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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the independent claims Applicant makes arguments that are based upon the “first image processing” of the claims being equivalent to the output of CNN 106. Because of this the arguments conclude “[f]or the Wang reference, the switching of the image color mode is performed by the second image processing (i.e. imaging processing engine 114 of Wang) and not by the first image processing (i.e. CNN 106 of Wang), contrary to claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis of the claims and the Wang reference. As seen in claim 1 the first image processing is part of the generation step, i.e. when the image is created. This is not analogous to the CNN step of Wang, it is analogous to the image sensor 104 generating the image which is a processed color image, i.e. and image in a first color mode. More specifically, see paragraph 44 and 46 of Wang which states a color JPEG is input to a trained CNN; as seen in Fig. 1 this input to the CNN is from the image sensor 104 as image stream 128. The processing of the CNN 106 corresponds to the detection step of the claims. Thus, the “switching” is done when that same JPEG image from the image sensor 104 is provided to the image processing engine 114 as analogous to the claims. For these reasons the Examiner finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive.
Also, the Applicant did not traverse the Official Notice taken in the rejection of claim 7, thus the concepts and advantages of providing a still image recording step for recording a still image in a recording medium with an applied effect that is displayed to a user for an image stream from an image capturing device are well known and expected in the art are considered admitted prior art by the Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0204727 A1 to Wang.
With respect to claim 1 Wang discloses, in Fig. 1-14, an image generation method (abstract) comprising: an imaging step of acquiring an imaging signal output from an imaging element (104) (paragraph 46);a first generation step of using the imaging signal to generate a first image through first image processing, wherein the first image is in a first color mode (paragraph 44-45; where a trained neural network for object detection receives down sampled color images (i.e. images with a first image processing) for the image sensor 104); a detection step of detecting a subject within the first image by using the first image via a trained model trained through machine learning to generate a detection result (paragraph 43); a display control step of receiving the detection result and the first image so as to change the first image from the first color mode to a second color mode and to create a live view image based on the first image displayed in the second color mode (paragraph 48);and a second generation step of using the imaging signal to generate a second image through second image processing different from the first image processing (paragraph 48; where the effect applied is the second image processing), wherein the second image is made substantially the same as a color of the live view image (paragraph 48 and 52; where the applied effects include color effects which are applied and displayed on the live view image which comprises the second images).
With respect to claim 2 Wang discloses, in Fig. 1-14, the image generation method according to claim 1, further comprising: a reception step of receiving an imaging instruction from a user, wherein, in the second generation step, the second image is generated in a case where the imaging instruction is received in the reception step (paragraph 66).
With respect to claim 3 Wang discloses, in Fig. 1-14, the image generation method according to claim 1, further comprising: a display step of displaying the live view image and the detection result of the subject detected in the detection step on a display device (paragraph 48).
With respect to claim 4 Wang discloses, in Fig. 1-14, the image generation method according to claim 3, wherein, in the display step, the live view image is displayed by generating a display signal of the live view image based on an image signal constituting the first image (Fig. 3 and paragraph 58).
With respect to claim 6 Wang discloses, in Fig. 1-14, the image generation method according to claim 3, wherein chroma saturation or brightness of the first image is higher than that of the second image and of the live view image (paragraph 52 and 70; where effects effecting color saturation or brightness can be applied and how effects and increase (i.e. make higher) those parameters).
With respect to claim 14 Wang discloses, in Fig. 1-14, the image generation method according to claim 1, wherein the trained model is a model trained through machine learning using a color image as training data, the first image is a color image, and the second image is a monochrome image or a sepia image (paragraph 23, 26, 43, 51 and 71-77; where the object detection and effect application are done via a CNN where an input image includes a color JPEG for object recognition and an output image with an applied effect that can include a sepia or monochrome effect, thus, to train the models they would also be trained off similar images).
Claims 15-16 are rejected for similar reason as claim 1 above as they are corresponding processor and program claims respectively to method claim 1 and Wang discloses the uses of a processor based program in paragraph 31 and 105.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0204727 A1 to Wang.
With respect to claim 7 Wang discloses, in Fig. 1-14, the image generation method according to claim 1 (see above), further Wang discusses their method as being applied to photos or photo applications throughout (paragraph 1, 24 and 69), but never explicitly states their displayed stream of images results in a recording step of recording a still image in a recording medium with the applied effect (i.e. claim 7).
However, Official Notice (MPEP § 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of providing a still image recording step for recording a still image in a recording medium with an applied effect that is displayed to a user for an image stream from an image capturing device are well known and expected in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have included a still image recording step as discussed above as it would merely be use of a known technique to capture still images to improve similar devices in the same way.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M PASIEWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5516. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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, George Eng can be reached at (571)272-7495. 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.
/DANIEL M PASIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
May 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights