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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments and remarks received 11 May 2026. Claims 1 - 21 are currently pending.
Specification
The objection to the specification, due to a non-descriptive title of the invention, is hereby withdrawn in view of the amendments and remarks received 11 May 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2 - 3 of claim 19 recite, in part, “the apparatus according to claim 1, a sensor” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --the apparatus according to claim 1, and a sensor-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
The objection to claim 1, due to a minor informality, is hereby withdrawn in view of the amendments and remarks received 11 May 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 10, 11, 14 and 15 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the photographer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the detection result of the operation performed by the photographer" in lines 2 - 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the operation performed by the photographer" in lines 2 - 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the photographer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the type of the subject" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11 and 15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s) but would be withdrawn if their base claim(s) overcomes the rejection.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a detection unit configured to detect” in claims 5 - 7.
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.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 21 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 11 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9 - 10 of the remarks the Applicant’s Representative argues that the Examiner’s invoking of U.S.C. § 112(f) is improper. The Applicant’s Representative argues that the Examiner’s invoking of U.S.C. § 112(f) is improper at least because claims 4 - 7, 11 and 19 “do not use the phrase ‘means for’ or ‘step for’”, because “the Examiner has not shown that persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification would not understand the term ‘unit’ to be the name for the structure that performs the function” and because “the Examiner has not shown that the modifier is not a structural modifier.” Therefore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that the Examiner’s invoking of U.S.C. § 112(f) is improper.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially, the Examiner asserts that “a detection unit configured to detect” in claims 5 - 7 is the only claim limitation currently found to invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The Examiner asserts that the claim limitation “a detection unit configured to detect” recited in claims 5 - 77 is still deemed to invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it meets the 3-prong analysis provided in the MPEP for determining whether a claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see MPEP § 2181(I). The Examiner asserts that “a detection unit configured to detect” meets the 3-prong analysis provided in the MPEP for determining whether a claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses a generic placeholder, “unit”, that is a non-structural term having no sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure, because the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, “detect”, linked to the generic placeholder with a linking word or phrase, “configured to”, and because the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Furthermore, the Examiner asserts that “detection” is not a structural modifier at least because one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize “detection” or a “detection unit” as sufficiently definite structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function. In addition, the Examiner directs the Applicant’s attention to MPEP § 2181(I) - § 2181(I)(C) that expressly states that “unit for” is a non-structural generic placeholder that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and that “configured to” is considered as a linking phrase. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that “a detection unit configured to detect” appropriately invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
On pages 11 - 12 of the remarks the Applicant’s Representative argues that the rejection to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. should be withdrawn. The Applicant’s Representative argues that at least because Gao et al. do not disclose “changing the size of the low response zone, the fast response zone, or the transition zone” that “there is no disclosure of setting the size of the first region (e.g., a low response zone) where the degree of subject tracking is low, based on the holding state.” Therefore, the Applicant’s Representative argues that the rejection to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. should be withdrawn.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner asserts that Gao et al. disclose “wherein the setting unit sets a size of the first region based on a holding state of an imaging apparatus that captures the captured image”, see at least figures 4 - 6, page 4 paragraphs 0044 - 0045, page 5 paragraphs 0048 and 0054, page 6 paragraphs 0057 - 0060, page 7 paragraph 0074, page 8 paragraphs 0077 - 0081 and page 9 paragraphs 0085 - 0088 of Gao et al. wherein they disclose that “the zoomed region may be determined based on the foreground (tracked object) and/or global motion (e.g., camera motion)” [0048], that “determining the zoom region motion response speed may be based on two or more zones within the zoom region. Each zone may have an associated zoom region motion response speed. In one example, the zoom region 540 may include two zones. A first zone may be a slow response zone and a second zone may be a fast response zone. The slow response zone may be located centrally in the zoom region. The fast response zone may be located near the edges of the zoom region. For example, the fast response zone may surround or encircle the slow response zone. In some implementations, the slow response zone may be a rectangular zone centered in the zoom region and the fast response zone may lie between the slow response zone and the border of the zoom region. While the tracked object (e.g., the tracking region) is within the slow response zone, the zoom region may have a relatively slower zoom region motion response speed” [0058], that “the electronic device 102 may determine a relatively slower zoom region motion response speed when the tracked object is near the center of the zoom region and may determine a relatively faster zoom region motion response speed when the tracked object is near the border or edge of the zoom region” [0074], that “global motion estimator 318 may estimate the motion of the camera and/or image content. For example, the global motion estimator 318 may compute the inter-image (e.g., inter-frame) camera motion. The resulting global motion information may reflect the camera movement in the real world” [0077], that “zoom controller 320 may leverage the global motion information (e.g., information of camera motion) and object tracking information (e.g., target object motion information) to compute the location and/or size of the zoom region (e.g., cropped frame)” [0079] and that “the global motion 438 may be due to movement of the camera (from hand movement of a user carrying a smartphone, for example)” [0080].
The Examiner asserts that, as shown herein above and in the cited portions, Gao et al. disclose that a zoom region may be comprised of two or more zones, for example a slow response zone and a fast response zone, and that the size of the zoom region, and thus the sizes of the slow and fast response zones, may be based on global motion information, e.g., motion due to movement of the camera from, for example, hand movement of a user carrying a smartphone. The Examiner asserts that Gao et al. disclose the aforementioned disputed claim limitation(s) at least because Gao et al. disclose that the size of their zoom region, and thus the sizes of their slow and fast response zones, is set based on global motion information corresponding to camera movement information. The Examiner asserts that the slow response zone of Gao et al. corresponds to the claimed first region and that the global motion information of Gao et al. corresponds to the claimed holding state. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that Gao et al. disclose the aforementioned disputed claim limitation(s).
On page 13 of the remarks the Applicant’s Representative argues that Kagei “does not distinguishes [sic] between a ‘person’ and a ‘non-person object’ as different subject types, and adjusts the position of a ‘second region’ to be farther from a target position specifically when the subject is a person.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially, the Examiner asserts that Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Moreover, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, the Examiner asserts that Kagei discloses distinguishing between a person and a non-person object as different subject types and adjusting the position of a second region to be farther from a target position when the subject is a person, see at least the abstract, figures 3A - 4B and 5 - 7 and page 2 paragraph 0051 - page 3 paragraph 0057 of Kagei wherein it is disclosed that their automatic tracking apparatus includes a “prohibition area setting unit for setting tracking prohibition area, according to information on the automatic tracking apparatus that includes information on the object including information on at least one of type, orientation and traveling speed of the object, or information on at least one of pan and tilt positions of the camera platform and zoom position” [abstract], that in “the template memory 26, two types of images of FIGS. 3A and 3B are preliminarily stored in a state of being associated with respective template numbers Ntemp as Ntemp=1 and Ntemp=2 (information on the type of object to be tracked)” [0051], that “FIG. 6A is predetermined as a tracking prohibition area for a case where Ntemp is one. FIG. 6B is predetermined as a tracking prohibition area for a case where Ntemp is two. In the memory, information of Xmin, Xmax, Ymin and Ymax, which are the minimum values and the maximum values in the x and y coordinates on the screen of the tracking prohibition area are stored as table data associated with Ntemp as illustrated in FIG. 7” [0053] and that “the tracking prohibition area is changed according to the similar template number and automatic tracking is performed, thereby allowing automatic tracking according to one or more type of object” [0057].
The Examiner asserts that, as shown herein above and in the cited portions, Kagei discloses distinguishing between types of objects to be tracked, e.g., Ntemp=1 and Ntemp=2, and that a tracking prohibition area is changed according to a type of object recognized. Moreover, the Examiner asserts that figures 3A and 3B of Kagei illustrate that Ntemp=1 and Ntemp=2 correspond to an airplane and a person, respectively, and that figures 6A and 6B of Kagei illustrate that a second region, a region of the imaging screen in which a pan movement can be performed, is set further away from the center of the imaging screen, the target position, in the x-direction when the subject to be tracked is a person than when the subject to be tracked is an airplane, an object other than a person. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that Kagei discloses distinguishing between a person and a non-person object as different subject types and adjusting the position of a second region to be farther from a target position when the subject is a person.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 - 4, 10, 12, 13 and 17 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. U.S. Publication No. 2017/0094184 A1.
- With regards to claim 1, Gao et al. disclose an apparatus (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0028, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - 0039, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0118) comprising: one or more processors; (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0113) and a memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0113) as: an acquisition unit (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0113) configured to acquire information about a subject detected from a captured image; (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 & 9, Pg. 4 ¶ 0041 - 0043, Pg. 7 ¶ 0067 and 0073 - 0074, Pg. 8 ¶ 0078 - 0079) a calculation unit (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0113) configured to calculate a tracking amount based on a position of the subject in the captured image and a target position; (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 & 5 - 9, Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 4 ¶ 0046 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0049, Pg. 6 ¶ 0055 - 0058, Pg. 7 ¶ 0074, Pg. 8 ¶ 0078 - 0084) a control unit (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0113) configured to control subject tracking to bring the position of the subject in the captured image close to the target position, based on the tracking amount; (Gao et al., Figs. 4 - 6, Pg. 6 ¶ 0055 - 0060, Pg. 7 ¶ 0074, Pg. 8 ¶ 0079 - 0084) and a setting unit (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0113) configured to set a first region and a second region in the captured image, (Gao et al., Figs. 5 - 8, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057 - 0061, Pg. 9 ¶ 0085 - 0088) wherein the setting unit sets a size of the first region based on a holding state of an imaging apparatus that captures the captured image, (Gao et al., Figs. 4 - 6, Pg. 5 ¶ 0048, 0052 and 0054, Pg. 6 ¶ 0058, Pg. 8 ¶ 0077 - 0081 [“the zoomed region may be determined based on the foreground (tracked object) and/or global motion (e.g., camera motion)”, “zoom controller 320 may leverage the global motion information (e.g., information of camera motion) and object tracking information (e.g., target object motion information) to compute the location and/or size of the zoom region (e.g., cropped frame)” and “the global motion 438 may be due to movement of the camera (from hand movement of a user carrying a smartphone, for example)”]) wherein, in the first region, a degree to which the subject tracking is performed is lower than in the second region. (Gao et al., Figs. 5 & 6, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057 - 0061, Pg. 9 ¶ 0085 - 0088)
- With regards to claim 2, Gao et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, if a size of the first region is changed, a position of the second region is changed. (Gao et al., Figs. 4 - 6, Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 5 ¶ 0048, Pg. 6 ¶ 0058, Pg. 7 ¶ 0074, Pg. 8 ¶ 0077 - 0081, Pg. 9 ¶ 0087 [The Examiner asserts that, at least, zoom regions B and C illustrated in figure 6 of Gao et al. demonstrate that when the size of the first region in zoom region B, corresponding to slow response zone b 648b, changes to the first region shown in zoom region C, corresponding to slow response zone c and transition zone c, that the position of the second region in zoom region C, corresponding to fast response zone c, moves further away from the center of the zoom region.])
- With regards to claim 3, Gao et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the setting unit sets the first region and the second region based on the holding state of the imaging apparatus. (Gao et al., Figs. 4 - 6, Pg. 5 ¶ 0048, 0052 and 0054, Pg. 6 ¶ 0058, Pg. 8 ¶ 0077 - 0081 [“the zoomed region may be determined based on the foreground (tracked object) and/or global motion (e.g., camera motion)”, “zoom controller 320 may leverage the global motion information (e.g., information of camera motion) and object tracking information (e.g., target object motion information) to compute the location and/or size of the zoom region (e.g., cropped frame)” and “the global motion 438 may be due to movement of the camera (from hand movement of a user carrying a smartphone, for example).”])
- With regards to claim 4, Gao et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the one or more processors further function as: a determination unit configured to determine a camera work of the photographer based on a detection result obtained by a detection unit configured to detect motion added to the imaging apparatus, (Gao et al., Figs. 1 - 6 & 9, Pg. 4 ¶ 0044 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0048, Pg. 5 ¶ 0052 and 0054, Pg. 6 ¶ 0058, Pg. 7 ¶ 0072, Pg. 8 ¶ 0077 - 0081) and wherein the holding state is a determination result of the camera work. (Gao et al., Figs. 1 - 4 & 9, Pg. 4 ¶ 0044 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0048, Pg. 5 ¶ 0052 and 0054, Pg. 7 ¶ 0072, Pg. 8 ¶ 0076 - 0080)
- With regards to claim 10, Gao et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the setting unit sets the first region and the second region based on the detection result of the operation performed by the photographer on the imaging apparatus. (Gao et al., Pg. 2 ¶ 0028 - 0029, Pg. 4 ¶ 0041 and 0046, Pg. 5 ¶ 0050, Pg. 6 ¶ 0055 - 0058, Pg. 7 ¶ 0067, Pg. 8 ¶ 0078 - 0080, Pg. 9 ¶ 0085 - 0088)
- With regards to claim 12, Gao et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the setting unit sets the first region and the second region based on a distance between the target position and a center of the captured image. (Gao et al., Figs. 4 - 7, Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 5 ¶ 0048 - 0049, Pg. 6 ¶ 0058 - 0061, Pg. 7 ¶ 0067 and 0074, Pg. 8 ¶ 0078 - 0081, Pg. 9 ¶ 0085 - 0088 [Gao et al. disclose setting a zoom region, which may include two or more zones, based on a location of an object to be tracked, the target position, in a captured image. The location of the object to be tracked can be described by a distance between its position and a center of the captured image.])
- With regards to claim 13, Gao et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 12, wherein, in a case where the distance is a second value larger than a first value, the setting unit sets the second region at a position closer to the target position than in a case where the distance is the first value. (Gao et al., Figs. 4 - 7, Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057 - 0058 and 0061, Pg. 9 ¶ 0085 - 0088 [“As illustrated in zoom region B 640b, when the previous state is a fast response state corresponding to fast response zone B 650b, (e.g., a follow state where the tracked object was in fast response zone B 650b, for example), the tracked object (e.g., tracking region B 646b) may have to reach slow response zone B 648b (or an inner region or high inertial zone, for example) in order to change to a slow response state. For example, tracking region B 646b may have to cross transition zone B 652b to change to the slow response state.”])
- With regards to claim 17, Gao et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first region is set closer to the target position than the second region. (Gao et al., Figs. 5 & 6, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057 - 0058)
- With regards to claim 18, Gao et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the first region is set on an inside of the second region. (Gao et al., Figs. 5 & 6, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057 - 0058)
- With regards to claim 19, Gao et al. disclose an imaging apparatus (Gao et al., Abstract, Fig. 1, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0040, Pg. 7 ¶ 0069 - 0071, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0104) comprising: the apparatus according to claim 1, ([Gao et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, see the analysis of claim 1 with respect to Gao et al. provided herein above.]) a sensor configured to capture the captured image, (Gao et al., Abstract, Fig. 1, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0040, Pg. 7 ¶ 0069 - 0071, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0104) wherein the one or more processors further function (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0113) as a tracking unit (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0113) configured to perform subject tracking to bring the position of the subject in the captured image to the target position, (Gao et al., Figs. 4 - 6, Pg. 6 ¶ 0055 - 0060, Pg. 7 ¶ 0074, Pg. 8 ¶ 0079 - 0084) according to control executed by the control unit. (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0113)
- With regards to claim 20, Gao et al. disclose a method (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0028, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - 0039, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0118) comprising: acquiring information about a subject detected from a captured image; (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 & 9, Pg. 4 ¶ 0041 - 0043, Pg. 7 ¶ 0067 and 0073 - 0074, Pg. 8 ¶ 0078 - 0079) calculating a tracking amount based on a position of the subject in the captured image and a target position; (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 & 5 - 9, Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 4 ¶ 0046 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0049, Pg. 6 ¶ 0055 - 0058, Pg. 7 ¶ 0074, Pg. 8 ¶ 0078 - 0084) controlling subject tracking to bring the position of the subject in the captured image close to the target position, based on the tracking amount; (Gao et al., Figs. 4 - 6, Pg. 6 ¶ 0055 - 0060, Pg. 7 ¶ 0074, Pg. 8 ¶ 0079 - 0084) and setting a first region and a second region (Gao et al., Figs. 5 - 8, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057 - 0061, Pg. 9 ¶ 0085 - 0088) based on at least any of a holding state of an imaging apparatus that captures the captured image, a detection result of an operation performed by a photographer on the imaging apparatus, a position in the captured image of the target position, and a type of the subject, (Gao et al., Figs. 4 - 8, Pg. 4 ¶ 0041 and 0046, Pg. 5 ¶ 0048, Pg. 6 ¶ 0058, Pg. 8 ¶ 0077 - 0081, Pg. 9 ¶ 0085 - 0088) wherein, in the first region, a degree to which the subject tracking is performed is lower than in the second region. (Gao et al., Figs. 5 & 6, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057 - 0061, Pg. 9 ¶ 0085 - 0088)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. U.S. Publication No. 2017/0094184 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liao U.S. Publication No. 2021/0051259 A1 in view of Shimosato U.S. Publication No. 2017/0104938 A1.
- With regards to claim 5, Gao et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the holding state is determined based on a detection result obtained by a detection unit (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0113) configured to detect motion added to the imaging apparatus. (Gao et al., Figs. 1 - 4 & 9, Pg. 4 ¶ 0044 - 0047, Pg. 7 ¶ 0072, Pg. 8 ¶ 0076 - 0080, Pg. 10 ¶ 0094) Gao et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein, in a case where a magnitude of shake detected by the detection unit exceeds a threshold value, the setting unit makes a size of the first region smaller than in a case where the magnitude is equal to or smaller than the threshold value. Pertaining to analogous art, Liao discloses wherein the holding state is determined based on a detection result obtained by a detection unit configured to detect the holding state, (Liao, Abstract, Figs. 1 & 2, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006 - 0008 and 0015, Pg. 1 ¶ 0018 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0019, Pg. 2 ¶ 0029 - 0033) and wherein, in a case with a high magnitude of movement, the setting unit makes a size of the first region smaller than in a case with a low magnitude of movement. (Liao, Abstract, Pg. 1 ¶ 0003 - 0005 and 0011, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021, Pg. 4 ¶ 0042) Liao fails to disclose explicitly detecting motion added to the imaging apparatus, a case where a magnitude of shake detected by the detection unit exceeds a threshold value, and a case where the magnitude is equal to or smaller than the threshold value. Pertaining to analogous art, Shimosato discloses wherein the holding state is determined based on a detection result obtained by a detection unit configured to detect motion added to the imaging apparatus, (Shimosato, Figs. 14A & 14B, Pg. 4 ¶ 0067 - 0068, Pg. 6 ¶ 0098 - 0099, Pg. 10 ¶ 0153 - 0154, Pg. 15 ¶ 0218 - 0221, Pg. 16 ¶ 0230 - 0233) and wherein, in a case where a magnitude of shake detected by the detection unit exceeds a threshold value, the setting unit sets a first region different than in a case where the magnitude is equal to or smaller than the threshold value. (Shimosato, Figs. 5A - 5C, 14A & 14B, Pg. 4 ¶ 0067 - 0068, Pg. 6 ¶ 0098 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0107, Pg. 10 ¶ 0153 - 0154, Pg. 15 ¶ 0218 - 0221, Pg. 16 ¶ 0230 - 0233) Gao et al. and Liao are combinable because they are both directed towards imaging systems for automatically tracking a target. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Gao et al. with the teachings of Liao. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of Gao et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Liao applied to a similar device. Setting a size of the first region to be smaller in cases wherein the imaging apparatus undergoes a high magnitude of movement, as taught by Liao, would enhance the base device of Gao et al. by improving its ability to accurately and reliably track and continually capture relatively stable images of fast moving targets since only a smaller amount of movement of a target from a predetermined imaging position would cause pan and tilt operations to be carried out. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Gao et al. that the size of their zoom region, and thus the sizes of their slow and fast response zones of their zoom region, may be set based on global motion information reflecting camera movement in the real world, see at least figures 4 - 6 and 9, page 5 paragraphs 0048 and 0054, page 6 paragraphs 0057 - 0060 and page 8 paragraphs 0077 - 0081 of Gao et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that a size of the first region would be set to be smaller in cases wherein the imaging apparatus undergoes a high magnitude of movement so as to improve the ability of end-users of the base device of Gao et al. to accurately and reliably track and continually capture relatively stable images of fast moving targets. In addition, Gao et al. in view of Liao and Shimosato are combinable because they are all directed towards imaging systems for automatically tracking a target. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Gao et al. in view of Liao with the teachings of Shimosato. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Gao et al. in view of Liao with the well-known and applicable technique Shimosato applied to a similar device. Detecting cases where a magnitude of shake exceeds a threshold value as large camera movement states, as taught by Shimosato, would enhance the combined base device by simplifying its use and operation for end-users since it would be able to determine instances wherein it is undergoing high magnitudes of camera movement and make appropriate target tracking adjustments automatically instead of requiring an end-user to manually indicate instances of large camera movement to make the appropriate target tracking adjustments. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that cases where a magnitude of shake exceeds a threshold value would be automatically detected as large camera movement states of the combined base device so as to simplify its use and operation for end-users since it would be able to determine instances wherein it is undergoing high magnitudes of camera movement and make appropriate target tracking adjustments automatically instead of requiring an end-user to manually indicate instances of large camera movement to make the appropriate adjustments to the target tracking process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gao et al. with Liao and Shimosato to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
- With regards to claim 6, Gao et al. in view of Liao in view of Shimosato disclose the apparatus according to claim 5. Gao et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the holding state is determined based on the detection result obtained by the detection unit configured to detect motion added to the imaging apparatus, and wherein, in a case where a number of times that the magnitude of shake detected by the detection unit exceeds the threshold value is equal to or smaller than a predetermined number of times, the setting unit sets the second region at a position more distant from the target position than in a case where the number of times that the magnitude exceeds the threshold value is larger than the predetermined number of times. Pertaining to analogous art, Liao discloses wherein the holding state is determined based on the detection result obtained by the detection unit configured to detect the holding state, (Liao, Abstract, Figs. 1 & 2, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006 - 0008 and 0015, Pg. 1 ¶ 0018 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0019, Pg. 2 ¶ 0029 - 0033) and wherein, in a case where a number of times with the high magnitude of movement is equal to or smaller than a predetermined number of times, the setting unit sets the second region at a position more distant from the target position than in a case where the number of times with the high magnitude of movement is larger than the predetermined number of times. (Liao, Abstract, Pg. 1 ¶ 0003 - 0005 and 0011, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021, Pg. 4 ¶ 0042) Liao fails to disclose explicitly detecting motion added to the imaging apparatus, and the magnitude of shake detected by the detection unit exceeding the threshold value. Pertaining to analogous art, Shimosato discloses wherein the holding state is determined based on the detection result obtained by the detection unit configured to detect motion added to the imaging apparatus, (Shimosato, Figs. 14A & 14B, Pg. 4 ¶ 0067 - 0068, Pg. 6 ¶ 0098 - 0099, Pg. 10 ¶ 0153 - 0154, Pg. 15 ¶ 0218 - 0221, Pg. 16 ¶ 0230 - 0233) and wherein, in a case where a number of times that the magnitude of shake detected by the detection unit exceeds the threshold value is equal to or smaller than a predetermined number of times, the setting unit sets the second region different than in a case where the number of times that the magnitude exceeds the threshold value is larger than the predetermined number of times. (Shimosato, Figs. 5A - 5C, 14A & 14B, Pg. 4 ¶ 0067 - 0068, Pg. 6 ¶ 0098 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0107, Pg. 10 ¶ 0153 - 0154, Pg. 15 ¶ 0218 - 0221, Pg. 16 ¶ 0230 - 0233)
- With regards to claim 7, Gao et al. in view of Liao in view of Shimosato disclose the apparatus according to claim 5. Gao et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the holding state is determined based on the detection result obtained by the detection unit configured to detect motion added to the imaging apparatus, and wherein, in a case where a number of times that the magnitude of shake detected by the detection unit exceeds the threshold value is equal to or smaller than a predetermined number of times, the setting unit sets the first region with a larger size than in a case where the number of times that the magnitude exceeds the threshold value is larger than the predetermined number of times. Pertaining to analogous art, Liao discloses wherein the holding state is determined based on the detection result obtained by the detection unit configured to detect the holding state, (Liao, Abstract, Figs. 1 & 2, Pg. 1 ¶ 0006 - 0008 and 0015, Pg. 1 ¶ 0018 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0019, Pg. 2 ¶ 0029 - 0033) and wherein, in a case where a number of times with the high magnitude of movement is equal to or smaller than a predetermined number of times, the setting unit sets the first region with a larger size than in a case where the number of times with the high magnitude of movement is larger than the predetermined number of times. (Liao, Abstract, Pg. 1 ¶ 0003 - 0005 and 0011, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021, Pg. 4 ¶ 0042) Liao fails to disclose explicitly detecting motion added to the imaging apparatus, and the magnitude of shake detected by the detection unit exceeding the threshold value. Pertaining to analogous art, Shimosato discloses wherein the holding state is determined based on the detection result obtained by the detection unit configured to detect motion added to the imaging apparatus, (Shimosato, Figs. 14A & 14B, Pg. 4 ¶ 0067 - 0068, Pg. 6 ¶ 0098 - 0099, Pg. 10 ¶ 0153 - 0154, Pg. 15 ¶ 0218 - 0221, Pg. 16 ¶ 0230 - 0233) and wherein, in a case where a number of times that the magnitude of shake detected by the detection unit exceeds the threshold value is equal to or smaller than a predetermined number of times, the setting unit sets the first region different than in a case where the number of times that the magnitude exceeds the threshold value is larger than the predetermined number of times. (Shimosato, Figs. 5A - 5C, 14A & 14B, Pg. 4 ¶ 0067 - 0068, Pg. 6 ¶ 0098 - Pg. 7 ¶ 0107, Pg. 10 ¶ 0153 - 0154, Pg. 15 ¶ 0218 - 0221, Pg. 16 ¶ 0230 - 0233)
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. U.S. Publication No. 2017/0094184 A1 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Tsubusaki U.S. Publication No. 2017/0272661 A1 in view of Mentese et al. U.S. Publication No. 2016/0171330 A1.
