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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 of claim 1 recites, in part, “cause the one or more processors function as:” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --cause the one or more processors to function as:-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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”, “an operation detection unit detects” and “a tracking unit configured to perform” in claims 4 - 7, 11 and 19.
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.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 14 and 16 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Irie U.S. Publication No. 2018/0017659 A1.
- With regards to claims 1 and 20, Irie discloses an apparatus and a method (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 (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.]) 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, (Irie, Figs. 10, 11 & 30, Pg. 6 ¶ 0136 - 0140, Pg. 7 ¶ 0165 - 0169, Pg. 8 ¶ 0178 - 0189, Pg. 11 ¶ 00258 - 0262 [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., a first region and a second region are set based on a detection result of an operation performed by a photographer on the imaging apparatus, and/or based on the target to track being a person, i.e., a type of the subject.]) 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.])
- With regards to claim 2, Irie discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, if a size of the first region is changed, a position of the second region is changed. (Irie, Figs. 19A - 20, Pg. 2 ¶ 0018 - 0036, Pg. 11 ¶ 0250 - 0262)
- With regards to claim 10, Irie discloses 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 discloses the apparatus according to claim 10, wherein 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) detects an operation of starting movie 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.])
- With regards to claim 14, Irie discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the setting unit sets the first region and the second region based on the type of the subject. (Irie, Fig. 20, Pg. 11 ¶ 0258 - 0262)
- With regards to claim 16, Irie discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first region is a dead zone of the subject tracking. (Irie, Abstract, Figs. 4 & 11, Pg. 1 ¶ 0011 - 0012, Pg. 2 ¶ 0019 - 0022, Pg. 7 ¶ 0164 - 0169)
- With regards to claim 17, Irie discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first region is set closer to the target position than the second region. (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, corresponding to the first region, is closer to the target arrangement position than the range of the imaging screen of Irie outside of the dead zone DZ in which pan and/or tilt can be performed, the second region.])
- With regards to claim 18, Irie discloses the apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the first region is set on an inside of the second region. (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)
- With regards to claim 19, Irie discloses an imaging apparatus (Irie, Abstract, Figs. 1 - 5, 10 & 11, Pg. 4 ¶ 0084 - 0091, Pg. 5 ¶ 0101 - 0111 and 0115 - 0118, Pg. 6 ¶ 0130 - 0134, Pg. 13 ¶ 0293 - 0304 and 0314, Pg. 14 ¶ 0329 - 0331) comprising: the apparatus according to claim 1, ([Irie discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, see the analysis of claim 1 with respect to Irie provided herein above.]) a sensor configured to capture the captured image; (Irie, Figs. 1 - 5, 10 & 11, Pg. 1 ¶ 0011, Pg. 4 ¶ 0086 - 0091, Pg. 13 ¶ 0296 - 0298) and a tracking 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 perform subject tracking to bring the position of the subject in the captured image to the target position, according to control executed by the control unit. (Irie, Abstract, Figs. 2 - 4, 11 - 13 & 24, Pg. 1 ¶ 0011 - 0012, Pg. 5 ¶ 0104 - 0112 and 0117 - 0120, Pg. 6 ¶ 0130, Pg. 7 ¶ 0158 - 0174, Pg. 8 ¶ 0192 - 0197, Pg. 9 ¶ 0202, Pg. 13 ¶ 0302 - 0308, Pg. 14 ¶ 0329 - 0331)
Claims 1, 3, 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 claims 1 and 20, Gao et al. disclose an apparatus and 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: 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 (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)
- 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 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) and 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)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie U.S. Publication No. 2018/0017659 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, Irie discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. Irie fails to disclose explicitly 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, and 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) Irie 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 Irie with the teachings of Liao. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of Irie 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 Irie by improving its ability to accurately and reliably track and continually capture relatively stables 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 Irie that their system can be modified so as to increase or decrease the size of the dead zone according to any of a variety of conditions and is not limited to their disclosed conditions and that a dead zone can be decreased when the speed of a target is higher, see at least page 10 paragraph 0244 - page 11 paragraph 0246 and page 11 paragraph 0264 of Irie. 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 Irie to accurately and reliably track and continually capture relatively stables images of fast moving targets. In addition, Irie 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 Irie in view of Liao with the teachings of Shimosato. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Irie 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 Irie with Liao and Shimosato to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
- With regards to claim 6, Irie in view of Liao in view of Shimosato disclose the apparatus according to claim 5. Irie fails 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, Irie in view of Liao in view of Shimosato disclose the apparatus according to claim 5. Irie fails 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie U.S. Publication No. 2018/0017659 A1 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kagei U.S. Publication No. 2013/0278778 A1.
- With regards to claim 15, Irie discloses the apparatus according to claim 14. Irie fails 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.]) Irie and Kagei 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 Irie with the teachings of Kagei. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of Irie with the well-known and applicable technique Kagei applied to a comparable device. Setting the second region at a position more distance from the target position in a case where the type of the subject is a person than in a case where the type of the subject is an object other than a person, as taught by Kagei, would enhance the base device of Irie by improving its ability to accurately and reliably track and continually capture relatively stable images of 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 Irie that their system can be modified so as to increase or decrease the size of the dead zone according to any of a variety of conditions and is not limited to their disclosed conditions and that when the target to be tracked is a person the size of the dead zone can be increased or decreased according to an orientation of the face of the person, see at least page 10 paragraph 0244 and page 11 paragraphs 0257 - 0264 of Irie. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the second region would be set at a position more distance from the target position in a case where the type of the subject is a person than in a case where the type of the subject is an object other than a person so as to improve the ability of the base device of Irie to accurately and reliably track and continually capture images of 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 Irie with Kagei to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gangwal et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,265,469; which is directed towards a movable imaging system for reducing image jitter, wherein a target is tracked by a camera and a degree of tracking is controlled based on a plurality of zones set around the target.
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