Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,917,299. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because The instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 1 is met by patented claims 1 and 15.
Claim 2 is met by patented claim 15.
Claim 3 is met by patented claim 12.
Claim 7 is me by patented claim 1.
Claim 8 is met by patented claims 1 and 15.
Claim 9 is met by patented claim 15.
Claim 10 is met by patented claim 12.
Claim 14 is met by claim 1.
Claim 15 is met by claims 1 and 15.
Claim 16 is met by claim 15.
Claim 17 is met by claim 12.
Claim 19 is met by claims 1 and 15.
Claim 20 is met by claim 9.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,917,299. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because The instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 1 is met by patented claims 1 and 4.
Claim 2 is met by patented claim 1.
Claim 3 is met by patented claim 11.
Claim 5 is met by patented claims 4 and 5.
Claim 6 is met by patented claim 6.
Claim 7 is met by patented claim 1.
Claim 8 is met by patented claims 1 and 4.
Claim 9 is met by patented claim 1.
Claim 10 is met by patented claim 11.
Claim 12 is met by patented claim 4 and 5.
Claim 13 is met by patented claim 6.
Claim 14 is met by patented claim 1.
Claim 15 is met by patented claim 1 and 4.
Claim 16 is met by patented claim 1.
Claim 17 is met by patented claim 11.
Claim 19 is met by patented claims 4 and 5.
Claim 20 is met by patented claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (2008/0158342) in view of Yamagishi et al. (7,136,096).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an image capturing apparatus, comprising: circuitry (14, 16, 18) configured to receive a start instruction for panorama image capture (at the commencement of step 200 in Fig. 2), in response to receipt of the start instruction, set a panorama image range (set total number of images in step 200) and an image capture direction corresponding to a first direction in case an amount of movement of the image capturing apparatus with regard to the first direction is greater than an amount of movement of the image capturing apparatus with regard to a second direction (note step 206), capture a plurality of images within the panorama image range as the image capturing apparatus moves in the image capture direction after the panorama image range and the image capture direction are set (212, 214), generate a panorama image using at least part of the plurality of images (218), and cause display of the panorama image on a display (24).
However, Jeong does not disclose cause display of a first image overlapped on a live view image, the first image showing at least a part of a border of the panorama image range as claimed.
Yamagishi, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches a first image (freeze image) overlapping on a live view image, the first image showing at least a part of a border of the panorama image range (note Fig. 14b and par. 131; the freeze image is located at the border of the panoramic image). By overlapping a captured image (freeze image) over the live image, the user can be properly informed where his image capturing orientation is and hence a properly aligned panoramic image.
Therefore, in view of Yamagishi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to include Yamagishi into Jeong so that the panoramic image capturing process could be simplified.
Regarding claim 2, Jeong discloses that image capturing apparatus according to wherein the first direction and the second direction are predetermined directions (note the vertical and horizontal motion information (par. 32).
Regarding claim 3, Jeong discloses the circuitry is further configured to notify a user when the user does not properly perform movement of the image capturing apparatus according to the direction for moving the image capturing apparatus (note the correction arrow in Fig. 7b and 7c, and par. 46).
Regarding claim 4, Jeong discloses the notifying the user is by moving the display of the first image in accordance with the movement in a vertical direction (the correction arrow can be in any direction to compensate the incorrect movement of the camera as described in par. 46).
Regarding claim 5, Jeong discloses the notifying the user is by displaying a second image overlapped on the live view image (note the arrows in Fig. 7b and 7c).
Regarding claim 6, Jeong discloses the direction for moving the image capturing apparatus is a swing direction (note the Fig. 7a).
Regarding claim 7, Jeong discloses the first image is displayed on the display in its entirety (note the freeze image in Fig. 14b).
Regarding claims 8-20, see similar rejections as set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to applicant’s arguments that no combination of Jeong and Yamagishi teaches or suggests, at least, the feature wherein an image capture direction corresponds to a first direction in case an amount of movement of the image capturing apparatus with regard to the first direction is greater than an amount of movement of the image capturing apparatus with regard to a second direction, nor the feature wherein the display of a first image is overlapped on a live view image, the first image showing at least a part of a border of the panorama image range, the examiner disagrees.
According to paragraph 39 of Jeong, when the horizontal motion vector mv_w is greater than zero and the vertical motion vector mv_h equals to zero, the camera move direction is set to rightward or direction 5. In other words, if the motion of the horizontal direction is greater than the motion of the vertical direction, the camera movement direction is set to the horizontal direction. Thus, when interpreted broadly, Jeong still meets the claimed direction setting limitation.
With respect to the image overlapping limitation, Fig. 12b and 13b of Yamagishi show the claimed limitation. According to the figure, the freeze image, which overlaps the live image, shows a border of the panoramic range. That is, the freeze image at the upper righthand corner is the beginning of the panoramic image, which has a border neighboring to the final image at the upper lefthand corner (see Fig. 13b) and a border neighboring to the second image at the lower righthand corner. Thus, in view of Figures 12b and 13b, Yamagishi clearly meets the image overlapping limitation as claimed.
In view of Foregoing arguments, it is clear that applicant fails to overcome the combination of Jeong and Yamagishi. As a result, the rejections are maintained.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422