DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18, are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 Line 2, the term “circuitry configured to” should be changed to, “circuitry configured to:”, In order to correct typographical error for correct grammar by adding a colon.
In claim 1 Line 9, the term “composition of the output image” should be changed to, “composition of the output image;”, In order to correct typographical error for correct grammar by replacing the comma with a semicolon.
In claim 1 Line 12, the term “that supplies the input image,” should be changed to, “that supplies the input image ;”, In order to correct typographical error for correct grammar by replacing the comma with a semicolon.
In claim 18 Line 6, the term “different from the imaging device,” should be changed to, “different from the imaging device ;”, In order to correct typographical error for correct grammar by replacing the comma with a semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
Applicant`s remarks filed 12/29/2025 regarding the claim limitations, being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph submitted in the non-final office action dated 09/25/2025 is withdrawn due to the amendments made to Claims 1, 4-8, 12-18 and 29.
Applicant`s remarks filed 12/29/2025 regarding the claim 6, being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph submitted in the non-final office action dated 09/25/2025 is withdrawn due to the amendments made to Claim 6.
Applicant`s remarks filed 12/29/2025 regarding the claim 20, being rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 directed to non-statutory subject matter submitted in the non-final office action dated 09/25/2025 is withdrawn due to the amendments made to Claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see remarks, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to claims 1-20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments see remarks, filed 12/29/2025, in non- final with respect to claims 1-20, have been considered. However, based on the amendments made and the results from further search and consideration have been fully considered and are non-persuasive due to claims 1, 19, and 20 along with their dependent claims 2-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph described below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claims 1, 17, and 19-20, recites limitations that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language and do invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claims 1, 17, and 19-20, ; recites the limitation, “imaging device that supplies,…..” [Line 12].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification the following limitations in claims 1, 17, and 19-20,:
(i) “imaging device” (Fig. 1, #11. Paragraph [0013]- a imaging device is described as the video imaging device 11 is configured of a camera, a studio camera, an omnidirectional camera, a PTZ camera, or the like. The imaging module is illustrated in Fig. 1, as a black box #11, thus have sufficient structure or material wherein is a camera or a studio camera, an omnidirectional camera, a PTZ camera.).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 19, and 20 along with their dependent claims 2-18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling the predetermined part-containing area generation unit 34 outputs composition candidate information indicating the coordinates of the part-containing area of each of the generated composition candidates to the output composition determination unit 35. In addition, it is determined that at least one of a composition candidate in which the aspect ratio of the part-containing area of the composition candidate is vertically longer than the aspect ratio of the output image (hereinafter referred to as an output aspect ratio), and a composition candidate in which the aspect ratio of the part-containing area of the composition candidate is the closest to the output aspect ratio is an appropriate composition candidate, as described in paragraph [0039 and 0041] in the specification, disclosure dated 08/04/2023 and Fig. 3-4 dated 08/04/2023, there is no feedback in the Figures to show part-containing area of the output image, thus the office do not find any support, does not reasonably provide enablement for explicitly disclosing “a predetermined part aspect ratio of a predetermined part-containing area of the output image including a predetermined part of a subject determined based on an input image.”
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The claimed subject matter, not taught by the specification is having a predetermined part aspect ratio of a predetermined part-containing area of the output image including a predetermined part of a subject determined based on an input image. No where in the Applicant`s disclosure dated 08/04/2023 discloses “predetermined part-containing area of the output image”.
The office respectfully requests the Applicant to indicate where in the specification teaches the limitation in claims 1, 19, and 20 or amend in order to overcome the rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a.).
Conclusion
Listed below are the prior arts made of record and not relied upon but are considered pertinent to applicant`s disclosure.
(a) Satoh (US 20080228422 A1)- A calibration information calculation unit (540) calculates a plurality of candidates of first coordinate transformation information using a plurality of candidates of second coordinate transformation information, a sensor measured value, and the position and orientation of a video camera (100) on the world coordinate system. The calibration information calculation unit (540) then calculates a piece of first coordinate transformation information by combining the plurality of calculated candidates. Then, the calibration information calculation unit (540) makes iterative calculations for correcting calibration information using a candidate of the second coordinate transformation information and the first coordinate transformation information as initial values of the calibration information...........Please see Fig. 1. Abstract.
