Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. A50929/2022, filed on December 6, 2022 with Austrian Patent Office. The copy of the foreign priority document was received on May 26, 2026.
Response to Amendment
The amendments and associated applicant arguments/ remarks filed on 5/4/2026 were received and considered.
Claims 1-3, 14, 15 have been amended.
Claims 16 and 18 have been cancelled.
Claim 19 has been added.
Claims 1-15, 17, and 19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 5/4/2026, with respect to claims 1-17 under 35 USC 101 and also rejection of claim 15 under 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 USC 101 and 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Regarding rejection of claims 1-15, and 17 under 35 USC 103, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the references mentioned in the office action filed on 12/02/2025 do not teach all the details of claim 1 individually. However, the references are used in combination and not each reference individually.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 13-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al. (US 20130202163 A1) referred to as Shimada hereinafter and further in view of Dohr et al. (US 20180024376 A1) referred to as Dohr hereinafter..
Regarding claim 1, Shimida teaches at least one image capturing sensor configured to capture at least one reference image and at least one currently captured image; (“the image capturing apparatus 100 obtains similarity degree information related to a similarity degree between a predetermined reference image and an image of a region B, which corresponds to the candidate region A of the specific subject image, in another frame image obtained a predetermined number of frames before from one frame image.” Shimada, para. [0024])
at least one controller and at least one application program configured to (“there is provided a non-transitory recording medium that records a computer-readable program that allows a computer to function as:” Shimada, para. [0007]) compare the at least one image currently captured with the at least one reference image for similarity wherein at least one degree of similarity between the at least one currently captured image with and the at least one reference image calculated with the at least one controller, (“for each of the image data of the respective frame images F sequentially obtained by the image obtaining unit 5a and of the reduced image data R generated by the reduced image generation section 5, the similarity degree evaluation value calculation unit 5c implements various pieces of image processing, for example, such as face detection processing, edge detection processing and feature extraction processing, and extracts the plurality of candidate regions A (regions corresponding to detection frames Wb in FIG. 7C) of the specific subject image. Then, for example, the similarity degree evaluation value calculation unit 5c calculates an evaluation value related to a similarity degree between image data of each of the candidate regions A and image data of the predetermined reference image.” Shimada, para. [0048])
and wherein it is determined whether the at least one degree of similarity reaches or exceeds at least one predetermined value, wherein reaching or exceeding the at least one predetermined value is indicative of a match between the at least one currently captured image and the at least one reference image; (“in accordance with the image capturing apparatus 100 of this embodiment, when it is determined that the evaluation value (similarity degree) between the image of the candidate region A of the specific subject image (for example, the face image and the like) in the obtained one frame image Fn (for example, the live view display-use image generated from the captured image, and the like) and the predetermined reference image serving as the determination criteria of the specific subject image concerned is equal to or more than the first threshold value, the candidate region A of the specific subject image is specified as the image region D of the specific subject image” Shimada, para. [0122]) and (“while taking the obtained similarity degree information as a reference, the image capturing apparatus 100 determines whether or not the candidate region A of the specific subject image, which corresponds to the region B in the one frame image, is an image region D of the specific subject image.” Shimada, para. [0024])
at least one memory configured to store the at least one reference image and the at least one predetermined value; (“the related information obtaining unit 5f obtains the similarity degree information of the specified region B from the related information storage unit 4a of the memory 4. For example, the related information obtaining unit 5f obtains, as the similarity degree information, an evaluation value regarding the similarity degree between the image data of the region B and the image data of the predetermined reference image, the number of the tentative candidate regions used for specifying the candidate region A of the specific subject image, which corresponds to the region B concerned, and the like from the related information storage unit 4a.” Shimada, para. [0075])
and at least one indication generator configured to output at least one indication for a user which indication is indicative of said match between the at least one currently captured image and the at least one reference image. (“when the image region D of the specific subject image is specified by the image region specifying unit 5h, the discrimination information setting section 6 sets the detection frame Wb, which is displayed on the display section 9 while being superimposed on an edge portion of the image region D of the specific subject image, as the discrimination information for displaying the specific subject image concerned in a discriminating manner.” Shimada, para. [0089])
However, Shimada does not teach A long-range optical device comprising: at least one objective and at least one eyepiece;
Dohr teaches A long-range optical device comprising: at least one objective and at least one eyepiece; (“wherein a joint is arranged in an objective housing and at least one lens of the objective is mounted movably by the joint in the objective housing,” Dohr, para. [0007]) and (“wherein at an object-side end of the lens tube a front objective lens system of the objective is arranged and an eyepiece side end of the lens tube is mounted pivotably in the bearing housing” Dohr, para. [0007])
Shimada and Dohr are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimada in light of Dohr’s long-range optical device. One would have been motivated to do so because it can help the observer read the results of the rangefinder in addition to seeing the image of the observed surroundings in the represented field of vision. (Dohr, para. [0003])
Regarding claim 2, Shimada teaches wherein the at least one indication generator is configured to output one of an optical indication, an acoustic indication, a haptic indication, a mechanical indication, or an electromechanical indication. (“the imaging control section 2 drives the electronic imaging unit 1b in a scanning manner by the timing generator and the driver, and converts the optical image into the two-dimensional image signal by the electronic imaging unit 1b in every predetermined cycle.” (Shimada, para, [0030])
Regarding claim 3, Shimada teaches wherein it is configured to compare the at least one currently captured image with at least two previously captured reference images for similarity and, (“the related information obtaining unit 5f may obtain similarity degree information of a region B in a frame image F two frames before.” Shimada, para. [0076])
if the at least one degree for the similarity of the at least one currently captured image with one of the two reference images exceeds the at least one predetermined value, to output the indication. (“the subject determination unit 5g determines whether or not the evaluation value of the region B, which is the similarity degree information obtained by the related information obtaining unit 5f, is equal to or more than a predetermined determination value (for example, a predetermined value at least larger than the second threshold value, and the like).” Shimada, para. [0079])
Regarding claim 4, Shimada teaches wherein a first reference image of the at least two reference images defines a first border of a region and a second reference image of the at least two reference images defines a second border of the region. (“The tentative candidate detection unit c1 calculates the evaluation values for the respective discrimination target regions C in accordance with discrimination results of the sub-discriminators. Specifically, in the case where each of the discrimination target regions C is determined to be the face in all the sub-discriminators defined at each of the stages in the plurality of stages which define the plurality of sub-discriminators, the tentative candidate detection unit c1 passes the discrimination target region C through the stage concerned, and transfers the discrimination target region C to the next stage.” Shimada, para. [0054])
Regarding claim 7, Shimada teaches wherein it comprises at least one electronic image capturing sensor in the form of a CCD and/or CMOS and/or infrared sensor. (“an image sensor such as a charge coupled device (CCD) and a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS)” Shimada, para. [0028])
Regarding claim 13, Shimada teaches wherein it comprises at least one actuator device to trigger a capturing of the at least one reference image. (“the operation input unit 10 includes a shutter button (not shown) for inputting an image capturing instruction of the subject, a selection deciding button (not shown) for inputting selection instructions for the image capturing mode” Shimada, para. [0097])
Regarding claim 14, Shimada teaches wherein it is configured to store the at least one reference image in the memory after input of a command for storing the at least one reference image. (“As shown in FIG. 2, first, the central control section 11 sequentially stores such live view display-use image data of the frame images F, which are sequentially generated by the image data generation section 3 by the image capturing of the subjects by the imaging section 1, in the memory 4, and allows the memory 4 to temporarily memorize the image data (Step S1).” Shimada, para. [0103])
Shimada does not teach the long-range optical device, Dohr teaches the long-range optical device (“a long-range optical device (1)” Dohr, abstract and fig. 1)
Shimada and Dohr are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimada in light of Dohr’s long-range optical device. One would have been motivated to do so because it can help the observer read the results of the rangefinder in addition to seeing the image of the observed surroundings in the represented field of vision. (Dohr, para. [0003])
Regarding claim 15, Shimada does not teach wherein it is configured to continuously capture currently captured images and compare them with the at least one reference image after inputting a command and/or executing an action.
Dohr teaches wherein it is configured to continuously capture currently captured images and compare them with the at least one reference image after inputting a command and/or executing an action. (“In this way images can also be still seen by the observer as mostly continually variable even in phases of rapid change of image information data.” Dohr, para. [0109])
Shimada and Dohr are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimada in light of Dohr’s continuously capture currently captured images. One would have been motivated to do so because it can help the observer read the results of the rangefinder in addition to seeing the image of the observed surroundings in the represented field of vision. (Dohr, para. [0003])
Regarding claim 17, Shimada does not teach wherein it comprises an electro-optical display device visible through the eyepiece and operable to output the indication.
