The comparative documents relate to a method for sharing a camera of a mobile terminal, disclosing in detail: in S101, a first mobile terminal sends camera sharing instructions to multiple second mobile terminals, so that the multiple second mobile terminals, upon receiving the camera sharing instructions, respectively return real-time preview images based on the camera sharing instructions. In S102, the first mobile terminal, upon receiving the real-time preview images returned by the multiple second mobile terminals, sends shooting instructions to the multiple second mobile terminals, so that the multiple second mobile terminals, upon receiving the shooting instructions, respectively capture the current image based on the shooting instructions and send the captured current image to the first mobile terminal.

A solution for setting shooting parameters for each second mobile terminal between S101 and S102 is added. As shown in Figure 5, in S502, the first mobile terminal sends shooting parameters to the multiple second mobile terminals, so that the multiple second mobile terminals respectively set parameters based on the shooting parameters. The shooting parameters include but are not limited to shutter values, aperture sizes, ISO values, whether the flash is turned on, and so on. In this embodiment, the first mobile terminal can serve as the master control, uniformly setting the shooting parameters of the second mobile terminals and sending the set shooting parameters to the multiple second mobile terminals. The second mobile terminals set parameters based on the received shooting parameters to achieve the shooting effect required by the shooting intent. Clearly, as another implementation of the invention, shooting parameters can also be set locally on each second mobile terminal.

In this case, when the second electronic device detects the first request for the camera usage permission from the first electronic device, it activates the camera and displays the first interface. Subsequently, when the second electronic device detects one or more operations performed by the user on the first interface resulting in the second request, it executes corresponding operations on the camera of the second electronic device. This enables the user to control the camera of the second electronic device via the first interface displayed on the second electronic device while it is being controlled by the first electronic device.

Regarding the viewpoints raised in the examination opinions: compared with the comparative documents, the distinction lies in the second electronic device displaying the first interface and executing the first operation upon detecting the second request from the first interface. Based on this distinction, the technical problem addressed by the present application is how to achieve rapid operations on the second electronic device. For those skilled in the art, the comparative documents have already disclosed the ability to set camera parameters locally on the second terminal. When setting camera parameters, adjustments are inevitably made through the terminal interface. Based on this, those skilled in the art are motivated to display the operation interface on the second electronic device upon detecting the control request from the first electronic device, enabling users to operate it.

We closely collaborated with the client, and during the active response process, we believe that the examiner's identified distinguishing technical features and the viewpoint that the comparative documents provide insights into solving the technical problem addressed by the present application are incorrect. Therefore, we provided the following response:

Firstly, the comparative documents do not disclose adjusting camera parameters through the terminal interface. The examiner's assertion that "adjustments to camera parameters will inevitably be made through the terminal interface" is inappropriate. Those skilled in the art are well aware that camera parameters can be set through means other than the interface, such as voice input. Therefore, the examiner's viewpoint lacks support in the comparative documents and is invalid.

Therefore, compared to the comparative documents, Claim 1 possesses the following distinguishing technical features:

Distinguishing Technical Feature 1: When the second electronic device detects the first request from the first electronic device, it displays the first interface, where the first request requests permission to use the physical camera of the second electronic device.

Distinguishing Technical Feature 2: When the second electronic device detects one or more operations performed by the user on the first interface resulting in the second request, it executes the first operation on the physical camera.

Based on the aforementioned distinguishing technical features, the technical problem addressed by the present application is how to fulfill the user's control requirements over the physical camera of the second electronic device while it is being controlled by the first electronic device.

From the above analysis, it is evident that the comparative documents do not disclose the aforementioned distinguishing technical features, let alone provide any insights into solving the technical problem mentioned above. Therefore, Claim 1 is clearly distinguishable from the comparative documents and possesses prominent substantive characteristics.

Furthermore, in this application, when the second electronic device detects the first request from the first electronic device for permission to use its physical camera, it generates and displays the first interface to the user. The user can control the physical camera of the second electronic device through this interface. When the user performs one or more operations on the first interface, the second electronic device detects requests from the first interface and performs corresponding operations on the physical camera according to the requests, thereby satisfying the user's control requirements over the physical camera of the second electronic device while it is being controlled by the first electronic device. Therefore, the amended Claim 1 represents a significant improvement.

In summary, Claim 1 of the present application possesses prominent substantive characteristics and represents a significant advancement. Therefore, the amended Claim 1 demonstrates inventiveness.

By conducting a thorough analysis of the comparative documents and carefully examining the accuracy of the examiner's viewpoints, the present application successfully addresses the rejection due to inventive issues. The value of this service is evident in saving the client's patent application from rejection, while the difficulty lies in the objectivity of the creative judgment regarding the presence of technological insights.

Significance

Accurately grasping technical details, comprehensively gathering and organizing evidence in patent protection, and ultimately ensuring that clients' patent rights are fully legally protected.

This case has typical significance, not only in safeguarding the economic interests of the client but also in serving as a warning for patent protection in similar fields. The resolution experience of this case provides beneficial guidance and reference for practitioners in the relevant field.