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 I in the reply filed on 5 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the alleged species identified in the Office Action are not different embodiments but rather simply different claims. Applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the restriction requirement of 5 January 2026 is withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 13-18, 20-22, and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakai (US 2023/0396873 A1).
Claim 1, Nakai teaches an imaging control device (information processing device 1; paragraph 0100 and Fig. 1) comprising:
a processor (CPU 11; paragraph 0149 and Fig. 6) and
a memory (memory 14; Fig. 6), wherein the processor is configured to control one of a plurality of imaging devices (slave cameras 3 are controlled; paragraph 0145) based on first image information related to an image captured in a reference state by one of the plurality of imaging devices (a first image captured by master camera 2; paragraph 0136) and second image information related to an image captured in a non-reference state by one of the plurality of imaging devices (an image captured after the previous image captured by master camera 2; see Fig. 5).
Claim 2, Nakai further teaches wherein the reference state is a state in which a predetermined condition is satisfied (a user operation corresponding to an input operation is performed to initiate capture; see paragraph 0153).
Claim 13, Nakai further teaches wherein the processor is configured to control one of the plurality of imaging devices based on a difference between imaging setting included in the first image information and imaging setting included in the second image information (when image content in images captured by master camera 2 is changed, composition control is performed for slave cameras 3; see paragraph 0136, 0145).
Claim 14, Nakai further teaches wherein the processor is configured to control, based on a difference between imaging setting of one of the plurality of imaging devices that has captured the first image information and the second image information (clipping setting to operate a virtual camera of master camera 2; paragraph 0128-0130, 0172-0173) and imaging setting of other of the plurality of imaging devices than the one of the plurality of imaging device that has captured the first image information and the second image information (when the angle of view of slave camera 3 does not match the angle of view of the clipped master camera 2; paragraph 0144-0145), the imaging setting of the other of the plurality of imaging devices (slave cameras 3 are controlled to pan, tilt, and zoom based on the virtual camera settings of master camera 2; see paragraph 0145 and Fig. 3).
Claim 15, Nakai further teaches wherein the imaging device that has captured the first image information and the imaging device that has captured the second image information are same (master camera 2 captures the images of Fig. 5; see paragraph 0136).
Claim 16, Nakai further teaches wherein the imaging device that is controlled based on the first image information and the second image information is different from the imaging device that has captured the first image information and the second image information (slave camera 3 is different from master camera 2; see Fig. 1-2).
Claim 17, Nakai further teaches wherein a parameter of the imaging device controlled by the processor includes an imaging condition of the imaging device (panning, tilting, and zoom of slave cameras 3 is controlled; paragraph 0145).
Claim 18, Nakai further teaches wherein the imaging condition includes at least one of an imaging interval, an angle of view (panning, tilting, and zoom of slave cameras 3 is controlled; paragraph 0145), an imaging direction, an exposure, or an imaging mode.
Claim 20, Nakai further teaches wherein the imaging device that captures the first image information is configured to image imaging regions of all of the plurality of imaging devices except for the imaging device that captures the first image information (master camera 2 view encompasses, for example, the entire stage; see Fig. 2-3 and paragraph 0115), and the processor is configured to change imaging setting of other of the plurality of imaging devices other than the imaging device that captures the first image information based on image information captured by the imaging device that captures the first image information (composition control is performed by adjusting orientation of slave cameras 3 based on the image captured by the master camera 2; paragraph 0145).
Claim 21, Nakai teaches an imaging control device (information processing device 1; paragraph 0100 and Fig. 1) comprising:
a processor (CPU 11; paragraph 0149 and Fig. 6) and
a memory (memory 14; Fig. 6), wherein the processor is configured to control one of a plurality of imaging devices (slave cameras 3 are controlled; paragraph 0145) based on first image information related to an image captured in a reference state by other imaging device different from the plurality of imaging devices (a first image captured by master camera 2; paragraph 0136) and second image information related to an image captured in a non-reference state by the other imaging device (an image captured after the previous image captured by master camera 2; see Fig. 5).
Claim 22, Nakai further teaches wherein the other imaging device images an inclusive imaging region including at least a part of an imaging region of the plurality of imaging devices (master camera 2 view encompasses, for example, the entire stage while the slave cameras 3 may have a smaller angle of view; see Fig. 2-3 and paragraph 0115-0116).
Claim 24 is analyzed and rejected as a method claim for performing the functions of the device of claim 1.
Claim 25 is analyzed and rejected as a method claim for performing the functions of the device of claim 21.
Claim 26 is analyzed and rejected as a non-transitory computer readable medium storing an imaging control program that performs the functions of the device of claim 1.
Claim 27 is analyzed and rejected as a non-transitory computer readable medium storing an imaging control program that performs the functions of the device of claim 21.
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) 3-6, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai in view of Lee (US 2011/0187853 A1).
Claim 3, Nakai teaches the imaging control device according to claim 1, but is silent regarding wherein the reference state is a state in which only a specific subject is included in an angle of view.
Lee teaches wherein the reference state is a state in which only a specific subject is included in an angle of view (see reference image 600; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the teaching of Lee with that of Nakai in order to simplify commands in controlling a camera (see paragraph 0005 of Lee).
Claim 4, Nakai further teaches wherein the processor is configured to control one of the plurality of imaging devices based on number of subjects included in the first image information and number of subjects included in the second image information (when a new subject is detected in the image captured by master camera 2, a new composition is determined; paragraph 0136. Composition control is performed by controlling slave cameras 3; paragraph 0145).
Claim 5, Nakai further teaches wherein the processor is configured to further control one of the plurality of imaging devices based on a distance between the subjects included in the second image information (the composition, i.e., angle of view, of slave camera 3 is changed to include a new subject and the positions of the remaining subjects; paragraph 0136, 0145).
Claim 6, Nakai further teaches wherein the processor is configured to control one of the plurality of imaging devices based on the specific subject included in the first image information and a subject other than the specific subject included in the second image information (the composition, i.e., angle of view, of slave camera 3 is changed to include a new subject and the positions of the remaining subjects; paragraph 0136, 0145).
Claim 23, Nakai teaches the imaging control device according to claim 21, but is silent regarding wherein the other imaging device is located at a higher position in a vertical direction than the plurality of imaging devices.
Lee teaches wherein a first camera may be mounted on a ceiling of a locale (paragraph 0019).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the teaching of Lee with that of Nakai in order to prevent the master camera from being obscured by obstructions or other equipment to maintain a full view of the environment (see paragraph 0115 of Nakai).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai in view of Aagaard (US 2011/0211096 A1).
Claim 19, Nakai teaches the imaging control device according to claim 1, but is silent regarding wherein the processor is configured to cause the plurality of imaging devices to perform imaging based on an operation related to imaging of a manually operated imaging device other than the plurality of imaging devices.
Aagaard teaches a multiple camera video system wherein a processor is configured to cause the plurality of imaging devices to perform imaging based on an operation related to imaging of a manually operated imaging device other than the plurality of imaging devices (camera operator remotely controls a master camera and a master broadcaster communicates values for control of slave cameras; paragraph 0038).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the teaching of Aagaard with that of Nakai in order to improve the automatic control of secondary slave cameras (see paragraph 0168 of Aagaard).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIAWEI A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 12:00pm - 9:00pm 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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
/CHIAWEI CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights