Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 30, 2026 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2019/0050664) in view of Border et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2010/0231738).
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses a data processor apparatus configured to compress data outputted from an imaging element (See Yang [0004]) the imaging element including a first imaging region in which a subject is captured, and a second imaging region in which a subject is captured (See Yang [0014]-[0015]), and a controller configured to control the first imaging region such that the first imaging region has an imaging condition different from an imaging condition of the second imaging region (See Yang [0004], [0095] and [0096] for the different imaging conditions), the controller of the data processing apparatus comprising a processor programmed to acquire first image data outputted from the first imaging region in which a first frame rate is set and second image data outputted from the second imaging region in which a second frame rate lower than the first frame rate is set (See Yang [0004], [0017], and [0029] Note that the rate of the first region is different from the rate or the second region. The Examiner looks at 2 regions with one rate lower than the other), generate a plurality of first frames based on the acquired first image data and generate a plurality of second frames based on the acquired second image data (See Yang [0020]), perform a first compression process on the generated plurality of first frames to generate a first compressed frame and perform a second compression process, which is different from the first compression process (See Yang [0090], [0099]), on the generated plurality of second frames to generate a second compressed frame (See Yang [0099]).
It is noted that Yang is silent about recording, on a recoding medium, the compressed first frame, the compressed second frame, and information regarding a position of the first imaging region in the imaging element.
However, Border teaches an imaging element including a first imaging region in which a subject is captured, and a second imaging region in which a subject is captured including recording, on a recoding medium, the compressed first frame, the compressed second frame, and information regarding a position of the first imaging region in the imaging element (See Border [0035] “The region location tag information is captured and stored or transmitted along with the data of the images of the different regions to the display, and [0041]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Yang to incorporate Border’s teachings to record, on a recoding medium, the compressed first frame, the compressed second frame, and information regarding a position of the first imaging region in the imaging element. The motivation for providing such a modification in Yang is to determine an exposure time indicator that is useful for establishing the duty cycle for the regions of a display or displaying the video.
As per claim 34, the combination of Yang and Border further teaches an imaging apparatus comprising the data processing apparatus (See Ito Fig. 10, items 1, and 5; and col. 10, lines 12-30).
5. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2019/0050664) in view of Border et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2010/0231738) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito (US Patent no. 8139121).
As per claim 19, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the above rejection of claim 1.
It is noted that the combination of Yang and Border is silent about wherein the processor is programmed to generate the first frame by interpolating, with a specific value, a region in the first image data that does not include a signal value.
However, Ito teaches wherein the processor is programmed to generate the first frame by interpolating, with a specific value, a region in the first image data that does not include a signal value (See Ito col. 9, lines 26-42).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying the combination of Yang and Border to incorporate Ito’s teachings teaches wherein the processor is programmed to generate the first frame by interpolating, with a specific value, a region in the first image data that does not include a signal value. The motivation for performing such a modification in the combination of Yang and Border is execute frame interpolation so as to compensate the difference between different frame rates.
6. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2019/0050664) in view of Border et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2010/0231738) and Ito (US Patent no. 8139121) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Matsuhira (US Patent Application Publication no. 2010/0103312).
Regarding claim 20, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the above rejection of claim 19.
It is noted that the combination of Yang, Border and Ito is silent about wherein the processor is programmed to generate the first frame by interpolating the region in the first image data that does not include a signal value such that the region becomes black.
However, Matsuhira teaches wherein the processor is programmed to generate the first frame by interpolating the region in the first image data that does not include a signal value such that the region becomes black (See Matsuhira [0017] and [0044]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying the combination of Yang, Border and Ito to incorporate Matsuhita’s teachings wherein the processor is programmed to generate the first frame by interpolating the region in the first image data that does not include a signal value such that the region becomes black. The motivation for performing such a modification in the combination of Yang, Border and Ito is to be able to obtain appropriate frame interpolation video as taught by Matsuhita (See [0044]).
7. Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2019/0050664) in view of Border et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2010/0231738), Ito (US Patent no. 8139121) and Matsuhira (US Patent Application Publication no. 2010/0103312) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Matsunobu et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2014/0119430).
Regarding claims 21-22, the combination of Yang, Border, Ito and Matsuhira is silent about wherein the processor is programmed to omit, in the first compression process, a part of compression processing for a region in the first image data interpolated with a predetermined value by the processor or block matching processing for the region in the first image data interpolated with the predetermined value by the processor.
However, Matsunobu teaches wherein the processor is programmed to omit, in the first compression process, a part of compression processing for a region in the first image data interpolated with a predetermined value by the processor or block matching processing for the region in the first image data interpolated with the predetermined value by the processor (See Matsunobu [0010] and [0102]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize the advantage of modifying the combination of Yang, Border, Ito and Matsuhira to incorporate Matsunobu’s teachings wherein the processor is programmed to omit, in the first compression process, a part of compression processing for a region in the first image data interpolated with a predetermined value by the processor or block matching processing for the region in the first image data interpolated with the predetermined value by the processor. The motivation for performing such a modification in the above combination of Yang, Border, Ito and Matsuhira to reduce the blocking effects by performing deblocking filtering processing.
As per claim 23, the combination of Yang, Border, Ito, Matsuhira and Matsunobu further teaches wherein the processor is programmed to perform, in the first compression process, motion vector search processing for the plurality of first frames based on the information regarding the position of the first imaging region (See Border [0033]).
As per claim 24, the combination of Yang, Border, Ito, Matsuhira and Matsunobu further teaches wherein the processor is programmed to identify, based on the information regarding the position of the first imaging region, the region interpolated with the predetermined value by the processor (See Ito col. 10, lines 1-11).
8. Claims 25-33 are objected to as being dependent upon a 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/GIMS S PHILIPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