(b) Tamura et al. (US 20140176612 A1)- Provided is an image processing apparatus that determines crop positions for an image including a plurality of objects in a preferred manner. This image processing apparatus specifies object regions from the image, and sets a plurality of crop region candidates for each of the specified object regions. The image processing apparatus selects a predetermined number of crop regions from among the plurality of crop region candidates based on evaluation values obtained for the plurality of crop region candidates and on similarities among the plurality of crop region candidates........ ......... Fig. 1-2. Abstract.
(c) Nakamura et al. (US 20130272611 A1)- The present invention relates to an image processing apparatus and method, an image capturing apparatus, and a program which make it possible to crop an image with an optimal composition even for a subject other than a person.
A composition pattern setting section 33 sets a composition pattern corresponding to an input image, on the basis of the number of salient regions to which attention is directed in the input image, and the scene of the input image. On the basis of the composition pattern set by the composition pattern setting section 33, a composition analyzing section 34 determines a crop region in the input image which is optimal for an image to be cropped in the composition pattern from the input image. The present invention is applicable to, for example, an image processing apparatus that adjusts the composition of a captured image................. Fig. 1. Abstract.
(d) OMORI et al. (US 20200058101 A1)- An image processing device includes an image corrector configured to perform at least one correction of cut-out, rotation, and projective transformation on an input image to generate an output image, in which the image corrector is configured to perform the at least one correction based on an aspect ratio of the input image or the output image, or an orientation of an imaging device at a time when the input image is imaged.................. Fig. 1. Abstract.
(e) HAGIWARA (US 20100097502 A1)- An image processing apparatus for correcting image distortion includes a storage which stores before-correction coordinates in a coordinate system of a before-correction image, corresponding to each pixel in a coordinate system of a corrected image; a coordinate output section which reads from the storage and outputs the before-correction coordinates corresponding to coordinates input to select each pixel of the corrected image; a pixel data output section which outputs the data of the before-correction image, corresponding to the before-correction coordinates, as the data of the pixel of the corrected image, corresponding to the before-correction coordinates; and a pixel data calculator which calculates, when the before-correction coordinates include a value after the decimal point, a weighted average based on the data of a plurality of pixels close to the before-correction coordinates in the before-correction image to output the weighted average as the data of the pixel of the corrected image.................. Fig. 1. Abstract.
(f) Kato et al. (US 20090066726 A1)- A composite image-generating device includes: a geometric transformation table that assigns coordinates corresponding to positions of pixels of an output image on an input image received from a capturing section; and an output image-generating section that generates the output image by superimposing an overlay image based on overlay data associated with the positions of the pixels of the output image in the geometric transformation table on an image obtained by geometrically transforming the input image according to the geometric transformation table................... Fig. 1. Abstract.
(g) KITAURA et al. (US 20200104972 A1)- An image that is not useful is suppressed from being output. An image processing device (1) includes: a composition corrector (2) configured to output, based on an input image, an output image with a composition according to the input image, in which the composition corrector (2) determines, in accordance with the input image, whether to output the output image, and in a case that the composition corrector (2) outputs the output image, at least one of a change in size, a translation amount, and a rotation amount in a correction from the input image to the output image is equal to or greater than a threshold.................... Fig. 1. Abstract.
(h) Park et al. (US 20180098000 A1)- An image processing system may include a first image sensor, a second image sensor, and an image processing device. The image processing device may be configured to obtain a first image and a second image by respectively processing the first image data and the second image data. The image processing device may output an image based on the first image when a zoom factor of the output image is lower than a first reference value, generate a correction image by correcting locations of second reference coordinates of the second image based on first reference coordinates of the first image when the zoom factor of the output image is between the first reference value and the second reference value, and may output an image based on the second image when the zoom factor exceeds the second reference value..................... Fig. 1. Abstract.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 CHINEYERE D WILLS-BURNS whose telephone number is (571)272-9752. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 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.
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights