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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed with the application on 9/13/2023. The submission 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: controller, oscillation device, imaging device in claims 1-20.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention lacks patentable utility. If the specification includes written description support, this rejection could be overcome by claiming the invention as being stored in a nontransitory computer readable medium; however, see MPEP 2111.05 for a discussion of functional and nonfunctional descriptive material as related to computer readable media.
Claim interpretation affects the evaluation of both criteria for eligibility. For example, in Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 112 USPQ2d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2017), claim interpretation was crucial to the court’s determination that claims to a "machine-readable medium" were not to a statutory category. In Mentor Graphics, the court interpreted the claims in light of the specification, which expressly defined the medium as encompassing "any data storage device" including random-access memory and carrier waves. Although random-access memory and magnetic tape are statutory media, carrier waves are not because they are signals similar to the transitory, propagating signals held to be non-statutory in Nuijten. 851 F.3d at 1294, 112 USPQ2d at 1133 (citing In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, because the BRI of the claims covered both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (the random-access memory), as well as subject matter that does not (the carrier waves), the claims as a whole were not to a statutory category and thus failed the first criterion for eligibility MPEP 2106(II).
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, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakashima (US Patent Pub. # 2019/0391650).
As to claim 1, Nakashima discloses an information processing apparatus, comprising a controller (controller 501) that controls oscillation of an oscillation device (front vibration device 100 and rear vibration device 600) that provides oscillation to a camera operator (user), on a basis of at least one of image-capturing-environment information regarding an environment of image-capturing performed by an image-capturing apparatus, image-capturing-setting information that is set by the camera operator, or state information regarding a state of the image-capturing apparatus (rotational operation member 102, the exposure dial 13, the power button 14, the mode dial 15, the zoom lever 16, the release button 17, and the rear operation unit 21 is operated), the image-capturing apparatus (camera 10) including a camera body (front cover unit 11) that includes the oscillation device (100 and 600) and an imaging device that captures an image of a subject (Para 27, 33, 100, and 110).
As to claim 2, Nakashima teaches wherein the oscillation indicates information (inform in-camera processing by vibrating the camera 10 to make the user feel the vibration and to give the touch sense) related to the image-capturing apparatus (10) (Para 110).
As to claim 3, Nakashima teaches wherein the information related to the image-capturing apparatus (10) includes at least one of operation information regarding an operation of the image-capturing apparatus (10), reminder information (rotational operation member 102, the exposure dial 13, the power button 14, the mode dial 15, the zoom lever 16, the release button 17, and the rear operation unit 21 is operated), operation information regarding an operation of an attachment device that is attached to the camera body, or image-capturing information that is acquired by the imaging device (10) (Para 110).
As to claim 4, Nakashima teaches wherein the operation information regarding an operation of the image-capturing apparatus includes information regarding a state in which the subject is in focus, information regarding start of exposure (release button 17) performed on the imaging device, and information regarding completion of the exposure (the vibration control signal is input to the controller 501 from the processing of the image processor 131 so as to inform in-camera processing by vibrating the camera 10 to make the user feel the vibration and to give the touch sense) (Para 110).
As to claim 11, Nakashima teaches wherein a plurality of the attachment devices (interchangeable lens 200) different from each other is attached to the image-capturing apparatus (camera 1000), and the controller (504) controls the oscillation of the oscillation device (camera-side vibration device 1100) such that oscillation indicating the operation information regarding an operation of the attachment device (200) differs depending on the attachment device (mounted interchangeable lens is the interchangeable lens 200 having the lens-side vibration device 220 or the interchangeable lens having no lens-side vibration device 220) of the plurality of the attachment devices (Para 90).
As to claim 12, Nakashima teaches wherein the controller (501) performs control such that first oscillation (100) and second oscillation (600) that respectively indicate the different pieces of information related to the image-capturing apparatus (10) are distinguishable by the camera operator (user) (Para 110-112).
As to claim 13, Nakashima teaches wherein the image-capturing-setting information includes at least one of a setting of a shutter speed (exposure dial 13 for setting an exposure value), a setting of a frame rate, a setting of a single-shooting mode or a consecutive-shooting mode (mode dial 15), or a setting of the image-capturing environment (Para 30).
As to claim 15, Nakashima teaches wherein the image-capturing apparatus (10) includes a zoom lens (zoom unit 116), and the controller (501) controls the oscillation of the oscillation device (100 and 600) taking into consideration oscillation provided during driving (zoom lever 16) of the zoom lens (116) (Para 40 and 110).
As to claim 18, Nakashima teaches wherein the controller (501) controls next oscillation of the oscillation device (100 and 600) using oscillation information regarding oscillation of the image-capturing apparatus (10) (Para 110-112).
As to claims 19 and 20, these claims differ from claim 1 only in that the claim 1 is an information processing apparatus claim whereas claims 19 and 20 are an information processing method claim and a program claim. Thus claim 19 and 20 are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to claim 1 above.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima (US Patent Pub. # 2019/0391650) in view of Matsuki (US Patent Pub. # 2014/0359438).
As to claim 5, note the discussion above in regards to claims 1-4. Nakashima does not teach wherein the image-capturing apparatus includes a shutter button that is operated to be half-pressed and fully pressed, the controller controls the oscillation of the oscillation device, which indicates the state in which the subject is in focus and is provided in response to the shutter button being half-pressed, and the controller controls the oscillation of the oscillation device, which indicates the start of the exposure and is provided in response to the shutter button being fully pressed, and the oscillation of the oscillation device, which indicates the completion of the exposure and is provided in response to the shutter button being fully pressed. Matsuki teaches wherein the image-capturing apparatus (mobile information device 1) includes a shutter button (capture icon 105) that is operated to be half-pressed (half-press) and fully pressed (fully pressed), the controller (operation controller 124) controls the oscillation of the oscillation device (haptic feedback arrangement 102), which indicates the state in which the subject is in focus (focusing operation) and is provided in response to the shutter button being half-pressed (half-press), and the controller (124) controls the oscillation of the oscillation device (102), which indicates the start of the exposure and is provided in response to the shutter button being fully pressed (fully pressed), and the oscillation of the oscillation device (102), which indicates the completion of the exposure and is provided in response to the shutter button (time before and after the image-capturing operation) being fully pressed (fully pressed) (Para 91-96). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a image-capturing operation as taught by Matsuki to the camera of Nakashima, to providing the user with a positive feel of manipulation (Para 96 of Matsuki).
Claims 6, 8, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima (US Patent Pub. # 2019/0391650) in view of Cheong (US Patent Pub. # 2014/0192247).
As to claim 6, note the discussion above in regards to claims 1-4. Nakashima does not teach wherein the controller performs control such that the oscillation being provided by the oscillation device and indicating the state in which the subject is in focus differs depending on a focal length. Cheong teaches wherein the controller (control unit 160) performs control such that the oscillation being provided by the oscillation device (haptic device module 180) and indicating the state in which the subject (subject) is in focus (focus adjustment) differs depending on a focal length (distance to face measurement or zooming in/out) (Para 68 and 69). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a face recognition as taught by Cheong to the camera of Nakashima, to provide guidance information for focus adjustment in a haptic feedback form to adjust a focus if the subject is not correctly focused (Para 69 of Cheong).
As to claim 8, note the discussion above in regards to claims 1-3. Nakashima does not teach wherein during exposure performed on the imaging device, the controller performs control such that the oscillation of the oscillation device is set to off. Cheong teaches wherein during exposure performed on the imaging device, the controller (control unit 160) performs control such that the oscillation of the oscillation device is set to off (the terminal 100 does not provide haptic feedback if the corresponding mode is not selected, but does provide haptic feedback if the haptic-based guidance mode is selected) (Para 29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a haptic feedback mode is not selected as taught by Cheong to the camera of Nakashima, to activate, by the electronic device, at least one of the one or more haptic devices, based on the determined one or more of the desired position, orientation, or movement (Para 11 of Cheong).
As to claim 9, Cheong teaches wherein a drive signal of oscillation indicating the reminder information (input signal for selecting a haptic-based guidance mode) includes a signal that is not given out when an oscillation mode for the oscillation device (180) is off or a signal that is given out when the oscillation mode is off (haptic feedback mode is not selected), when the controller (160) receives, during exposure performed on the imaging device (100), the reminder information including the signal not being given out when the oscillation mode is off (haptic feedback mode is not selected), the controller (160) controls the oscillation device (180) such that the oscillation indicating the reminder information (input signal for selecting a haptic-based guidance mode) is generated after the exposure performed on the imaging device is completed, and when the controller (160) receives, during exposure performed on the imaging device, the reminder information (input signal for selecting a haptic-based guidance mode) including the signal being given out when the oscillation mode is off (haptic feedback mode is not selected), the controller (160) controls the oscillation device (180) such that the oscillation indicating the reminder information (input signal for selecting a haptic-based guidance mode) is generated during the exposure performed on the imaging device (110) Para 29).
As to claim 16, note the discussion above in regards to claim 1. Nakashima does not teach wherein the controller controls the oscillation of the oscillation device taking into consideration oscillation sound produced due to the oscillation device. Cheong teaches wherein the controller (160) controls the oscillation of the oscillation device (180) taking into consideration oscillation sound (guide or effect sounds predefined according to the pattern of each of the various haptic feedback outputs) produced due to the oscillation device (180) (Para 30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a haptic feedback output as taught by Cheong to the camera of Nakashima, to activate, by the electronic device, at least one of the one or more haptic devices, based on the determined one or more of the desired position, orientation, or movement (Para 11 of Cheong).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima (US Patent Pub. # 2019/0391650) in view of Kim (US Patent Pub. # 2014/0192217).
As to claim 7, note the discussion above in regards to claims 1-3. Nakashima does not teach wherein the image-capturing information includes information regarding whether a captured image that is acquired by the imaging device is a normal image or an error image, and the controller controls the oscillation of the oscillation device such that oscillation indicating that the error image has been acquired is different from oscillation indicating that the normal image has been acquired. Kim teaches wherein the image-capturing information includes information regarding whether a captured image that is acquired by the imaging device (camera 120) is a normal image or an error image (error), and the controller (control unit 100) controls the oscillation of the oscillation device (vibration indicator) such that oscillation indicating that the error image (error) has been acquired is different from oscillation indicating that the normal image (no vibration) has been acquired (Para 49-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an error warning as taught by Kim to the camera of Nakashima, to provides an improved method of photographing for a person who cannot identify a subject, such as a blind person, or in a situation that the subject cannot be identified (Para 11 of Kim).
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima (US Patent Pub. # 2019/0391650) in view of Tadano (US Patent Pub. # 2020/0068098).
As to claim 10, note the discussion above in regards to claims 1-3. Nakashima does not teach wherein the reminder information includes at least one of information regarding a remaining life of a battery that serves as a drive power supply used to drive the image-capturing apparatus, or information regarding the image-capturing-environment information. Tadano teaches wherein the reminder information includes at least one of information regarding a remaining life of a battery (remaining amount of the battery) that serves as a drive power supply (battery 7) used to drive the image-capturing apparatus (shooting apparatus 1), or information regarding the image-capturing-environment information (the vibration part 20 is caused to vibrate thereby to notify of the shooter the shortage of the remaining amount of the battery) (Para 304 and 308). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a method to notify of the shooter the shortage of the remaining amount of the battery as taught by Tadano to the camera of Nakashima, to notify of the shooter the shortage of the remaining amount of the battery (Para 308 of Tadano).
As to claim 14, not the discussion above in regards to claim 1. Nakashima does not teach information regarding a remaining life of a drive power supply used to drive the image-capturing apparatus and power consumption of the camera body. Tadano teaches information regarding a remaining life (remaining amount of the battery) of a drive power supply (battery 7) used to drive the image-capturing apparatus (1) and power consumption of the camera body (1) (Para 304 and 308). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a method to notify of the shooter the shortage of the remaining amount of the battery as taught by Tadano to the camera of Nakashima, to notify of the shooter the shortage of the remaining amount of the battery (Para 308 of Tadano).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima (US Patent Pub. # 2019/0391650) in view of Fujinawa (US Patent Pub. # 2014/0104453).
As to claim 17, note the discussion above in regards to claim 1. Nakashima does not teach wherein the image-capturing apparatus includes a mechanical shutter, and the controller controls the oscillation of the oscillation device taking into consideration oscillation provided when the mechanical shutter is operated. Fujinawa teaches wherein the image-capturing apparatus (camera system 100) includes a mechanical shutter (focal plane shutter 323), and the controller (camera system control section 327)controls the oscillation of the oscillation device (vibrator 331) taking into consideration oscillation provided when the mechanical shutter (323) is operated (Para 129, 130, 132, 152, and 153). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an focal plane shutter as taught by Fujinawa to the camera of Nakashima, to provide a tactile notification section that notifies a user in a tactile manner concerning whether the specific objet is in a predetermined region of the captured image or not based on recognition by the object recognition section (Para 7 of Fujinawa).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER K PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1704. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Sinh N Tran can be reached at 571-2727564. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER K PETERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 6/6/2025