- With regards to claim 8, Gao et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 3. Gao et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the holding state is a determination result indicating whether a gimbal is attached to the imaging apparatus, and wherein, in a case where the determination result indicates that the gimbal is attached to the imaging apparatus, the setting unit sets the second region at a position closer to the target position than in a case where the determination result indicates that the gimbal is not attached to the imaging apparatus. Pertaining to analogous art, Tsubusaki discloses wherein the holding state is a determination result indicating whether a stabilization device is attached to the imaging apparatus, (Tsubusaki, Pg. 6 ¶ 0075, Pg. 8 ¶ 0086 and 0089 - 0090) and wherein, in a case where the determination result indicates that the stabilization device is attached to the imaging apparatus, the setting unit sets the second region at a position closer to the target position than in a case where the determination result indicates that the stabilization device is not attached to the imaging apparatus. (Tsubusaki, Figs. 8A - 8C, Pg. 6 ¶ 0075, Pg. 7 ¶ 0085 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0090) Tsubusaki fails to disclose explicitly wherein a gimbal is attached to the imaging apparatus. Pertaining to analogous art, Mentese et al. disclose wherein a gimbal is attached to the imaging apparatus. (Mentese et al., Abstract, Figs. 9A - 10I, Pg. 1 ¶ 0002 and 0005 - 0008, Pg. 4 ¶ 0047) Gao et al. and Tsubusaki are combinable because they are both directed towards imaging systems for automatically tracking a target. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Gao et al. with the teachings of Tsubusaki. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of Gao et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Tsubusaki applied to a similar device. Setting a position of the second region closer to the target position in a case where a stabilization device is attached to the imaging apparatus than in a case where the stabilization device is not attached to the imaging apparatus, as taught by Tsubusaki, would enhance the base device of Gao et al. by improving its ability to accurately and reliably track and continually capture images of targets efficiently since the first and second regions used would be dynamically changed in accordance with a shooting state of the imaging apparatus so as to effectively prevent subject frame-outs from occurring during subject tracking. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that a position of the second region would be set closer to the target position in a case where a stabilization device is attached to the imaging apparatus than in a case where the stabilization device is not attached to the imaging apparatus so as to improve the ability of the base device of Gao et al. to accurately and reliably track and continually capture images of targets efficiently since the first and second regions used during tracking would be dynamically set and configured in accordance with a shooting state of the imaging apparatus in order to effectively prevent subject frame-outs from occurring. In addition, Gao et al. in view of Tsubusaki and Mentese et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards imaging systems for automatically tracking a target. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Gao et al. in view of Tsubusaki with the teachings of Mentese et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to substitute the stabilization device of Tsubusaki for the gimbal of Mentese et al. The gimbal of Mentese et al. could be substituted in place of the stabilization device of Tsubusaki using well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that in the combination a gimbal would be utilized to provide a fixed state with a low amount of shake for the imaging apparatus. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Tsubusaki that the camera is determined to be fixed to a tripod or the like and in a fixed state when a shake detection value is below a predetermined amount, see at least page 6 paragraph 0075 and page 8 paragraph 0089 of Tsubusaki. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that a gimbal would be utilized to provide a fixed state with a low amount of shake for the imaging apparatus of the combined base device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gao et al. with Tsubusaki and Mentese et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
- With regards to claim 9, Gao et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 3. Gao et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the holding state is a determination result indicating whether a gimbal is attached to the imaging apparatus, and wherein, in a case where the determination result indicates that the gimbal is attached to the imaging apparatus, the setting unit sets the first region with a smaller size than in a case where the determination result indicates that the gimbal is not attached to the imaging apparatus. Pertaining to analogous art, Tsubusaki discloses wherein the holding state is a determination result indicating whether a stabilization device is attached to the imaging apparatus, (Tsubusaki, Pg. 6 ¶ 0075, Pg. 8 ¶ 0086 and 0089 - 0090) and wherein, in a case where the determination result indicates that the stabilization device is attached to the imaging apparatus, the setting unit sets the first region with a smaller size than in a case where the determination result indicates that the stabilization device is not attached to the imaging apparatus. (Tsubusaki, Figs. 8A - 8C, Pg. 6 ¶ 0075, Pg. 7 ¶ 0085 - Pg. 8 ¶ 0090) Tsubusaki fails to disclose explicitly wherein a gimbal is attached to the imaging apparatus. Pertaining to analogous art, Mentese et al. disclose wherein a gimbal is attached to the imaging apparatus. (Mentese et al., Abstract, Figs. 9A - 10I, Pg. 1 ¶ 0002 and 0005 - 0008, Pg. 4 ¶ 0047) Gao et al. and Tsubusaki are combinable because they are both directed towards imaging systems for automatically tracking a target. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Gao et al. with the teachings of Tsubusaki. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of Gao et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Tsubusaki applied to a similar device. Setting the first region to be smaller in a case where a stabilization device is attached to the imaging apparatus than in a case where the stabilization device is not attached to the imaging apparatus, as taught by Tsubusaki, would enhance the base device of Gao et al. by improving its ability to accurately and reliably track and continually capture images of targets efficiently since the first and second regions used would be dynamically changed in accordance with a shooting state of the imaging apparatus so as to effectively prevent subject frame-outs from occurring during subject tracking. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the first region would be set to be smaller in a case where a stabilization device is attached to the imaging apparatus than in a case where the stabilization device is not attached to the imaging apparatus so as to improve the ability of the base device of Gao et al. to accurately and reliably track and continually capture images of targets efficiently since the first and second regions used during tracking would be dynamically set and configured in accordance with a shooting state of the imaging apparatus in order to effectively prevent subject frame-outs from occurring. In addition, Gao et al. in view of Tsubusaki and Mentese et al. are combinable because they are all directed towards imaging systems for automatically tracking a target. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Gao et al. in view of Tsubusaki with the teachings of Mentese et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to substitute the stabilization device of Tsubusaki for the gimbal of Mentese et al. The gimbal of Mentese et al. could be substituted in place of the stabilization device of Tsubusaki using well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that in the combination a gimbal would be utilized to provide a fixed state with a low amount of shake for the imaging apparatus. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Tsubusaki that the camera is determined to be fixed to a tripod or the like and in a fixed state when a shake detection value is below a predetermined amount, see at least page 6 paragraph 0075 and page 8 paragraph 0089 of Tsubusaki. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that a gimbal would be utilized to provide a fixed state with a low amount of shake for the imaging apparatus of the combined base device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gao et al. with Tsubusaki and Mentese et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. U.S. Publication No. 2017/0094184 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kagei U.S. Publication No. 2013/0278778 A1.
- With regards to claim 14, Gao et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 1. Gao et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the setting unit sets the first region and the second region based on the type of the subject. Pertaining to analogous art, Kagei discloses wherein the setting unit sets the first region and the second region based on the type of the subject. (Kagei, Abstract, Figs. 2 - 4B & 5 - 7, Pg. 2 ¶ 0051 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0057 [“prohibition area setting unit for setting tracking prohibition area, according to information on the automatic tracking apparatus that includes information on the object including information on at least one of type, orientation and traveling speed of the object, or information on at least one of pan and tilt positions of the camera platform and zoom position”, “In the template memory 26, two types of images of FIGS. 3A and 3B are preliminarily stored in a state of being associated with respective template numbers Ntemp as Ntemp=1 and Ntemp=2 (information on the type of object to be tracked)”, “FIG. 6A is predetermined as a tracking prohibition area for a case where Ntemp is one. FIG. 6B is predetermined as a tracking prohibition area for a case where Ntemp is two. In the memory, information of Xmin, Xmax, Ymin and Ymax, which are the minimum values and the maximum values in the x and y coordinates on the screen of the tracking prohibition area are stored as table data associated with Ntemp as illustrated in FIG. 7” and “the tracking prohibition area is changed according to the similar template number and automatic tracking is performed, thereby allowing automatic tracking according to one or more type of object.”]) Gao et al. and Kagei are combinable because they are both directed towards imaging systems for automatically tracking a target. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Gao et al. with the teachings of Kagei. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of Gao et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Kagei applied to a comparable device. Setting the first and second regions based on the type of the subject, as taught by Kagei, would enhance the base device of Gao et al. by improving its ability to accurately and reliably track and continually capture relatively stable images of various subjects since the first and second regions used to perform subject tracking would be adaptively set and configured based on the type of subject to be tracked in order to optimize subject tracking of the type of subject to be tracked. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Gao et al. that zooming may be based on a detected object and that their zoom region, i.e., first and second regions, may be set according to a size of a tracked object, see at least page 2 paragraphs 0025 and 0027 - 0029, page 4 paragraphs 0041 - 0043, page 4 paragraph 0047 - page 5 paragraph 0048 and page 8 paragraphs 0077 - 0080 of Gao et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the first and second regions would be set based on the type of the subject so as to improve the ability of the base device of Gao et al. to accurately and reliably track and continually capture images of various subjects since the first and second regions used to perform subject tracking would be adaptively set and configured based on the type of subject to be tracked. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gao et al. with Kagei to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
- With regards to claim 15, Gao et al. in view of Kagei disclose the apparatus according to claim 14. Gao et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein, in a case where the type of the subject is a person, the setting unit sets the second region at a position more distant from the target position than in a case where the type of the subject is an object other than a person. Pertaining to analogous art, Kagei discloses wherein, in a case where the type of the subject is a person, the setting unit sets the second region at a position more distant from the target position than in a case where the type of the subject is an object other than a person. (Kagei, Abstract, Figs. 3A - 4B & 5 - 7, Pg. 2 ¶ 0051 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0057 [“In the template memory 26, two types of images of FIGS. 3A and 3B are preliminarily stored in a state of being associated with respective template numbers Ntemp as Ntemp=1 and Ntemp=2 (information on the type of object to be tracked)”, “FIG. 6A is predetermined as a tracking prohibition area for a case where Ntemp is one. FIG. 6B is predetermined as a tracking prohibition area for a case where Ntemp is two” and “the tracking prohibition area is changed according to the similar template number and automatic tracking is performed, thereby allowing automatic tracking according to one or more type of object”. As illustrated in figures 3A and 6A and figures 3B and 6B of Kagei, a second region, a region of the imaging screen in which a pan movement can be performed, is set further away from the center of the imaging screen, the target position, in the x-direction when the subject to be tracked is a person than when the subject to be tracked is an airplane, an object other than a person.])
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. U.S. Publication No. 2017/0094184 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Irie U.S. Publication No. 2018/0017659 A1.
- With regards to claim 16, Gao et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first region is a dead zone of the subject tracking. Gao et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the first region is a dead zone of the subject tracking. Pertaining to analogous art, Irie discloses wherein the first region is a dead zone of the subject tracking. (Irie, Abstract, Figs. 4, 9 & 11, Pg. 1 ¶ 0011 - 0012, Pg. 2 ¶ 0019 - 0022, Pg. 7 ¶ 0164 - 0169) Gao et al. and Irie are combinable because they are both directed towards imaging systems for automatically tracking a target. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Gao et al. with the teachings of Irie. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of Gao et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Irie applied to a comparable device. Setting the first region as a dead zone of the subject tracking, as taught by Irie, would enhance the base device of Gao et al. by improving its ability to accurately and reliably track and continually capture relatively stable images of targets since small amounts of movement of a target from a predetermined imaging position would not cause pan and tilt operations to be carried out. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Gao et al. that zoom region motion response speed may be slower near the center of the zoom region, that the slow response zone may be a rectangular zone centered in the zoom region and that zoom motion response speed may be 0 when the tracked object is located at the center of the zoom region, see at least page 6 paragraphs 0057 - 0060, page 7 paragraph 0074, page 8 paragraph 0081 - page 9 paragraph 0088 of Gao et al. Moreover, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Irie that by setting the dead zone it is possible to capture a stable high-quality image since the camera is prevented from being panned and tilted in response to a small motion of the target, see at least page 7 paragraph 0165 of Irie. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the first region would be set as a dead zone of the subject tracking so as to improve the ability of the base device of Gao et al. to accurately and reliably track and continually capture relatively stable images of targets since small amounts of movement of a target from a predetermined imaging position would not cause pan and tilt operations to be carried out. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gao et al. with Irie to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. U.S. Publication No. 2017/0094184 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liao U.S. Publication No. 2021/0051259 A1.
- With regards to claim 21, Gao et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 1. Gao et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the setting unit sets the first region with a larger size in a case where motion added to the imaging apparatus is determined to be small, than in a case where the motion added to the imaging apparatus is determined to be larger. Pertaining to analogous art, Liao discloses wherein the setting unit sets the first region with a larger size in a case where motion added to the imaging apparatus is determined to be small, than in a case where the motion added to the imaging apparatus is determined to be larger. (Liao, Abstract, Pg. 1 ¶ 0003 - 0005 and 0011, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021, Pg. 4 ¶ 0042) Gao et al. and Liao are combinable because they are both directed towards imaging systems for automatically tracking a target. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Gao et al. with the teachings of Liao. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of Gao et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Liao applied to a similar device. Setting a size of the first region to be larger in cases wherein the imaging apparatus undergoes a small amount of motion than in cases wherein the imaging apparatus undergoes a larger amount of motion, as taught by Liao, would enhance the base device of Gao et al. by improving its ability to accurately and reliably track and continually capture relatively stable images of slow moving targets since only a larger amount of movement of a target from a predetermined imaging position would cause pan and tilt operations to be carried out. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Gao et al. that the size of their zoom region, and thus the sizes of their slow and fast response zones of their zoom region, may be set based on global motion information reflecting camera movement in the real world, see at least figures 4 - 6 and 9, page 5 paragraphs 0048 and 0054, page 6 paragraphs 0057 - 0060 and page 8 paragraphs 0077 - 0081 of Gao et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that a size of the first region would be set to be larger in cases wherein the imaging apparatus undergoes a small amount of motion so as to improve the ability of end-users of the base device of Gao et al. to accurately and reliably track and continually capture relatively stable images of slow moving targets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gao et al. with Liao to obtain the invention as specified in claim 21.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie U.S. Publication No. 2018/0017659 A1 in view of Gao et al. U.S. Publication No. 2017/0094184 A1.
- With regards to claim 1, Irie discloses an apparatus (Irie, Abstract, Figs. 1 - 5 & 10 - 13, Pg. 4 ¶ 0083 - 0091, Pg. 5 ¶ 0100 - 0120) comprising: one or more processors; (Irie, Figs. 2, 3 & 24, Pg. 5 ¶ 0104 - 0112 and 0117 - 0120, Pg. 6 ¶ 0130, Pg. 13 ¶ 0302 - 0308, Pg. 14 ¶ 0331) and a memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function (Irie, Figs. 2, 3 & 24, Pg. 5 ¶ 0104 - 0112 and 0117 - 0120, Pg. 6 ¶ 0130, Pg. 13 ¶ 0302 - 0308, Pg. 14 ¶ 0331) as: an acquisition unit (Irie, Figs. 2, 3 & 24, Pg. 5 ¶ 0104 - 0112 and 0117 - 0120, Pg. 6 ¶ 0130, Pg. 13 ¶ 0302 - 0308, Pg. 14 ¶ 0331) configured to acquire information about a subject detected from a captured image; (Irie, Abstract, Figs. 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 - 13 & 15 - 19C, Pg. 1 ¶ 0011, Pg. 6 ¶ 0142, Pg. 8 ¶ 0189 - 0194, Pg. 10 ¶ 0228 - 0232) a calculation unit (Irie, Figs. 2, 3 & 24, Pg. 5 ¶ 0104 - 0112 and 0117 - 0120, Pg. 6 ¶ 0130, Pg. 13 ¶ 0302 - 0308, Pg. 14 ¶ 0331) configured to calculate a tracking amount based on a position of the subject in the captured image and a target position; (Irie, Abstract, Figs. 4 & 11 - 13, Pg. 1 ¶ 0011 - 0012, Pg. 7 ¶ 0158 - 0174, Pg. 8 ¶ 0192 - 0197, Pg. 9 ¶ 0202) a control unit (Irie, Figs. 2, 3 & 24, Pg. 5 ¶ 0104 - 0112 and 0117 - 0120, Pg. 6 ¶ 0130, Pg. 13 ¶ 0302 - 0308, Pg. 14 ¶ 0331) configured to control subject tracking to bring the position of the subject in the captured image close to the target position, based on the tracking amount; (Irie, Abstract, Figs. 4 & 11 - 13, Pg. 1 ¶ 0011 - 0012, Pg. 7 ¶ 0158 - 0174, Pg. 8 ¶ 0192 - 0197, Pg. 9 ¶ 0202) and a setting unit (Irie, Figs. 2, 3 & 24, Pg. 5 ¶ 0104 - 0112 and 0117 - 0120, Pg. 6 ¶ 0130, Pg. 13 ¶ 0302 - 0308, Pg. 14 ¶ 0331) configured to set a first region and a second region in the captured image, (Irie, Figs. 9, 12A - 12C & 14, Pg. 1 ¶ 0011 - 0012, Pg. 2 ¶ 0018 - 0020, Pg. 7 ¶ 0164 - 0174, Pg. 8 ¶ 0188 - 0189, Pg. 9 ¶ 0201 - 0206 [The dead zone DZ of Irie corresponds to a first region and the range of the imaging screen of Irie outside of the dead zone DZ in which pan and/or tilt can be performed corresponds to a second region.]) wherein the setting unit sets a size of the first region based on a detection result of an operation performed by a photographer on the imaging apparatus and/or characteristics of the subject, (Irie, Figs. 10, 11 & 30, Pg. 2 ¶ 0023 - 0033, Pg. 6 ¶ 0136 - 0140, Pg. 7 ¶ 0165 - 0169, Pg. 8 ¶ 0178 - 0189, Pg. 11 ¶ 0245 - 0262) wherein, in the first region, a degree to which the subject tracking is performed is lower than in the second region. (Irie, Figs. 9, 12A - 12C & 14, Pg. 1 ¶ 0011 - 0012, Pg. 2 ¶ 0018 - 0020, Pg. 7 ¶ 0161 - 0174, Pg. 8 ¶ 0188 - 0189 and 0195 - 0197, Pg. 9 ¶ 0201 - 0206 [The dead zone DZ of Irie corresponds to the first region and the range of the imaging screen of Irie outside of the dead zone DZ in which pan and/or tilt can be performed corresponds to the second region.]) Irie fails to disclose explicitly wherein the setting unit sets a size of the first region based on a holding state of an imaging apparatus that captures the captured image. Pertaining to analogous art, Gao et al. disclose an apparatus (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0028, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - 0039, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0118) comprising: one or more processors; (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0113) and a memory coupled to the one or more processors storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to function (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0113) as: an acquisition unit (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0113) configured to acquire information about a subject detected from a captured image; (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 & 9, Pg. 4 ¶ 0041 - 0043, Pg. 7 ¶ 0067 and 0073 - 0074, Pg. 8 ¶ 0078 - 0079) a calculation unit (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0113) configured to calculate a tracking amount based on a position of the subject in the captured image and a target position; (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 & 5 - 9, Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 4 ¶ 0046 - Pg. 5 ¶ 0049, Pg. 6 ¶ 0055 - 0058, Pg. 7 ¶ 0074, Pg. 8 ¶ 0078 - 0084) a control unit (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0113) configured to control subject tracking to bring the position of the subject in the captured image close to the target position, based on the tracking amount; (Gao et al., Figs. 4 - 6, Pg. 6 ¶ 0055 - 0060, Pg. 7 ¶ 0074, Pg. 8 ¶ 0079 - 0084) and a setting unit (Gao et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 10, Pg. 2 ¶ 0031 - Pg. 3 ¶ 0032, Pg. 3 ¶ 0036 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0041, Pg. 10 ¶ 0103 - 0106, Pg. 11 ¶ 0112 - 0113) configured to set a first region and a second region in the captured image, (Gao et al., Figs. 5 - 8, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057 - 0061, Pg. 9 ¶ 0085 - 0088) wherein the setting unit sets a size of the first region based on a holding state of an imaging apparatus that captures the captured image, (Gao et al., Figs. 4 - 6, Pg. 5 ¶ 0048, 0052 and 0054, Pg. 6 ¶ 0058, Pg. 8 ¶ 0077 - 0081 [“the zoomed region may be determined based on the foreground (tracked object) and/or global motion (e.g., camera motion)”, “zoom controller 320 may leverage the global motion information (e.g., information of camera motion) and object tracking information (e.g., target object motion information) to compute the location and/or size of the zoom region (e.g., cropped frame)” and “the global motion 438 may be due to movement of the camera (from hand movement of a user carrying a smartphone, for example)”]) wherein, in the first region, a degree to which the subject tracking is performed is lower than in the second region. (Gao et al., Figs. 5 & 6, Pg. 6 ¶ 0057 - 0061, Pg. 9 ¶ 0085 - 0088) Irie and Gao et al. are combinable because they are both directed towards imaging systems for automatically tracking a target. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Irie with the teachings of Gao et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of Irie with the well-known and applicable technique Gao et al. applied to a comparable device. Setting a size of the first region based on a holding state of an imaging apparatus that captures the captured image, as taught by Gao et al., would enhance the base device of Irie by improving its ability to accurately and reliably track and continually capture relatively stable images of targets since camera motion information would be taken into account when setting the size of the first region, corresponding to the dead zone of Irie, in order to enable the base device of Irie to optimally set the first region to avoid and/or reduce jitters and shakes during image capture and tracking and facilitate capture of stable high-quality images. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Irie that one or more of a plurality of different methods may be used to set the dead zone, corresponding to the first region, and the range of the imaging screen of outside of the dead zone in which pan and/or tilt can be performed, corresponding to the second region, see at least page 2 paragraphs 0019 - 0033, page 11 paragraph 0245 - page 12 paragraph 0265 of Irie. Moreover, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Gao et al. that a more stabilized result may be generated by taking global motion estimation, camera movement, into account, see at least page 5 paragraphs 0048, 0052 and 0054, page 8 paragraphs 0077 - 0081 and page 10 paragraph 0102 of Gao et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that a size of the first region would be set based on a holding state of an imaging apparatus that captures the captured image so as to enable the base device of Irie to take into account camera motion information when setting the first region and thus help improve its ability to accurately and reliably track and continually capture stable high-quality images of targets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Irie with Gao et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
- With regards to claim 10, Irie in view of Gao et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the setting unit sets the first region and the second region based on the detection result of the operation performed by the photographer on the imaging apparatus. (Irie, Figs. 10 & 11, Pg. 6 ¶ 0136 - 0140, Pg. 7 ¶ 0165 - 0169, Pg. 8 ¶ 0178 - 0189 [Irie discloses that the dead zone and range of the imaging screen in which pan and/or tilt can be performed are set in response to a user setting a target to track, i.e., the first region and the second region are set based on a detection result of an operation performed by the photographer on the imaging apparatus.])
- With regards to claim 11, Irie in view of Gao et al. disclose the apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the one or more processors further function (Irie, Figs. 2, 3 & 24, Pg. 5 ¶ 0104 - 0112 and 0117 - 0120, Pg. 6 ¶ 0130, Pg. 13 ¶ 0302 - 0308, Pg. 14 ¶ 0331) as an operation detection unit, (Irie, Figs. 2, 3 & 24, Pg. 5 ¶ 0104 - 0112 and 0117 - 0120, Pg. 6 ¶ 0130, Pg. 13 ¶ 0302 - 0308, Pg. 14 ¶ 0331) wherein the operation detection unit detects an operation of starting moving recording and an operation of ending movie recording that are performed by the photographer on the imaging apparatus, (Irie, Figs. 2 - 4, 10 & 11, Pg. 5 ¶ 0106, 0111 - 0112 and 0115 - 0120, Pg. 6 ¶ 0134, Pg. 8 ¶ 0178 - 0186 and 0198 - 0199) and wherein, during movie recording, the setting unit sets the second region at a position closer to the target position than in a case where a movie is not being recorded. (Irie, Figs. 10 & 11, Pg. 6 ¶ 0130 - 0139, Pg. 7 ¶ 0160 - 0169, Pg. 8 ¶ 0178 - 0189 and 0198 - 0199, Pg. 9 ¶ 0201 [Irie only sets the first and second regions when capturing images at a constant frame rate, i.e. during movie recording, and therefore the second region is set at a position closer to the target position than in a case where a movie is not being recorded.])
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 ERIC RUSH whose telephone number is (571) 270-3017. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Monday - Friday.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571) 270 - 5183. 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.
/ERIC RUSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights