DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-14 are amended. No claim is cancelled or newly added. Pursuant to amendments made the rejection under 35 USC § 101 for claim 13 is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that the newly added/amended clause in base claims 1, 12-14, i.e., “wherein, in a case of the tracking mode, the circuitry performs the focus control using a depth value of the predetermined subject.” [in case of claim 1] is not taught in Kim reference.
Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s arguments and conclusions drawn therefrom. E.g., Kim clearly teaches in ¶0209, among potentially other locations, the newly added limitation.
For details see the rejection below.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20160241776 A1. The reference is part of IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a focus control device (420+430+440, fig. 4) comprising:
circuitry configured to perform focus control by using a depth map generated from a captured image including a predetermined subject (In operation 950, the electronic device may correct (e.g., modify) the electronic device's focus detection. More particularly, the target correction module 743 of the focus processing module 440 receives location information on multiple group areas (target location) from a depth map and an image processing module 420, wherein the target correction module 743 may compare information on each of the depth map and the image processing module 420 – ¶0183.
According to this example, the focus detection area may include two or more subjects, and the depth processing module 430 may obtain a distance (or depth) between a focused subject and one or more subjects that are out of focus (e.g., subjects having a front focus and a back focus) by calculating a distance (or depth) of such subjects. – ¶0142
Then, a focus processing module 440 may move the focus detection area to an area in which a main target subject is located on the basis of information on depths of subjects in the focus detection area output by the depth processing module 430 … - ¶0143
Also see figs. 5a-c, ¶0124, ¶0132, ¶0110, ¶0114, ¶0120, ¶0121), and switch the focus control to different control between a tracking mode for tracking the predetermined subject and a non-tracking mode for not tracking the predetermined subject (While a tracking mode is being performed like 1330 of FIG. 13, if a random area in a screen is selected like 1340 of FIG. 13, the electronic device may sense the selection like 1350 and return to a previous focus detection mode (e.g., a center focus detection mode) – ¶0053; fig. 14.
Focus modes [understood as non-tracking mode] is described in ¶0110.
Also see ¶0172, 0174, 0177-0179, 0191, 0195-0199 …etc.),
wherein, in a case of the tracking mode, the circuitry performs the focus control using a depth value of the predetermined subject (The target correction module 1543 may analyze tracking location information of a main target subject output by a target tracking module 1527 of the image processing module 420 and relative distance information (depth information) between subjects of the depth processing module 430, and correct a location of the main target subject. The focus control module 745 may correct (e.g., modify) a focus detection area to include the corrected main target subject, and configure a corrected focus detection area in the image acquisition module 410. – ¶0209)
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the focus control device according to claim 1, wherein
in the case of the tracking mode, the circuitry performs focus control to focus on the predetermined subject searched for based on subject distance information generated by using the depth map (¶0209. Also see ¶0053).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses the focus control device according to claim 1, wherein
in a case of the non-tracking mode, the circuitry performs the focus control to focus on a subject at a nearest position indicated by subject distance information generated by using the depth map (¶0183. Also see figs. 5a-c, ¶0123-0124).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses the focus control device according to claim 9, wherein
the circuitry performs the focus control to focus on the subject at the nearest position within a search range provided in the captured image (¶0183. Also see figs. 5a-c, ¶0123-0124).
Regarding method claim(s) 12, although wording is different, the material is considered substantively equivalent to the device claim(s) 1 as described above.
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon a program, which when executed by a computer causes the computer to execute a method of focus control of an imaging device, the method comprising:
performing focus control by using a depth map generated from a captured image including a predetermined subject; and
switching the focus control to different control between a tracking mode for tracking the predetermined subject and a non-tracking mode for not tracking the predetermined subject, wherein, in a case of the tracking mode, the focus control is performed using a depth value of the predetermined subject (¶0104, ¶0105, ¶0244. Also see substantively similar claim 1 rejection above. For this claim Examiner assumes that the program is stored within a non-transitory computer readable medium).
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses an imaging device (fig. 4) comprising:
circuitry configured to generate a captured image including predetermined subject (410, fig. 4, ¶0113-0114), and
generate a depth map from the captured image,
perform focus control by using the generated depth map, and
switch the focus control to different control between a tracking mode for tracking the predetermined subject and a non-tracking mode for not tracking the predetermined subject, wherein, in a case of the tracking mode, the circuitry performs the focus control using a depth value of the predetermined subject (see substantively similar claim 1 rejection 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 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 of this title, 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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Amamra et al. (Amamra, Abdenour, and Nabil Aouf. "GPU-based real-time RGBD data filtering." Journal of Real-Time Image Processing 14 (2018): 323-340; hereinafter Amamra. The reference is part of IDS).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the focus control device according to claim 2, except, wherein the circuitry is further configured to
perform filtering processing in a time direction and generate the subject distance information.
Amamra however discloses, Kalman filtering processing in a time direction to generate subject distance information (see section 5, Kalman filter on Kinect’s data.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Kim with the teaching of Mamara of using Kalman filtering approach in a time direction to generate the subject distance information, because, combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious. Furthermore, Amamra’s approach can enhance the accuracy of the sensor without any extra hardware saving cost of the solution (section 5, last sentence).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Amamra discloses the focus control device according to claim 7, wherein
the circuitry performs the filtering processing on the depth map (Amamra: section 5, Kalman filter).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Geiss et al. (US 20220076018 A1, hereinafter Geiss).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses the focus control device according to claim 1, except, wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform machine learning by using the captured image to generate the depth map.
However, Geiss discloses that machine learning models can be used on captured images to generate the depth map (¶0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Kim with the teaching of Geiss of using machine learning model on the captured image to generate the depth map, because, combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 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 reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fails to reasonably disclose or suggest,
Regarding claim 3, the circuitry generates the subject distance information by using a depth value indicated by the depth map and the depth value of the predetermined subject.
Claims 4-6 are allowable for their dependence on allowable claim 3.
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 SHAHBAZ NAZRUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1467. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9.30 am-3 pm, 6.30 pm-9 pm, F: 9.30 am-1.30 pm, 4 pm-8 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, Lin Ye can be reached on 571-272-7372. 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.
/SHAHBAZ NAZRUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638