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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Amendments
Acknowledgment of receiving amendments to the claims, which were received by the Office on 09/24/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In that remarks, applicant argues in substance:
Applicant argues: “None of the cited references discloses or suggests "wherein in the case where the correction amount by the determined exposure correction value is larger than the predetermined amount, whether exposure of the specific region is set to a desired correct value is determined and the first exposure setting value is gradually changed by the determined exposure correction value after the first exposure setting value is changed to the output new exposure correction value."
The Examiner recognizes that neither Kubota nor Morimoto discloses "wherein in the case where the correction amount by the determined exposure correction value is larger than the predetermined amount, whether exposure of the specific region is set to a desired correct value is determined and the first exposure setting value is gradually changed by the determined exposure correction value after the first exposure setting value is changed to the output new exposure correction value."
Toguchi discloses a method of adjusting AE by two method, one of which is gain correction and the other is gain correction and aperture correction, in order to quickly perform AE. However, Toguchi neither discloses nor suggests that in a case where the correction amount is equal to or larger than the predetermined value, correction by the predetermined amount is performed and whether the luminance of the face is correct is determined again.”
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. A desired correct value may be seen to be a value within the specified threshold value th from exposure target value EV (sp2) (Toguchi, Fig. 10). Toguchi states in paragraph 0051, “when it is determined that the deviation EV (err) is the threshold value th or less (time t2), the steady state exposure value distribution process is executed.” Therefore, Toguchi is seen to teach whether exposure of the image is set to a desired correct value is determined. Morimoto teaches performing AE on a specific region. The combination of Morimoto and Toguchi is seen to teach the limitation “whether exposure of the specific region is set to a desired correct value is determined”. Therefore, the claim language is met.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites: “wherein in the case where exposure of the specific region is not set to the desired correct value, the first exposure setting value is changed to the exposure correction value gradually, and wherein in the case where exposure of the specific region is set to the desired correct value, the first exposure setting value is set to the output new exposure correction value”. However, this limitation does not appear to be described in the specification.
With reference to Figure 8 of applicant’s specification. The desired correct value appears to be the “correct exposure value”. The new exposure correction value appears to be the calculated value specification upper limit.
When the exposure correction is larger than the predetermined amount, the process moves to Step S708. At Step 708, the exposure setting is changed to the new exposure correction value (Figure 8, Calculated value specification upper limit). At step S710, it is determined whether exposure of the subject region is currently set to a desired correct value. This step appears to be determining if the exposure has reached the correct exposure value in Figure 8. If the exposure has not reached the “correct exposure value”, the exposure is changed gradually (Figure 8, Fine adjustment, Figure 7, Repeated cycles of Steps S711, S709, S710, S711 until the desired value (“correct exposure value”) is met.). When the exposure is set to the desired correct value (“correct exposure value”) the process ends.
However, claim 16 recites “wherein in the case where exposure of the specific region is set to the desired correct value, the first exposure setting value is set to the output new exposure correction value”. This limitation would appear to state that when the exposure is set to the desired correct value (“correct exposure value”), the exposure setting value is set to the calculated value specification upper limit of Figure 8 and not the correct exposure value.
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 4 and 16-20 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.
Claims 4 and 16-20 depend on claim 1. However, claim 1 has been cancelled. Therefore, claims 4 and 16-20 are indefinite.
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 (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.
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) 2, 6, 10 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 2006/0125952 A1) in view of Morimoto (US 2014/0198229 A1) in view of Toguchi (US 2011/0317063 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kubota teaches an apparatus (Kubota, Fig. 1, system control unit 100 and signal-processing circuit 202, Paragraph 0031), capable of communicating with a capturing apparatus (Kubota, Fig. 1, image pickup element 14, Paragraph 0031), the apparatus comprising:
at least one processor executing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Kubota, Fig. 1, system control unit 100 and signal-processing circuit 202, Paragraph 0031), cause the at least one processor to:
acquire an image captured by the capturing apparatus (Kubota, Fig. 3, Paragraph 0103, The “image data” is obtained from an image captured by the capturing apparatus.);
acquire a first exposure setting value from the capturing apparatus (Kubota, Fig. 3, Paragraphs 0079 and 0103, The initial Tv (effective shutter speed) of the initial Ev is a first exposure setting value.);
determine a second exposure setting value based on a luminance of the image (Kubota, Fig. 3, Step S102, target Tv, Paragraph 0104, The target Tv is a second exposure setting value.);
determine, based on the first exposure setting value and the second exposure setting value, an exposure correction value (Kubota, Fig. 3, Step S105, ΔTv, Paragraph 0111);
output, in a case where a correction amount by the determined exposure correction value is larger than a predetermined amount, a new exposure correction value that corresponds to the predetermined amount, to the capturing apparatus (Kubota, Fig. 3, Steps S105-S106, Paragraphs 0111-0113); and
output, in a case where the correction amount by the determined exposure correction value is smaller than the predetermined amount, the determined exposure correction value, to the capturing apparatus (Kubota, Fig. 3, Steps S105 and S110, Paragraphs 0114).
However, Kubota does not teach determine a second exposure setting value based on a luminance of a specific region; nor wherein in the case where the correction amount by the determined exposure correction value is larger than the predetermined amount, whether exposure of the specific region is set to a desired correct value is determined and the first exposure setting value is gradually changed by the determined exposure correction value after the first exposure setting value is changed to the output new exposure correction value.
In reference to Morimoto, Morimoto teaches determine a second exposure setting value based on a luminance of a specific region (Morimoto, Fig. 4A, Steps 411, 412 and 414 or 416, Paragraph 0054, 0056-0057).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Kubota with the teaching of performing auto-exposure on a specific region of an image as seen in Morimoto to allow the device to properly expose a desired region of the image.
However, the combination of Kubota and Morimoto does not teach wherein in the case where the correction amount by the determined exposure correction value is larger than the predetermined amount, whether exposure of the specific region is set to a desired correct value is determined and the first exposure setting value is gradually changed by the determined exposure correction value after the first exposure setting value is changed to the output new exposure correction value.
In reference to Toguchi, Toguchi teaches acquire a first exposure setting value from the capturing apparatus (Toguchi, Fig. 10, exposure evaluation value EV(pv2), Paragraph 0037 and 0051);
determine a second exposure setting value based on a luminance of the image (Toguchi, Fig. 10, exposure target value EV(sp2), Paragraph 0037 and 0051);
determine, based on the first exposure setting value and the second exposure setting value, an exposure correction value (Toguchi, Fig. 10, Paragraph 0051, “deviation EV (err)”, The difference between EV(sp2) and EV(pv2) is the exposure correction value.);
output, in a case where a correction amount by the determined exposure correction value is larger than a predetermined amount, a new exposure correction value that corresponds to the predetermined amount, to the capturing apparatus (Toguchi, Fig. 10, Times t1-t2, Paragraph 0051, When the deviation EV (err) exceeds threshold value th, the exposure correction value is changed to control volume Cg.);
wherein in the case where the correction amount by the determined exposure correction value is larger than the predetermined amount, whether exposure of the specific region is set to a desired correct value is determined (Toguchi, Fig. 10, Paragraph 0051, “when it is determined that the deviation EV (err) is the threshold value th or less (time t2)”, A desired correct value is a value within the specified threshold value th from exposure target value EV (sp2).) and the first exposure setting value is gradually changed by the determined exposure correction value after the first exposure setting value is changed to the output new exposure correction value (Toguchi, Fig. 10, Paragraph 0051, After changing the exposure by control volume Cg, (after time t2) and the deviation EV (err) is the threshold value th or less, the exposure setting value is gradually changed to the exposure target value EV(sp2).).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Kubota and Morimoto with teaching of gradually changing the exposure to the calculated target value as seen in Toguchi to converge to the exposure target value EV (sp) with high precision (Toguchi, Paragraph 0055).
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kubota, Morimoto and Toguchi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 2 analysis), wherein whether exposure of the specific region is set to the desired correct value is determined after an interval of a predetermined time from when the first exposure setting value is changed to the output new exposure correction value (Toguchi, Fig. 10, The interval of predetermined time may be the time for the change of the exposure evaluation value EV by one gain exposure control volume Cg, or may be the multiple of the number of times the exposure evaluation value EV is changed by the one gain exposure control volume Cg until EV is within the threshold. In other words, the interval is predetermined based on the change amount of Cg and the time between each occurrence of increasing the EV by Cg.).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kubota, Morimoto and Toguchi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 2 analysis), wherein the specific region is a face region or a human body region (Morimoto, Fig. 4A, Steps 411, 412 and 414 Paragraph 0056-0057, Fig. 4B, Steps 457-458, Paragraph 0063).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 2006/0125952 A1) in view of Morimoto (US 2014/0198229 A1) in view of Toguchi (US 2011/0317063 A1) in view of Dobashi et al. (US 2017/0310851 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kubota, Morimoto and Toguchi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 2 analysis). However, the combination of Kubota, Morimoto and Toguchi does not teach wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: acquire a first input-output characteristic of the capturing apparatus concerning the image; and convert a luminance of the image based on a second input-output characteristic which is an input-output characteristic inverse to the first input-output characteristic.
In reference to Dobashi et al. (hereafter referred as Dobashi), Dobashi teaches acquiring a first input-output characteristic of the capturing apparatus concerning the image (Dobashi, Fig. 2A, Paragraph 0033); and
converting a luminance of the image based on a second input-output characteristic which is an input-output characteristic inverse to the first input-output characteristic (Dobashi, Fig. 2B, Paragraph 0033).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Kubota, Morimoto and Toguchi with the teaching of gamma correction as seen in Dobashi to allow the device to perform gamma correction in the captured images.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 2006/0125952 A1) in view of Morimoto (US 2014/0198229 A1) in view of Toguchi (US 2011/0317063 A1) in view of Xiao et al. (US 2007/0177050 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kubota, Morimoto and Toguchi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 2 analysis). However, the combination of Kubota, Morimoto and Toguchi does not teach wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: detect the specific region from the image, wherein in the case the specific region is not detected, the exposure correction value is not determined.
In reference to Xiao et al. (hereafter referred as Xiao), Xiao teaches detect the specific region from the image, wherein in the case the specific region is not detected, the exposure correction value is not determined (Xiao, Fig. 2, Steps S102-S103 and S110, Paragraphs 0057-0058 and 0065, If a face is not detected, exposure control correction based on a face is not determined).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Kubota, Morimoto and Toguchi with the teaching of switching to performing exposure setting on a specific region when the specific region is detected as seen in Xiao to allow the device to automatically perform exposure correction on a face.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kubota, Morimoto and Toguchi teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 2 analysis). However, the combination of Kubota, Morimoto and Toguchi does not teach wherein the first exposure setting value is determined based on a luminance acquired in the whole image, and the second exposure setting value is determined based on the luminance of the specific region extracted from the image.
In reference to Xiao, Xiao teaches wherein a first exposure setting value is determined based on a luminance acquired in the whole image (Xiao, Fig. 2, Step S101, Paragraph 0055-0056), and a second exposure setting value is determined based on the luminance of the specific region extracted from the image (Xiao, Fig. 2, Step S110, Paragraph 0065-0066).
These arts are analogous since they are all related to imaging devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Kubota, Morimoto and Toguchi with the teaching of switching to performing exposure setting on a specific region when the specific region is detected as seen in Xiao to allow the device to automatically perform exposure correction on a face. That is, if a first image in which no face is detected, the first exposure setting value is determined based on a luminance acquired in the whole image. When a face enters the scene, the second exposure setting value would then be changed to be based on the specific region.
Conclusion
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 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 WESLEY JASON CHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1312. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/WESLEY J CHIU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639