Dohr teaches wherein it comprises an electro-optical display device visible through the eyepiece and operable to output the indication. (“Said display device 4 comprises as its primary components a LCoS display 5 (LCoS=Liquid Cristal on Silicon) and a light source 6 for illuminating the LCoS display 5.” Dohr, para. [0096]) and (“Light reflected by the LCoS display 5 then passes through the illuminating prism 9 and the display prism 12 according to the display beam path 7, lastly to the observation beam path 8 (FIG. 7). The image produced on the LCoS display 5 is visible to an observer in this way through the eyepiece 3 superimposed with the image of a remote object (FIG. 1)” Dohr, para. [0119])
Shimada and Dohr are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimada in light of Dohr’s an electro-optical display device. One would have been motivated to do so because it can help the observer read the results of the rangefinder in addition to seeing the image of the observed surroundings in the represented field of vision. (Dohr, para. [0003])
Regarding claim 19, refer to the explanation of claims 1 and 4-6.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada and Dohr as mentioned above and further in view of Van Geest et al. (US 20240080431 A1) referred to as Van Geest hereinafter.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Shimada and Dohr does not teach wherein it is configured to determine whether the currently captured image is inside or outside the region.
Van Geest teaches wherein it is configured to determine whether the currently captured image is inside or outside the region. (“the image synthesis further comprises the image region circuit determining a second region for the first image region and wherein the view synthesis circuit is arranged to generate the view image with the image region being opaque if the view pose is inside the second region, partially transparent if the view pose is outside the second region and inside the first region, and fully transparent if the view pose is outside the first region.” Van Geest, para. [0029])
Shimada, Dohr, and Van Geest are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimada and Dohr in light of Van Geest’s to determine whether the currently captured image is inside or outside the region. One would have been motivated to do so because it can provide a user with an improved experience of having a coherent and consistent movement in the scene. (Van Geest, para. [0014])
Regarding claim 6, Van Geest teaches wherein it is configured to generate an indication of whether the at least one currently captured image is inside or outside the region. (“the view image may be generated with image regions being opaque if the view pose is inside the inner viewing region and fully transparent if the view pose is outside the outer viewing region.” Van Geest, para. [0166])
Shimada, Dohr, and Van Geest are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimada and Dohr in light of Van Geest’s to generate in indication of whether the currently captured image is inside or outside the region. One would have been motivated to do so because it can provide a user with an improved experience of having a coherent and consistent movement in the scene. (Van Geest, para. [0014])
Claim(s) 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada and Dohr as mentioned above and further in view of Sano et al. (US 5638465 A) referred to as Sano hereinafter.
Regarding claim 8, Dohr teaches wherein the long-range optical device (“a long-range optical device (1)” Dohr, abstract and fig. 1)
the combination of Shimada and Dohr does not teach to determine at least one first frequency distribution of values of at least one characteristic image parameter in the at least one reference image and at least one second frequency distribution of values of the at least one characteristic image parameter in the at least one currently captured image and to compare the two frequency distributions with one another.
However, Sano teaches is configured to determine at least one first frequency distribution of values of at least one characteristic image parameter in the at least one reference image and at least one second frequency distribution of values of the at least one characteristic image parameter in the at least one currently captured image and to compare the two frequency distributions with one another. (“The number of times the loci intersect, that is, the accumulated voting distribution, is obtained as indicated by the curve 37 in FIG. 4, for instance; the calculation of the maximum point (position) and maximum peak value (maximum frequency value) of the distribution is to calculate the position of the reference point in the input image 31 and its circularity relative to the standard image 21.” Sano, col. 4, 57-63)
Shimada, Dohr, and Sano are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimada and Dohr in light of Sano’s frequency distribution. One would have been motivated to do so because it can increase efficiency. (Sano, col. 17, line 58)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Shimada and Dohr does not teach wherein it is configured to calculate at least one correlation coefficient from the frequency distribution of the at least one reference image and the frequency distribution of the at least one currently captured image as a degree of the similarity of the at least one reference image with the at least one currently captured image.
Sano teaches wherein it is configured to calculate at least one correlation coefficient from the frequency distribution of the at least one reference image and the frequency distribution of the at least one currently captured image as a degree of the similarity of the at least one reference image with the at least one currently captured image. (“The weighted similarity in the third step is obtained by the generalized Hough transform operation which votes the weights of feature points into the parameter space. Alternatively, a weighted normalized correlation operation is employed which uses a feature point weight sequence to obtain normalized correlation factors between a feature point value sequence of the feature image obtained from the input image and a feature point value sequence of the feature image from the training image.” Sano, col. 6, lines 48-56)
Shimada, Dohr, and Sano are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimada and Dohr in light of Sano’s correlation coefficient of frequency distribution. One would have been motivated to do so because it can increase efficiency. (Sano, col. 17, line 58)
Regarding claim 10, Dohr teaches wherein the long-range optical device is configured (“a long-range optical device (1)” Dohr, abstract and fig. 1)
However, the combination of Shimada and Dohr does not teach to calculate the at least one first frequency distribution and the at least one second frequency distribution each in the form of a histogram.
Sano teaches wherein the long-range optical device is configured to calculate the at least one first frequency distribution and the at least one second frequency distribution each in the form of a histogram. (“Next, in the training feature point value distribution measuring step 105, a feature value histogram is generated, for each feature point, from a sequence of corrected training feature images (quantized images) stored for each feature. In this case, since a displacement correction error is usually present, the feature value histogram is produced covering pixel surrounding the noted feature point in correspondence with a permitted correction error. It is also possible to divide the corrected feature image into image blocks overlapping in correspondence with the permitted correction error and produce the histogram in each block. In FIG. 11 there are shown feature value histograms derived from a sequence of zero-crossing-point feature images (1 at the zero crossing point and 0 at other points) 52. A feature value histogram 54 near a boundary 53 is high in the frequency of the zero crossing point 1, indicating a good likelihood of the zero crossing point. On the other hand, a feature value histogram 56 at a portion 55 appreciably apart from the boundary is low in the frequency of the zero crossing point 1, indicating a small likelihood of the zero crossing point.” Sano, col. 13, lines 51-67, col. 14, lines 1-3)
Shimada, Dohr, and Sano are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimada and Dohr in light of Sano’s histogram. One would have been motivated to do so because it can increase efficiency. (Sano, col. 17, line 58)
Regarding claim 11, Shimada teaches wherein the at least one characteristic image parameter is a grayscale and/or color value of an individual pixel. (“The image data generation section 3 appropriately performs gain adjustment for analog-value signals of the frame images F, which are transferred thereto from the electronic imaging unit 1b, for each of color components of R, G and B, thereafter, performs sample holding for the signals concerned by a sample-and-hold circuit (not shown), and coverts the signals into digital data by an A/D converter (not shown). Then, the image data generation section 3 performs color process treatment, which includes pixel interpolation processing and .gamma.-correction processing, for the digital data by a color process circuit (not shown), and thereafter, generates digital-value luminance signals Y and color-difference signals Cb and Cr (YUV data).” Shimada, para. [0032])
Regarding claim 12, Dohr teaches wherein the long-range optical device is configured (“a long-range optical device (1)” Dohr, abstract and fig. 1)
the combination of Shimada and Dohr does not teach to determine a grayscale image from the at least one reference image and from the at least one currently captured image.
Sano teaches to determine a grayscale image from the at least one reference image and from the at least one currently captured image. (“consider the case of extracting zero-crossing-point images which are contour feature images, from the inspected pattern images shown in FIG. 6. Such a zero-crossing-point image is obtained by calculating a quadratic differential image through the convolution of the original image and a Laplacian gaussian filter and by calculating zero crossing points of the quadratic differential value (corresponding to inflection points where the gray-scaled value of the original image changes).” Sano, col. 11, lines 30-38)
Shimada, Dohr, and Sano are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimada and Dohr in light of Sano’s determining gray-scaled image. One would have been motivated to do so because it can increase efficiency. (Sano, col. 17, line 58)
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 PARDIS SOHRABY whose telephone number is (571)270-0809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am till 6pm.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/PARDIS SOHRABY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2664
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights