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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 07/28/2025, which has been entered and made of record.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim rejections under 112 and 101 have overcome prior rejections as claims 1-18 have been amended.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fukumoto (US 8488840 B2) does not expressly or inherently describe at least, for example, the features of "set a center position of the clipping region based on the comparison between the image size of the specific portion of the target subject and the image size of the clipping region," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Examiner respectably disagrees with the applicant that Fukumoto fails to teach the new limitation to “Set a center position of the clipping region based on the comparison between the image size of the specific portion of the target subject and the image size of the clipping region;”
Fukumoto teaches setting a center position of the clipping region (col. 9, lines 6-13) based on the comparison between image size of the specific region (clip region setting element determines the clip region based on subject detector information on the main subject, such as size, position and orientation (col. 6, lines 34-43)). The clip region setting portion specifies the clip region and size of the clip region (col. 6, lines 54-56) based on the image information. Thus, comparing the clipping region and the specific portion of the target subject to set a center position would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date, since the system varies the size of clipping region based on the size, orientation and motion of the main subject and user obtains the desired output image size (enlargement or reduction) of the clip image (col. 26, lines 18-20).
Applicant Argues that claims 9-11, 14, and 16 are not anticipated by Fukumoto based at least on the dependence on amended independent claim 1. Furthermore, each of claims 9-11, 14, and 16 separately recites subject matter not described by the cited reference.
Examiner respectably disagrees, as discussed earlier the amended limitations of claim 1would be an obvious teaching of Fukumoto.
Regarding the remaining arguments applicant argues with respect to the amended claim language, which is fully addressed in the prior art rejections set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 18 all state the two limitations “compare the image size of the specific portion of the target subject and an image size of the clipping region” and “Set a center position of the clipping region based on the comparison between the image size of the specific portion of the target subject and the image size of the clipping region;”. There is no mention in the specification of a comparison between the clipping region and the specific portion of the target subject to set the center position. Instead, the specification states the center position is set according to the specific portion of the target subject, Para. 0011, 0076, 0134, and 0152. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not know how to make/and or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
For purpose of examination, examiner is treating such a comparison as any relation between the clipping region and the specific portion of the target subject. Thus, claims 1, 17, and 18 will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 18 all state the two limitations “compare the image size of the specific portion of the target subject and an image size of the clipping region” and “Set a center position of the clipping region based on the comparison between the image size of the specific portion of the target subject and the image size of the clipping region;”. There is no mention in the specification of a comparison between the clipping region and the specific portion of the target subject to set the center position. Instead, the specification states the center position is set according to the specific portion of the target subject, Para. 0011, 0076, 0134, and 0152. Thus, it is not clear what the comparison of the image size of the specific portion of the target subject and image size of the clipping region entails. For purpose of examination, examiner is treating such a comparison as any relation between the clipping region and the specific portion of the target subject.
Claims 3 and 6-16 inherit their indefiniteness from claim 1 from which they depend.
Thus, claims 1-18 will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al. U.S. Patent 8488840 B2 (hereinafter Fukumoto).
Regarding claim 1, Fukumoto teaches an image processing device, comprising:
a central processing unit (CPU) configured to: (Col.4 Lines 37-50)
set a clipping region (Clip Region Setting Portion, #63) for a target subject (Main Subject) in input image data, wherein (Col. 9 Lines 6-13)
the clipping region (Clip Region Setting Portion, #63) is set based on an image size of a specific portion of the target subject (Main Subject); (Col. 6 Lines 34-43)
compare the image size of the specific portion of the target subject (Main Subject) and an image size of the clipping region (Clip Region Setting Portion, #63); (Col. 6 Lines 34-43) As stated above, size information about the target subject is available, because the clipping region is based on the target subject.
set a center position of the clipping region (Clip Region Setting Portion, #63) based on the comparison between the image size of the specific portion of the target subject (Main Subject) and the image size of the clipping region; (Col. 9, Lines 6-13 and (Col. 6, Lines 34-43) As stated above the size of both the clipping region and specific portion of the target subject is known.
and perform, based on the set center position of the clipping region (Clipping Region Setting Portion, #63), a clipping process (Clipping Processing Portion #60, Col. 2 Lines 6-11 and Col.6 Lines 6-33) to generate clipped image data.
Fukumoto teaches setting a center position but fails to explicitly teach a comparison between the image size of the specific portion of the target subject (Main Subject) and the image size of the clipping region.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukumoto’s Clipping Region and Target Subject to incorporate a Comparison step between the Clipping Region and Target Subject. Since doing so would provide the benefit checking to make sure the clipping region has not changed, since it was based upon the target subject portion.
Additionally, as stated above, Fukumoto teaches setting a center position of the clipping region (col. 9, lines 6-13) based on the comparison between image size of the specific region (clip region setting element determines the clip region based on subject detector information on the main subject, such as size, position and orientation (col. 6, lines 34-43)). The clip region setting portion specifies the clip region and size of the clip region (col. 6, lines 54-56) based on the image information. Thus, comparing the clipping region and the specific portion of the target subject to set a center position would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date, since the system varies the size of clipping region based on the size, orientation and motion of the main subject and user obtains the desired output image size (enlargement or reduction) of the clip image (col. 26, lines 18-20).
Regarding claim 9, Fukumoto teaches the image processing device according to claim 1, further comprising wherein the CPU is further configured to: (Col.4 Lines 37-50)
perform a subject recognition process (Subject Detection Portion #61, Fig 2) on the input image data to detect the target subject (Predetermined Subjects / Main Subject); (Col. 1, Lines 66-67, Col. 2, Lines 1-11)
perform the clipping process (Clip Region Setting Portion #63) on the target. (Col. 6, Lines 6-33)
Regarding claim 10, Fukumoto teaches the image processing device according to claim 9, wherein the CPU is further configured to: (Col.4 Lines 37-50)
detect (Subject Detection Portion #61) a plurality of target subjects (Detecting Faces) in the input image data; (Section: Claims Claim 3, Col. 7 Lines 12-24)
and select, from the plurality of target subjects (Faces), the target subject based on a priority order (Largest Face, Face Specified by Signal, Most Centered Face) of the plurality of target subjects. (Col. 7, Lines 12-24, and Col. 8, Lines 7-22)
Regarding claim 11, Fukumoto teaches the image processing device according to claim 9, wherein the CPU is further configured to: (Col.4 Lines 37-50)
Detect (Subject Detection Portion #61) a plurality of target subjects (Detecting Faces) in the input image data; (Section: Claims Claim 3, Col. 7 Lines 12-24)
determine, based on a user operation (User Selection, Col. 7 Lines 12-24), a specific target subject (Face) from the plurality of target subjects; (Section: Abstract and Col. 8, Lines 7-22)
and perform the clipping process (Clipping Processing Portion #60) on the specific target subject. (Col. 2 Lines 6-11 and Col.6 Lines 6-33)
Regarding claim 14, Fukumoto teaches the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the CPU (Col.4 Lines 37-50) is further configured to perform the clipping process (Clipping Processing Portion #60) of a region (Clip Region Setting Portion #63) other than a region of the target subject (Predetermined Region). (Col.9 Lines 6-13)
Regarding claim 16, Fukumoto teaches the image processing device according to claim 9, wherein the CPU (Col.4 Lines 37-50) is further configured to:
reduce a resolution of the input image data to obtain specific image data; (Col. 23, Lines 13-16)
and perform the subject recognition process (Subject Detection Portion #61, Fig 2) based on the specific image data. (Col. 1, Lines 66-67, Col. 2, Lines 1-11)
Regarding the method Claim 17, is drawn to the method corresponding to the device of using same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, method claim 17 corresponds to device claim 1, is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding the program Claim 18, is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable medium corresponding to the device of using same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, program claim 18 corresponds to device claim 1, is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 3, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al U.S. Patent 8488840 B2 (hereinafter Fukumoto) in view of Miyata Japan Patent Application 2008072261 A – IDS Reference (hereinafter Miyata).
Regarding claim 3, Fukumoto teaches the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the CPU (Col.4 Lines 37-50) is further configured to:
reduce a resolution of the input image data to obtain through image data; (Col. 23, Lines 13-16)
However, Fukumoto fails to teach:
and combine the through image and the clipped image data.
Fukumoto and Miyata are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of image processing using clipping processing.
Miyata teaches:
and combine the through image (Full-View-Through Image) and the clipped image data (Cut-Out Partial Images). (Page 10, Para. 1, Fig. 10, Fig.12, Fig 3B, Fig 3C)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukumoto’s Reduce Resolution Through Image to incorporate Miyata’s Multi-Through Display that Combines Through Images and Cut Images. Since doing so would provide the benefit of enhancing a photographer’s ability to perform manual accurate focusing by comparing the enlarged clipped images from the main image. (Miyata, Page 1, Section: Background-Art)
Regarding claim 8, Fukumoto fails to teach the image processing device according to claim 3, wherein the CPU is further configured to combine the through image data and the clipped image data such that a display region of a clipped image associated with the clipped image data and a display region of a through image associated with the through image data are divided on one screen.
However, Miyata teaches the image processing device according to claim 3, wherein the CPU (CPU 1, Page. 10 Para. 2-3) is further configured to combine the through image data (Full-View-Through Image) and the clipped image data (Cut-Out Partial Images) such that a display region (Display of the Multi-Through Screen) of a clipped image (Cut-Out Partial Images) associated with the clipped image data and a display region (Display of the Multi-Through Screen) of a through image (Full-View-Through Image associated with the through image data are divided on one screen. (Fig. 3B, Fig. 3C, Fig. 10, and Fig. 12) Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukumoto’s Reduce Resolution Through Image to incorporate Miyata’s Multi-Through Display that Combines Through Images and Cut Images. Since doing so would provide the benefit of enhancing a photographer’s ability to perform manual accurate focusing by comparing the enlarged clipped images from the main image. (Miyata, Page 1, Section: Background-Art)
Regarding claim 15, Fukumoto teaches the image processing device according to claim 14, wherein the CPU (Col.4 Lines 37-50) is further configured to
perform the clipping process (Clipping Processing Portion #60) on a fixed region (Predetermined Region) on an image to display a clipped image of the fixed region (Predetermined Region); (Col.9 Lines 6-13 and Col.1 Lines 17-27)
However, Fukumoto fails to teach:
and perform the clipping process on the target subject to display a clipped image of the target subject instead of the clipped image of the fixed region within a vicinity of a position of the target subject.
Miyata teaches
and perform the clipping process on the target subject (Confirmation Area, Page 7, Para. 9 and Page 8 Para. 1) to display (Display of the Multi-Through Screen) a clipped image (Cut-Out Partial Images) of the target subject (Confirmation Area) instead of the clipped image (Cut-Out Partial Images) of the fixed region (Predetermined Confirmation Area, Page 7, Para. 9 and Page 8 Para. 1) within a vicinity of a position of the target subject. (Fig. 3B, Fig. 3C, Fig. 10, and Fig. 12) Various areas are determined to have a partial image cut and the areas can be changed and predetermined. Thus, one could easily choose to replace a clipped image being displayed with another.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukumoto’s Clipping Process to incorporate Miyata’s Multi-Through Display that Dynamically Combines Through Images and Cut Images. Since doing so would provide the benefit of increasing the number of clipped images that can be displayed and dynamically interchanging them.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al U.S. Patent 8488840 B2 (hereinafter Fukumoto) and Miyata Japan Patent Application 2008072261 A – IDS Reference (hereinafter Miyata) in further view of Sakae Japan Patent Application 2008017166 A – IDS Reference (hereinafter Sakae).
Regarding claim 6, Fukumoto and Miyata fail to teach the image processing device according to claim 3, wherein the CPU is further configured to combine the through image data and the clipped image data to superimpose a clipped image associated with the clipped image data on a through image associated with the through image data.
Fukumoto and Miyata and Sakae are considered analogous to the claimed invention because Sakae’s invention is a photographing display method for photographing devices which includes cameras. The method can be applied to Fukumoto’s and Miyata’s image processing using clipping processing to display their clipped images. Thus, Sakae is in a related field of endeavor.
Sakae teaches the image processing device according to claim 3, wherein the CPU (CPU 75, Page 8, Para. 5 and 8) is further configured to combine the through image data and the clipped image data (Enlarged Face Area) to superimpose a clipped image (Enlarged Face Area) associated with the clipped image data on a through image associated with the through image data. (Page 2, Para. 8, Fig. 7, Fig. 8) Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukumoto’s Reduce Resolution Through Image altered by Miyata to incorporate Sakae’s Superimposing Face Images onto Through Images. Since doing so would provide the benefit of enhancing a photographer’s ability to perform manual accurate focusing by comparing the enlarged clipped images from the main image. (Miyata, Page 1, Section: Background-Art)
Regarding claim 7, Fukumoto and Miyata fail to teach the image processing device according to claim 3, wherein the CPU is further configured to combine the through image data and the clipped image data to superimpose a clipped image, associated with the clipped image data, within a vicinity of a corresponding target subject on a through image associated with the through image data.
However, Sakae teaches the image processing device according to claim 3, wherein the CPU (CPU 75, Page 8, Para. 5 and 8) is further configured to combine the through image data and the clipped image data (Enlarged Face Area) to superimpose a clipped image (Enlarged Face Area), associated with the clipped image data, within a vicinity of a corresponding target subject on a through image associated with the through image data. (Page 2, Para. 8, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, Fig. 11, Fig. 13) Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukumoto’s Reduce Resolution Through Image altered by Miyata to incorporate Sakae’s Superimposing Face Images onto a Through Image. Since doing so would provide the benefit of enhancing a photographer’s ability to perform manual accurate focusing by comparing the enlarged clipped images from the main image. (Miyata, Page 1, Section: Background-Art) As well as superimposing the face images at different locations ensures the target subject in the main image is not hindered by the superimposed image (Sakae, Page 5, Para. 5)
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al U.S. Patent No. 8488840 B2 (hereinafter Fukumoto) and Miyata Japan Patent Application No. 2008072261 A – IDS Reference (hereinafter Miyata) in further view of Ota et al U.S. Patent Application No. 20170295344 A1 (hereinafter Ota).
Regarding claim 12, Fukumoto fails to teach the image processing device according to claim 3, wherein the CPU is further configured to:
execute a peaking process on the through image data, wherein the execution of the peaking process is to indicate an in-focus determination portion;
and combine, subsequent to the execution of the peaking process, the through image data and the clipped image data.
However, Miyata teaches the image processing device according to claim 3, wherein the CPU (CPU 1, Page. 10 Para. 2-3) is further configured to:
combine the through image data (Full-View-Through Image) and the clipped image data (Cut-Out Partial Images). (Page 10, Para. 1, Fig. 10, Fig.12, Fig 3B, Fig 3C)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukumoto’s Reduce Resolution Through Image to incorporate Miyata’s Multi-Through Display that Combines Through Images and Cut Images. Since doing so would provide the benefit of enhancing a photographer’s ability to perform manual accurate focusing by comparing the enlarged clipped images from the main image. (Miyata, Page 1, Section: Background-Art)
Miyata fails to teach:
execute a peaking process on the through image data, wherein the execution of the peaking process is to indicate an in-focus determination portion;
Fukumoto and Miyata and Ota are considered analogous to the claimed invention because Ota’s invention is an image recording apparatus that can display parts of an image in an enlarged manner that have been cut from an image. This cutout image process and enlargement is synonymous with the clipping process in Fukumoto and Miyata, Thus Ota is in a related field of endeavor.
However, Ota teaches:
execute a peaking process (Peaking Process Unit 1005) on the through image data, wherein the execution of the peaking process is to indicate an in-focus (Focus State) determination portion; (Para. 0167) Ota performs peaking processing on image data. The through image data is image data that has had its resolution reduced. Ota has a resolution conversion unit (Para. 0100), thus the image that has had peaking performed on it, could have had its resolution reduced.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukumoto’s Reduce Resolution Through Image Altered by Miyata’s Multi-Through Display that Combines Through Images and Cut Images to incorporate Ota’s Peaking Processing Unit. Since peaking processing contours portions of a video image to highlight focus states. Performing peaking processing during photographing would provide the benefit of allowing the photographer to better visually confirm whether a target subject is in focus, so they can perform manual focusing. (Para. 0167, last two sentences)
Regarding claim 13, Fukumoto and Miyata fail to teach the image processing device according to claim 12, wherein the execution of the peaking process is for execution of peaking display only in a region indicating the target subject in the through image data.
However, Ota teaches the image processing device according to claim 12, wherein the execution of the peaking process (Peaking Process Unit 1005) is for execution of peaking display only in a region indicating the target subject (Object in an Image) in the through image data (Image/Video Data). (Para. 0167) The peaking process highlights objects in image/video data to display which objects are in focus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fukumoto’s Reduce Resolution Through Image Altered by Miyata’s Multi-Through Display that Combines Through Images and Cut Images to incorporate Ota’s Peaking Processing Unit. Since peaking processing contours portions of a video image to highlight focus states. Performing peaking processing during photographing would provide the benefit of allowing the photographer to better visually confirm whether a target subject is in focus, so they can perform manual focusing. (Para. 0167, last two sentences)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA R COCHRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571) 272-2330. 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.
/BRIANNA RENAE COCHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615