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 4/22/2024. 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: communication interface, controller in claim 1-13.
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 § 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, 2, and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito (US Patent Pub. # 2017/0150051).
As to claim 1, Ito discloses an image capture apparatus comprising:
an image sensor (imaging unit 15) configured to perform image capture (captures an image) to generate a captured image (image) (Para 64);
a communication interface (communication unit 13) configured to notify an external apparatus (information processing terminal 30) of control information (controls various settings) of the image capture apparatus (image capturing apparatus 10) that affects the captured image (image), in response to a change in the control information (controls various settings) (Para 103 and 104); and
a controller (controller 11) configured to determine whether or not to perform control for restricting notification (state monitoring unit 113 and mode determination unit 115) of the control information (controls various settings) to the external apparatus (30), based on whether or not the image capture apparatus (10) is operating in a specific mode (valid state) (Para 80 and 81),
wherein the image capture apparatus (10) has a plurality of modes (current operation mode of the image capturing apparatus 10 according to whether information transmission and reception is capable of being performed between the image capturing apparatus 10 and the information processing terminal 30 via the network n11) (Para 81),
the plurality of modes (current operation mode of the image capturing apparatus 10 according to whether information transmission and reception is capable of being performed between the image capturing apparatus 10 and the information processing terminal 30 via the network n11) include a first mode in which the image capture apparatus (10) changes the control information (controls various settings) in accordance with an instruction from an external apparatus (30), and a second mode in which the image capture apparatus (10) automatically changes the control information (controls various settings) (Para 81-83), and
the specific mode (single body) is the second mode (Para 83 and 84).
As to claim 2, Ito teaches wherein the controller (11) is further configured to determine whether or not to perform control for restricting notification (113 and 115) of the control information (controls various settings) to the external apparatus (30), based on a type of the control information (controls various settings) to be notified (Para 83 and 84).
As to claim 4, Ito teaches wherein the control information (controls various settings) is autonomously controlled by the image capture apparatus (10) (Para 87-89).
As to claim 5, Ito teaches wherein the control information (controls various settings) is a focus distance (focus), exposure control information (exposure condition), a gain (ISO sensitivity), color control information (white balance,) an image capture direction (angle of view), or image capture magnification information (magnification ratio (zooming)) (Para 50 and 65).
As to claim 6, Ito teaches wherein the specific mode (single body) is a mode in which the image capture apparatus (10) controls the control information (controls various settings).
As to claim 7, Ito teaches wherein the controller (11) is further configured to restrict notification (113 and 115) of the control information (controls various settings) to the external apparatus (30) so that an interval (predetermined period of time or longer) of the notification of the control information (controls various settings) to the external apparatus (30) is greater than or equal to a threshold (predetermined period of time or longer) (Para 84).
As to claim 8, Ito teaches wherein the controller (11) is further configured to restrict notification (113 and 115) of the control information (controls various settings) to the external apparatus (30) so that a frequency of the notification (monitoring result notified of by the state monitoring unit 113) of the control information (controls various settings) to the external apparatus (30) is smaller than or equal to a threshold (monitoring) (Para 80-82).
As to claim 9, Ito teaches wherein the controller (11) is further configured to restrict successive notification (monitoring result notified of by the state monitoring unit 113) of pieces of the control information to the external apparatus (30) in an event where a difference of the values indicated by the pieces of the control information (controls various settings) being less than a threshold (Para 80-82). Ito teaches the mode determination unit 115 determines a current operation mode of the image capturing apparatus 10 according to whether information transmission and reception is capable of being performed between the image capturing apparatus 10 and the information processing terminal 30 via the network n11 (in other words, whether the information processing terminal 30 is capable of detecting the state of the image capturing apparatus 10), based on the monitoring result notified of by the state monitoring unit 113 (Para 81).
As to claim 10, Ito teaches wherein the controller (11)is further configured to restrict notification (monitoring result notified of by the state monitoring unit 113) of the control information (controls various settings) to the external apparatus (30) based on a processing load (monitoring result notified of by the state monitoring unit 113) of the image capture apparatus (10) or the external apparatus (30) (Para 81).
As to claim 11, Ito teaches wherein the controller (11) is further configured to restrict notification (monitoring result notified of by the state monitoring unit 113) of the control information (controls various settings) to the external apparatus (30) based on a load on a communication path (network n11) of the notification of the control information (controls various settings) or a status of the communication path (monitoring result notified of by the state monitoring unit 113) (Para 81).
As to claims 12 and 13, these claims differ from claim 1 only in that the claim 1 is an image capture apparatus claim whereas claims 12 and 13 are a method claim, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim. Thus claims 12 and 13 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.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US Patent Pub. # 2017/0150051) in view of Kaihatsu (US Patent Pub. # 2018/0309923).
As to claim 3, note the discussion above in regards to claim 1. Ito does not teach wherein the control information is a parameter that changes serially. Kaihatsu teaches wherein the control information is a parameter that changes serially (serial communication unit 51) (Para 58). 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 serial communication unit as taught by Kaihatsu to the image capturing apparatus of Ito, to provide an IC in which an AF lens drive control unit is mounted can be made compatible with various communication specifications that vary with the types of lens driver ICs to be connected thereto (Para 32 of Kaihatsu).
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 1/30/2026