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 .
Typographic Conventions
Throughout this office action, shorthand notation for referencing locations of elements in documents are utilized. The following is a brief summary of the shorthand utilized:
¶ – is used to denote the number and location of a paragraph
col. – is used to denote a column number
ln. – is used to denote a line; if a line number is not demarcated in a document, the line number will be assumed to start at 1 for each paragraph.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 8 and 17-19 recite limitations that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language and do invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 8 – recites the limitation, “an update unit that updates…” [ln. 18].
Claim 17 – recites the limitation, “an obtaining unit configured to…” [ln. 8].
Claim 18 – recites the limitation, “a detection step of detecting…” [ln. 11].
Claim 18 – recites the limitation, “a display control step of displaying…” [ln. 12].
Claim 19 – recites the limitation, “a detection step of detecting…” [ln. 23].
Claim 19 – recites the limitation, “a display control step of displaying…” [ln. 25].
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.
“an update unit” (Fig. 2, #50. ¶0048) – an update unit is described as the system control unit 50 that updates the position and size of the subject detection region according to the user in step S305.
“an obtaining unit” (Fig. 2, #22. ¶0031) – an obtaining unit is described as the image pickup device 22 to convert an optical image into electrical signals, which is then converted by the A/D converter 23 into digital signals. The obtaining unit may include an imaging surface phase difference sensor that outputs information relating to the defocusing amount to the system control unit 50.
“a detection step” (
Fig. 3, S306, ¶0049) – a detection step is described as setting one subject overlapping in the subject detection region among the subjects detected in the live view image as the main subject and displays a subject detection frame on the display unit 28. In the case that the subject does not overlap the subject detection region, the system control unit 50 displays the subject detection frame on the display unit 28 for one subject deemed the main subject among those detected in the live view image.
“a display control step” (Fig. 3, S307, ¶0049) – a display control step is described as the system control unit 50 displaying a blur indicator. Figs. 6, 7, 9, 11 & 12 each further detail the display control step S307 according to the first through fifth embodiments, respectively.
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, 4, 10-12, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubo et al (US 20200213497 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kubo et al teach an image processing apparatus (image capturing apparatus 100 [¶0051; Fig. 1] comprising:
One or more processors (control unit 101, which is a CPU [¶0051; Fig. 1]); and
a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors,
cause the image processing apparatus to function as (read-only memory (ROM) 102 or random-access memory (RAM) 103 [¶0051; Fig. 1]):
a detection unit that detects a subject from a live view image (image capture unit 105 [¶0052; Fig. 1]); and
a display control unit (display unit 109 [¶0054; Fig. 1]) that displays an indicator indicating blur information on the subject detected by the detection unit so as to be superimposed on the live view image (notification image generating unit 300 [¶0064; Fig. 3] that superimposes a motion blur notification on the image in steps S204 [¶0059; Fig. 2]), and
wherein the display control unit controls a display of the indicator in the live view image based on first information related to a detection region in which the detection unit detects the subject and/or (due to the “and/or” language in the claim, limitations with respect to “first information” are not being mapped to this reference) second information related to the subject detected by the detection unit (regarding the second information related to the subject: the image capturing apparatus 100 changes the form of the notification based on the amount of motion blur of an object [¶100; Fig. 9A-C where the notification changes color], with motion blur notification frames 904-906 and edges 907-909 indicating information about the position of an object [¶0095-98; Fig. 9D & E]).
Regarding claim 4, Kubo et al teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as previously described), wherein
the display control unit displays the indicator at a display position of the subject detected by the detection unit (motion blur notification frames 904-906 superimposed over the subject [¶0096; Fig. 9D]) or at another position different from the display position (blur notification icon 901-903 positioned on the left side of the live view [¶0089-93; Fig. 9A-C]).
Regarding claim 10, Kubo et al teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as previously described), wherein
in a case that the detection unit has detected an entire portion and a local portion of
the subject (motion blur notification frames 904-906 detect portions of the object detected, and together as a whole, detect the entirety of the object [¶0096; Fig. 9D]), the display control unit displays the indicator on the entire portion of the subject detected by the detection unit (motion blur notification frames 904-906 are overlayed across the entire object detected [¶0096; Fig. 9D]).
Regarding claim 11, the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as previously described), wherein
in a case that the detection unit has detected an entire portion and a local portion of the subject, the display control unit displays the indicator on one of the entire portion and the local portion of the subject detect by detection unit and displays a subject detection frame on the other (blur notification frames 904-906 and edges 907-909 are displayed over local portions of a subject, and as a whole, are superimposed over the entire portion of a subject [¶0096-98, 104-105; Figs. 9D & E]).
Regarding claim 12, Kubo et al teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as previously described), wherein
in a case that a predetermined condition is satisfied, the display control unit changes a display form of the indicator (the image capturing apparatus 100 changes the form of the notification based on the amount of motion blur [¶100; Fig 9A-C where the notification changes color]).
Regarding claim 15, Kubo et al teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 12 (as previously described), wherein
the display control unit changes a color for displaying the indicator as a change in a display form of the indicator (the image capturing apparatus 100 changes the form of the notification based on the amount of motion blur [¶100; Fig 9A-C where the notification changes color]).
Regarding claim 17, Kubo et al teach an image pickup apparatus (image capturing unit 105 [¶0052; Fig. 1]) comprising:
the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see the discussion of claim 1 above); and
an obtaining unit (image capturing unit 105 is an image sensor such as a CCD or CMOS sensor [¶0052; Fig. 1]) configured to obtain the live view image (preparatory (S201) and actual (S207) shooting [¶0056-63; Fig. 2]).
Regarding claim 18, Kubo et al teach a control method for an image processing apparatus (shooting process executed by the image capturing apparatus 100 of Fig. 2 [¶0055-63]) comprising:
a detection step of detecting a subject from a live view image (obtain preparatory shooting image in S401 [¶0066; Fig. 4], image capturing apparatus 100 detects the motion of an object during the preparatory shooting [¶0100]); and
a display control step of displaying an indicator indicating blur information of the subject detected in the detection step so as to be superimposed on the live view image (S204, where a motion blur notification is superimposed on the image [¶0059; Fig. 2], further outlined in steps S401-S406 [¶0065-66, 80-81, 86-87; Fig. 4]), and
wherein the display control step controls a display of the indicator in the live view image based on first information related to a detection region in which the detection step detects the subject and/or (due to the “and/or” language in the claim, limitations with respect to “first information” are not being mapped to this reference) second information related to the subjected detected in the detection step (regarding the second information related to the subject: the image capturing apparatus 100 changes the form of the notification based on the amount of motion blur [¶100; Fig 9A-C where the notification changes color], with motion blur notification frames 904-906 and edges 907-909 indicating information about the position of an object [¶0095-98; Fig. 9D & E]).
Regarding claim 19, Kubo et al teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a control method for an image processing apparatus (read-only memory (ROM) 102 or random-access memory (RAM) 103 [¶0051; Fig. 1]), the control method comprising:
a detection step of detecting a subject from a live view image (obtain preparatory shooting image in S401 [¶0066; Fig. 4], image capturing apparatus 100 detects the motion of an object during the preparatory shooting [¶0100]); and
a display control step of displaying an indicator indicating blur information of the subject detected in the detection step so as to be superimposed on the live view image (S204, where a motion blur notification is superimposed on the image [¶0059; Fig. 2], further outlined in steps S401-S406 [¶0065-66, 80-81, 86-87; Fig. 4]), and
wherein the display control step controls a display of the indicator in the live view image based on first information related to a detection region in which the detection step detects the subject and/or (due to the “and/or” language in the claim, limitations with respect to “first information” are not being mapped to this reference) second information related to the subjected detected in the detection step (regarding the second information related to the subject: the image capturing apparatus 100 changes the form of the notification based on the amount of motion blur [¶100; Fig 9A-C where the notification changes color], with motion blur notification frames 904-906 and edges 907-909 indicating information about the position of an object [¶0095-98; Fig. 9D & E]).
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.
Claims 2 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al (US 2020/0213497 A1) in view of Matsumoto et al (US 2014/0104313 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kubo et al teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as previously described), but does not teach the first information regarding the size of the detection region.
Matsumoto et al, however, is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in this application and discloses wherein
the first information is information on a size of the detection region in which the detection unit detects the subject (Matsumoto et al: information of an object detection frame includes information of the size of the object detection frame [¶0043; Figs. 1A-D]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the teachings of Kubo et al in view of Matsumoto et al to record information regarding the size of the detected region when indicating blur to the user. This readily improves operability by displaying an object detection frame easily viewable by the user with a relatively minimal amount of processing [Matsumoto: ¶0017].
Regarding claim 16, Kubo et al teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 12 (as previously described), but does not teach hiding the indicator as a change in the display form.
Matsumoto et al teach wherein
the display control unit hides the indicator as a change in a display form of the indicator (Matsumoto et al: small object detection frame 16-1 may be removed from the object detection frames ultimately displayed [¶0101; Figs. 15A-C]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the teachings of Kubo et al in view of Matsumoto et al to hide the indicator as a change in a display form. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that hiding the indicator minimizes the visual clutter in the live view display. This readily improves operability by displaying an object detection frame easily viewable by the user with a relatively minimal amount of processing [Matsumoto: ¶0017].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al (US 2020/0213497 A1) in view of Kameyama, Kosuke (JP 2013085178 A).
Regarding claim 5, Kubo et al teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 4 (as previously described), but does not teach changing the position of an indicator based on the size of a detected region exceeding a threshold.
Kameyama, on the other hand, is analogous art pertinent to the technological program addressed in this application and discloses changing the position of an indicator based on the size of a subject detection region exceeding a threshold. More specifically, Kameyama teaches wherein
in a case that a size of the detection region in which the detection unit detects the subject is equal to or larger than a threshold value (Kameyama: part main subject (human pyramid 60) is so large that it is obscured by the zoom icon 52 and number icon 57 [¶0016; Fig. 2]), the display control unit displays the indicator at the another position (Kameyama: zoom icon 52 and number icon 57 are moved to another position of the live view to not obscure the subject detected; this process implicitly requires a comparison of the subject size to gauge if it is too large that it extends to the periphery of the live view [¶0018; Fig. 3]). Kameyama also discloses that this feature ensures a user to clearly see the subject(s) of interest [Kameyama: ¶0018].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the teachings of Kubo et al with those of Kameya to display an indicator at another position when the size of a detected region exceeds a given threshold.
Claims 7 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al (US 2020/0213497 A1) in view of Sugiura, Mamoru (US 2009/0262230 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kubo et al teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 4 (as previously described), but does not teach displaying the indicator at another position when the subject detected is not subject to machine learning.
Sugiura, on the other hand, is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in this application and discloses changing the position of an indicator based on the type of subject not being subject to machine learning. More specifically, Sugiura teaches wherein
in a case that a type of the subject detected by the detection unit is not subject to machine learning (Sugiura: Step S21: A camera control unit 16 [Fig. 1] determines whether the object type has been detected [¶0087; Fig. 8], with no recitation of machine learning used for type detection, and a plurality of type information recorded in type information storage sub-unit 162 [¶0059; Fig. 3]), the display control unit displays the indicator at the another position (Sugiura: the camera control unit 16 [Fig. 1] then sets the ranging frame 35 (a form of an indicator) on the basis of the detected motion vector 34 and the object type [¶0073; Fig. 6C]). Additionally, Sugiura discloses that movements of objects vary by type and that estimating the movement based on a detected object type improves the accuracy of continuous object tracking in the live view [Sugiura: ¶0061].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the teachings of Kubo et al in view of Sugiura to change the location of the indicator when subjects’ types are not subject to machine learning.
Regarding claim 14, Kubo et al teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 12 (as previously described), but does not teach a predetermined condition being condition satisfied when a subject is not subject to machine learning.
Sugiura teaches wherein
in a case that a type of the subject detected by the detection unit is not subject to
machine learning (Sugiura: Step S21: A camera control unit 16 [Fig. 1] determines whether the object type has been detected [¶0087; Fig. 8], with no recitation of machine learning used for type detection, and a plurality of type information recorded in type information storage sub-unit 162 [¶0059; Fig. 3]), the predetermined condition is satisfied ((the camera control unit 16 [Fig. 1] then sets the ranging frame 35 on the basis of the detected motion vector 34 and the object type [¶0073; Fig. 6C]). Additionally, Sugiura discloses that movements of objects vary by type and that estimating the movement based on a detected object type improves the accuracy of continuous object tracking in the live view [¶0061].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the teachings of Kubo et al in view of Sugiura to fulfill a predetermined condition when a subjects’ type is not subject to machine learning.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al (US 2020/0213497 A1) in view of Matsumoto et al (US 2014/0104313 A1), further in view of Sugiura, Mamoru (US 2009/0262230 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kubo et al teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as previously mentioned in the discussion of the parent claim). Furthermore, Kubo et al discloses wherein
the second information is information including at least one of a position (Kubo et al: motion blur notification frames 904-906 highlight the position of the subject [¶0096; Fig. 9D]), a portion (Kubo et al: motion blur notification frames (904-906) and edges (907-909) highlight discrete portions of the subject [¶0096; Fig. 9D-E]). Kubo et al fails to teach the second information including at least one of a number, and size of subject detected by the detection unit.
Matsumoto et al is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in this application and discloses the second information relating to a number or a size of detected subject(s). More specifically, Matsumoto et al discloses the second information is information including at least one of a number (Matsumoto et al: multiple object detection frames overlayed on different subjects [¶0043; Figs. 1A & 1D]), and a size (Matsumoto et al: position information of the object detection frame also includes a rectangular size of the frame corresponding to the object [¶0043; Figs. 1A-D]). Additionally, Matsumoto et al discloses that gathering information relating to a number and size of subject(s) aids in user operability, aiding in the display subject detection frames easily viewable by a user with minimal additional processing [¶ 0017].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kubo et al in view of Matsumoto et al to have the second information regarding a subject include the position, a portion, a number, and a size.
Additionally, Kubo et al fails to disclose the second information including a type of subject detected by the detection unit. Sugiura, on the other hand, is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in this application and discloses the second information is information including at least one of a type of the subject detected by the detection unit (Sugiura: In Step S21, a camera control unit 16 [Fig. 1] determines whether the object type has been detected [¶0087; Fig. 8]). Additionally, Sugiura discloses that movements of objects vary by type and that estimating the movement based on a detected object type improves the accuracy of continuous object tracking in the live view [¶0061].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kubo et al in view of Matsumoto et al, further in view of Sugiura to record aforementioned metrics of position, portion, number, size, and type of subject as second information gathered about the detected subject.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6,8,9 & 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reason for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest that the another position is a center of a screen on which the live view image is displayed. The closest prior art, Shirakawa, Yusuke (US 2013/0076958 A1), is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the present application and discloses the position of an indicator at the center of a screen. Shirakawa does not, however, disclose that this indicator is displayed at the center of a screen due to the size of a subject exceeding a threshold (as recited in claim 5, which claim 6 depends on).
Regarding claim 8, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest that the another position is a center of the detection region in which the detection unit detects the subject. The closest prior art used in the present office action, Matsumoto et al (US 2014/0104313 A1), discloses a computational output section that computes the position and size of object detection frames, and displays an object detection frame at the center of a second object detection frame. Matsumoto et al do not, however, disclose an indicator being displayed at the center of the detection region.
Regarding claim 13, the primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest that in a case that a distance between centers of a first subject and a second subject detected by the detection unit is shorter than a value obtained by multiplying a size of the first subject or a size of the second subject by a predetermined ratio, the predetermined condition is satisfied. The closest prior art used in the present office action, Matsumoto et al (US 2014/0104313 A1), disclose an object detection frame computation section that sets a candidate region based on a first object detection frame, and if a nearby candidate region of interest has a distance less than a prescribed distance, the candidate region and nearby candidate region of interest is set as one group. Chen et al (US 2019/0130580 A1) is analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the present application and calculates the Euclidian distance of centroids between tracker and blob bounding boxes, which can be weighted based on the size ratio of the two associated bounding boxes. The closest prior art does not explicitly recite changing the form of an indicator based on the distance of the centers of two subjects being less than a value obtained by multiplying a size of one of the subjects by a ratio.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Chen et al (US 2019/0130580 A1) disclose a system for tracking and classifying objects in video frames.
Aggarwal et al (US 20150156419 A1) teach a system and method for providing real-time user feedback regarding the blurriness of an image.
Shanmugam et al (US 20200145583 A1) disclose an image processing device for identifying blurred objects in an image and correcting the blur by recapturing a more in-focus image of the blurred object.
Miyazawa et al (US 20180288330 A1) disclose a blur correction device that identifies detects a blur signal of an object in a field of view and correct the blur using recorded motion information of the object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael M. Sofroniou whose telephone number is (571)272-0287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, John M. Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/MICHAEL M SOFRONIOU/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661