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
The amendment filed on December 5, 2025 in response to the previous Office Action (09/18/2025) is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claims 1 – 11 are currently pending.
Claims 4 and 8 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the following objections/rejections in the last Office Action:
Objection to Specification
Claim Interpretation under 112(f)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that (1) Saito, either alone or in combination with Suzuki, does not describe or suggest some of the aforementioned claimed features of the present invention. In particular, Saito, either alone or in combination with Suzuki, does not describe or suggest to "select[] the first focus adjustment unit or the second focus adjustment unit based on movement of the subject and the operation information," as recited in claims 1, 10, 11 and amended claim 9 (remarks p. 10). Specifically, Saito teaches to perform automatic switching from the second focus adjustment means (MF) to the first focus adjustment means (AF) based only on the operation information from the user. Saito, either alone or in combination with Suzuki, does not describe or suggest selecting either the first focus adjustment unit or the second focus adjustment unit based on the combination of the subject's movement and the operation information (remarks, p.12). Applicant also argues that (2) Saito does not describe switching to the first focus adjustment means (AF) when in the state where the second focus adjustment unit (MF) is selected, and the moving direction of the focal position of the focus lens due to the operation of the operating member is the same as the moving direction of the subject, as recited in claim 2 of the claimed invention
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument (1) that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., selecting either the first focus adjustment unit or the second focus adjustment unit based on the combination of the subject's movement and the operation information) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The language does not require the combination of subject movement and operation information. In addition, if language did/does require the combination of subject movement and operation information, this is ambiguous to the specification. As noted by Applicant on page 10 of the Remarks, “when in the MF state, if the moving direction of the subject along the optical axis and the moving direction of the focal position of the focus lens due to the focus ring operation by the user are the same, the system switches to AF and automatically focuses on the detected subject. When in the AF state, if the subject is no longer detected, or if the subject stops moving, the system switches to MF”. This contradicts the claim language as interpreted by Applicant. According to this (and figure 3), the control unit only uses a combination of moving subject and operation information to select AF mode from MF mode. When in AF mode, both are not used.
Thus, Saito reads on the claim as currently written because it switches between AF and MF based on operation of a focus ring (fig. 8; ¶121, S1) and subject movement (¶126).
Regarding (2), Saito teaches that when in MF mode, the focus ring is adjusted and a tracking target is set (fig. 14; ¶180), then, assuming the predetermined time as not elapsed, it is determined based on the direction of the subject and the last operation of the focus ring which AF mode to switch (fig. 14; ¶182). The control is not started after the AF has already started, as argued by Applicant (remarks, p.12).
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: “an operation member for operating a locus lens” is duplicated in line 3 and line 7. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 6 and 9 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2022/113893 to Saito (US 2023/0300460 being used as translation).
Regarding claim 1, Saito discloses a focus control apparatus comprising one or more processors and/or circuitry which function as: an acquisition unit (46) that acquires operation information of an operation member for operating a focus lens (¶72); a detection unit (120E) that detects a subject based on an image signal obtained from an image sensor (110) (¶106); and a control unit (120) that selects a first focus adjustment unit that performs autofocus adjustment based on the image signal or a second focus adjustment unit that performs manual focus adjustment based on operation of the operation member (¶72), wherein the control unit selects the first focus adjustment unit or the second focus adjustment unit based on movement of the subject and the operation information (fig. 8; ¶84, 128, 126169).
Regarding claim 2, Saito discloses the limitations of claim 1. Saito also teaches wherein the control unit switches to the first focus adjustment unit in a case where the second focus adjustment unit is selected and a moving direction of the subject and a moving direction of a focal position of the focus lens by the operation of the operation member are the same with respect to an optical axis of the focus lens (figs. 13-14; ¶169-170, 180-182).
Regarding claim 3, Saito discloses the limitations of claim 1. Saito also teaches wherein the control unit switches to the second focus adjustment unit in a case where the first focus adjustment unit is selected and the subject is no longer detected and/or movement of the subject in a direction of an optical axis of the focus lens is stopped (¶128: tracking AF is continuously performed until the focus operation is started again or until the tracking target disappears).
Regarding claim 5, Saito discloses the limitations of claim 1. Saito also teaches wherein, in a case where the first focus adjustment unit is selected, the control unit controls to display that the first focus adjustment unit is selected in a display device (¶98: displays green for AF and red for MF).
Regarding claim 6, Saito discloses the limitations of claim 1. Saito also teaches wherein, in a case where the second focus adjustment unit is selected, the control unit controls to display that the second focus adjustment unit is selected in a display device (¶98: displays green for AF and red for MF).
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 10 and 11 rejected as applied to claim 1 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Saito.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Suzuki (US 2001/0055110).
Regarding claim 7, Saito discloses the limitations of claim 1. Saito also teaches wherein the one or more processors and/or circuitry further function as a focus detection unit (120C/120D) that detects a focus state of the subject based on the image signal obtained from the image sensor (¶104-105). Saito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the control unit controls to display an operation direction and operation amount of the operation member based on the focus state in a case where the second focus adjustment unit is selected.
In a similar field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches an indicator for an optical instrument that includes displaying a defocus amount and defocus direction in MF mode (¶101; fig. 2). In light of the teaching of Suzuki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use teaching in Saito’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in ease and convenience of recognition of the settings by the user.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639