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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of species 2 readable in claims 1-5, and 19 in the reply filed on 1/6/2026 is acknowledged. Regarding applicant’s traversal argument that, species 1 and 2 could easily be examined together without a significant burden in the Examiner, Applicant didn’t explain why and how exactly examining both these species together would not be a burden on Examiner’s part. In the previous Office Action Examiner clearly showed the demarcation paragraphs in the specification which define various species’ and articulated why the species have at least one mutually exclusive feature and are not obvious variant from one another. Furthermore, Examiner merely followed Applicant’s own disclosure to define various species, which Applicant defined as various embodiments. Besides, should Applicant have given which additional claim(s) could have been read on species 1, Examiner could have considered the additional claim(s) on their merit for examinability, in this Office Action.
Therefore, based on Applicant’s election and arguments provided above, Examiner examined claims 1-5, and 19 in this Office Action and withdrawn other claims from consideration.
Claim Interpretation Under - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
object information acquisition unit, focal position controller in claims 1-5.
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 § 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 1, 2, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20120121241 A1, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an imaging device capable of imaging an object (100, fig. 1, title, abstract), the imaging device comprising:
an imaging element (130, fig. 1);
an object information acquisition unit (170, fig. 1, ¶0040) configured to acquire position information of an object existing in an imaging region of the imaging element (The method includes setting an arbitrary area of a preview screen as a focus area, the preview screen being divided into at least one tracking area, focusing on a subject located within the focus area and fixing a focus of the subject, and adjusting the focus with respect to the focus area when a movement of the subject is detected within the tracking area that includes the focus area – Abstract); and
a focal position controller (170, fig. 1, ¶0040) configured to control a focal position of the imaging device (step s320, fig. 3),
wherein the focal position controller is further configured to:
adjust the focal position on an object existing in a target region between a first position where a distance from the imaging device is a first distance and a second position where a distance from the imaging device is a second distance shorter than the first distance and performing a predetermined motion (The method includes setting an arbitrary area of a preview screen as a focus area, the preview screen being divided into at least one tracking area, focusing on a subject located within the focus area and fixing a focus of the subject, and adjusting the focus with respect to the focus area when a movement of the subject is detected within the tracking area that includes the focus area – Abstract);
keep adjusting the focal position on the object while the object exists in the target region and performs the predetermined motion (ibid, abstract, fig. 3); and
Kim is not found disclosing expressly the limitation of, stop keeping adjusting the focal position on the object when the object moves out of the target region or the object no longer performs the predetermined motion.
However, in ¶0063, Kim discloses, Referring to FIG. 6, a case B is illustrated in which the subject moves outside the active tracking area 220 when the focusing on the subject 510 within the focus area 230 is completed. When the subject moves outwardly from the active tracking area 220 after the focusing on the subject 510 is completed, the control unit 170 does not track the movement of the subject but initiates steps of adjusting the focusing with respect to the focus area 230. Therefore, focusing can be continuously maintained with respect to a particular area.
The disclosure mentions that that focus is maintained for a subject even when it moves outside of the tracking area 220, if a focus was locked or completed before leaving the tracking area 220. Therefore, an obvious extension of the disclosure is, if a focus lock is not attained before leaving the tracking area 220, the system steps keeping adjusting focus position on the object.
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 include the step of stop keeping adjusting the focal position on the object when the object moves out of the target region or the object no longer performs the predetermined motion, when a focus lock is not attained before leaving the area 220, because, it is an obvious extension of the teaching disclosed in ¶0063, the extension is found by combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results. Furthermore, when a focus lock is not achieved before leaving the tracking area, stopping the focus would make the system power efficient by not attempting to focus on subject that has already moved out of bounds.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein, when the object moves from an outside of the target region to an inside of the target region, the focal position controller is further configured to recognize the object as a target on which the focal position is to be adjusted (Abstract, ¶0063).
Regarding method claim(s) 19, although wording is different, the material is considered substantively equivalent to the device claim(s) 1 as described above.
Claims 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Habe (US 20190170968 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, except, wherein the focal position controller is further configured to control the focal position by moving a position of an optical element provided in the imaging device.
However, Habe discloses a focus and tracking lock on a subject (abstract, fig. 7, ) and that focal position controller is further configured to control the focal position by moving a position of an optical element provided in the imaging device (¶0015, ¶0021).
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 make the focal position controller is further configured to control the focal position by moving a position of an optical element provided in the imaging device, because, combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, except, wherein the focal position controller is further configured to adjust the focal position on an object existing in the target region and facing a predetermined direction.
However, Habe discloses that motion vector 71 is used in determining the movement direction and amount, which is used for tracking the subject for focusing efficiently (see ¶0024, ¶0046).
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 to include ethe teaching of Habe of acquiring motion vector information of a subject to define and modify the af area and target area of Kim for focus tacking, to obtain, wherein the focal position controller is further configured to adjust the focal position on an object existing in the target region and facing a predetermined direction, because, combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Takano et al. (US 20110115945 A1, hereinafter Takano).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, except, wherein the focal position controller is further configured to adjust the focal position on an object existing in the target region and having a predetermined shape.
However, Takano discloses that focus could be based on face detection (304, fig. 5, ¶0080), which is understood having a predetermined shape.
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 to include the teaching of Takano of focusing on facial shape within tracking area, to obtain, the focal position controller is further configured to adjust the focal position on an object existing in the target region and having a predetermined shape, because, combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious.
Conclusion
The prior and/or pertinent art(s) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, are – NAKAMARU (US 20180205875 A1), SHIMIZU et al. (US 20170223261 A1), Ito (US 20140204266 A1), who disclose different focus tracking algorithms of interest.
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