DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination Response filed 06/13/2024.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/13/2024 has been entered.
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 .
Reissue
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. This reissue application was filed 06/09/2021. Thus, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 made in this application are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 10,321,038 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
When reading the claim limitations, in light of the specification, it would appear that the claim limitations connoted sufficient, definite structure, and therefore do not appear to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Response to the rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), with respect to the indefiniteness of claims 1 – 6, and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejecting under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1 – 6, and 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 17 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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(s) 1 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato U.S. Patent No. 8,891,823, (hereinafter “Sato”), in view of Kozakura U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0344758, (hereinafter “Kozakura”), in further view of Higaki U.S. Patent No. 8,570,399, (hereinafter Higaki), in further view of Gum et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0097494, (hereinafter Gum)
Claim 1:
An imaging apparatus comprising:
a controller programmed to acquire image data from an optical image and a position calculation signal;
Sato teaches the use of operation unit, capturing unit, and an image processing unit, along with GPS control unit, position data acquiring unit, and a processor, (e.g., Figs. 1, 2, 7, 8, 17, and 18 and supporting areas of the specification).
a first memory configured to temporarily store the image data;
It is seen in column 3 of Sato that the record/reproduction unit 106 has a recording medium, “not shown”, (e.g., 4:1 – 14, “temp storage”). The limitation of “to temporarily store the image data” is non-functional descriptive language. The broadest reasonable interpretation is that all storage can be “temporary” since one can delete what is stored on memory at any point, i.e., permanent vs. temporary. To this extent, Sato teaches this type of memory in Figs. 2, 8, and 18). In the alternative where Applicant does not believe Sato teaches a first memory, Kozakura teaches such a memory, (e.g., ¶0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Kozakura with Sato because a first memory configured to temporarily store information would yield a predictable result of a storage unit performing the function it is intended to do, which is store information when needed.
a storage medium configured to store the image data from the first memory and metadata; and
Sato teaches a storage medium configured to store image data and metadata, (e.g., Figs. 2, 8, and 18 and the description of these figures in the specification). Kozakura teaches both the use of a primary and secondary storage that are configured to store image data and metadata, (e.g., ¶¶0028 et seq., and 0062 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Kozakura with Sato for similar reasons stated above.
a display unit,
Sato teaches a display, (e.g., Figs. 1, 7, and 17 and the description of these figures in the specification).
wherein the controller is programmed to acquire position information corresponding to a portion of the acquired image data from the position calculation signal,
Sato teaches acquiring position information, (e.g., Fig. 12 and the description of these figures in the specification. Also see Figs 3A – 5B, & 21A et seq.).
wherein the controller is programed to operate in a first control mode to:
when the position calculation signal is not acquired, execute a position information acquisition process to acquire the position information within a preset time from a time of turning on the imaging apparatus,
Sato teaches acquiring position information, (e.g., Fig. 12 and the description of these figures in the specification. Also see Figs 3A – 5B, & 21A et seq. and the description of these figures in the specification). Higaki specifically teaches executing a position information acquisition process to acquire the position information within a preset time from a time of turning on the imaging apparatus, (e.g., 6:3 – 7:30 et seq. & Figs. 4 – 7 with supporting areas of the specification). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Higaki with Sato and Kozakura because it is well known in the art that when location information is unknown to the system and the GPS is started, the predictable result in a system requiring a set amount of time to recover location information is needed. Once the GPS has power to start the process, it will complete the process and have location information, i.e., do the job it is programed to do, (e.g., Higaki, 1:57 et seq., “It is noted that the time required by the GPS receiver to capture radio waves from the GPS satellite is generally 30 seconds or more when the past history is not retained in the camera (startup from the low power consumption mode, which is the minimum required power consumption: Hot start).”). Furthermore, having a predetermined time to set the location data allows the accuracy of a location to be better, (e.g., Higaki, 7:1 et seq., “However, if the period t2 shown in Fig. 3 exceeds a previously defined period (predetermined period), then the second location information lacks accuracy as the imaging-time location information.”).
when the position information is acquired within the preset time, record the image data temporarily stored in the first memory and the metadata to which the acquired position information is added in the storage medium,
Sato teaches such a process, (e.g., 8:21 – 32 et seq., 13:4 et seq., 19:19 – 40, & Figures 21A et seq. and the description of these figures in the specification). Kozakura teaches utilizing a temporary storage, (e.g., ¶¶ 0028 et seq., 0062 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Kozakura with Sato because of similar reasons stated above.
when the position information is not acquired within the preset time, record the image data temporarily stored in the first memory and the metadata within position information in the storage medium,
As seen in Sato, Fig. 21A, element S2306, if the position information acquisition fails, the system stores the current time and shot image, (e.g., Fig. 21A, element S2306, and the description of these figures in the specification). Kozakura teaches utilizing a temporary storage, (e.g., ¶¶ 0028 et seq., 0062 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Kozakura with Sato because of similar reasons stated above.
wherein the controller is programmed to operate in a second control mode to:
add position information to the metadata of the image data which was previously recorded in the storage medium without position information,
As can be seen in Sato, Figs. 21A et seq., the invention continually attempts to add positional metadata to the image, (e.g., Figs. 21A et seq., and the description of these figures in the specification).
wherein, in the second control mode, the controller is programmed to selectively extract only one or more thumbnails of the image data previously recorded in the storage medium in which the metadata was stored without position information in response to detecting selection of an icon for adding position information to the metadata of the image data which was previously recorded in the storage medium without position information, and
to display a list of the extracted one or more thumbnails on the display unit in a selectable state without displaying other thumbnails of the image data to which the acquired position information is added in the storage medium, and to add position information to the metadata of the image data corresponding to one or more thumbnails selected from the list in response to a user selection.
Sato discloses such an icon/ thumbnail, (e.g., 19:28 – 40). Kozakura specifically teaches display a list of the extracted one or more thumbnails on the display unit in a selectable state, (e.g., Figs. 4A et seq., and the description of these figures in the specification., ¶¶ 0046, 0056 – 0064 et seq.). Kozakura further teaches the act of manually adding positional information to the thumbnails that are selected by the user selecting the icon that is superimposed on the thumbnail, (e.g., Fig. 9 & ¶¶ 0062 – 0066 et seq., “For example, when the item “copy” is selected, it is possible to copy the detailed information such as the spot information, the number of GPS satellites and the positioning reliability, recorded in the image data of the right-clicked GPS icon, and the positioning method, recorded in the image data, in the temporary storage memory (generally referred to as a “clip board”)…. Icon “add”, the detailed information of the above-described other image data, as a copy original data and the positioning method are added to the copy destination image data.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Kozakura with Sato because being able to select specific icons/ thumbnails would yield in the predicable result of a user being able to select a specific file to view, edit, or copied if desired.
However, the prior art of Kozakura and Sato does not specifically teach, “display a list of the extracted one or more thumbnails on the display unit in a selectable state without displaying other thumbnails of the image data to which the acquired position information”.
Gum specifically teaches selecting a specific batch of images and only tagging those selected plurality of images with determined positional information, (e.g., ¶¶ 0008 – 0010). Gum further explains that images listed are filtered based on whether or not they have a “location fix”, (e.g., ¶¶ 0065 – 0066 et seq., “The listing of images may be filtered or ordered based on a quality of location fix (GPS fix, coarse fix, no fix) and/or a date and time the image was captured. For example, only untagged images may be listed, or alternatively, only images without a GPS location fix may be listed. In addition, the images may be displayed as a list with associated attributes or as reduced images (thumbnails).”, & 0086 et seq.). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine Gum with the combine inventions of Sato, Kozakura, and Higaki because when one filters out unwanted information, it allows the user to specifically focus on only files that are of interest to them. Therefore, making it easier to view the information instead of having to weed through all the files that also have files that are not of interest. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to add a filtering action to the images because doing such would result in a predictable result of the main purpose of filtering data, i.e., separating information to only work or use data wanted.
Claims 7 and 17 teaches substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 2:
The image apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the position calculation signal is a GPS signal, and wherein the controller is programmed to calculate the position information from the GPS signal.
Sato teaches the position information being GPS signal and calculating the position from said GPS signal, (e.g., 4:63 et seq., 16:20 et seq., 18:35 et seq., also previously cited areas of Sato.).
Claim 8 teaches substantially similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 3:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a radio interface configured to acquire unique information of a wireless access point and connectable with a server connected through a communication line,
Sato teaches the use of wireless LAN communication through a wireless LAN antenna along with a GPS antenna, (e.g., Figs. 17 et seq., elements 1913& 1916 respectfully.). Sato also discloses being in contact with a server, (e.g., Fig. 19 et seq., and the supporting description of these figures in the specification).
wherein, when the position calculation signal is not acquired, the controller is programmed to acquire the position information based on the unique information.
Sato teaches using the wireless LAN antenna to gather other position information, i.e., “unique information”, (e.g., Fig. 21A, elements S2304, S2305, S2314 & Figs. 21B et seq., and the supporting description of these figures in the specification).
Claim 9 teaches substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 4:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the unique information is an SSID and a MAC address of the wireless access point, and the position information is acquired by inquiring to the server about the position information data tied to the SSID and the MAC address.
Sato teaches the information being an SSID and a MAC address, (e.g., 23:31 – 37, 27:11 – 27).
Claim 10 teaches substantially similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 5:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 3, wherein, when the radio interface cannot inquire to the server, the controller is programmed to record, in the storage medium, the temporarily stored image data and the metadata to which the unique information acquired from the wireless access point is added.
Sato teaches a similar process, (e.g., Fig. 21A, element S2303 – S2305, S2314; Figs. 21B et seq. and the supporting description of these figures in the specification).
Claim 11 teaches substantially similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 6:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 4, wherein, when the radio interface accesses a plurality of the wireless access points, the controller is programmed to acquire, as the unique information reception levels of the radio waves of the plurality of wireless access points and correct the position information from the reception levels of the radio waves of the plurality of the wireless access points.
Sato teaches a storing the radio field intensity of a plurality of wireless LAN access points presented around the digital camera, (e.g., 23:31 – 37, 27:11 – 27). Kozakura teaches utilizing the radio wave intensities to aid in updating the position information, (e.g., ¶¶ 0032, 0035, 0037 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Kozakura with Sato because utilizing the strongest signal of the plurality of APs would yield the predictable result of a more accurate measurement of positional information since the stronger signal would indicate the device being closer to the AP.
Claim 12 teaches substantially similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 13:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a radio interface configured to perform radio communication with a device external to the imaging apparatus,
Sato teaches this limitation as previously rejected above, see all above rejected limitations and their cited sections.
wherein the controller is programmed to operate in the second control mode to further display, on the display unit, a screen to select any of newly acquired position information, past position information, or position information acquired via the radio interface as the position information which is added to the metadata.
Kozakura teaches updating images with different position information and displaying the different types of metadata that is stored with the image via a thumbnail, (e.g., Figs. 5 – 13, and the supporting description of these figures in the specification, emphasis on Figures 6, 11A, and 11B ). It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Kozakura with Sato because being able to edit an image would yield the predictable result of an image having information added or deleted to its file, i.e., update image metadata once the device is in range of receiving a wireless signal or GPS signal.
Claim 15 teaches substantially similar limitations as claim 13 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 14:
The imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller is programmed to operate in a third control mode to change the position information added to the metadata of the image data recorded in the storage medium,
Sato teaches this limitation in a recursive function till add past images are updated with a high accuracy position information, (e.g., Fig. 22, 24:14 et seq., Also see Figures 21A & 21B).
wherein, in the third control mode, the controller is programmed to selectively extract one or more thumbnails of the image data previously recorded in the storage medium in which the metadata was added, and to display a list of the extracted one or more thumbnails on the display unit in a selectable state.
Sato discloses such an icon/ thumbnail as discussed above, (e.g., 19:28 – 40). Kozakura specifically teaches display a list of the extracted one or more thumbnails on the display unit in a selectable state, (e.g., Figs. 4A et seq., and the description of these figures in the specification., ¶¶ 0046, 0056 – 0064 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Kozakura with Sato because being able to select specific icons/ thumbnails would yield in the predicable result of a user being able to select a specific file to view, edit, or copied if desired.
Claim 16 teaches substantially similar limitations as claim 14 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. ENGLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-3912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Fuelling can be reached on 571-270-1367. 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.
DAVID E. ENGLAND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3992
/DAVID E ENGLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferee:
/ROBERT J HANCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/MICHAEL FUELLING/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992