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
The amendment filed on November 19, 2025 in response to the previous Office Action (09/22/2025) is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claims 1 – 7 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the following objections/rejections in the last Office Action:
Objection to Specification
Interpretation under 112(f)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the combination of Matsuoka and Toyoda fails to disclose or suggest (1) “obtaining information indicating current maximum display brightness of the display device, determining a parameter for correcting at least one of noise and resolution of image data based on the information, and generating display image data for live view display on the display device by correcting obtained image data according to the parameter” (remarks p.5); and (2) “suppressing changes in perceptual noise or perceptual resolution in a live-view image that is incurred due to maximum display brightness” (remarks, p.5 and 6-7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument (1), Matsuoka teaches obtaining current maximum display luminance based on captured scene (¶64), and using color/luminance adjustment parameters, including contrast correction, exposure correction (which affects noise), color saturation correction (which affects noise), to adjust the image (¶63), and the image for display 708 is generated via tone conversion (gamma conversion) processing relating to the input/output characteristic (¶62).
In response to applicant's argument (2) that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., suppressing changes in perceptual noise or perceptual resolution in a live-view image that is incurred due to maximum display brightness) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka (US 2022/0286656) in view of Toyoda (US 2017/0318208).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuoka discloses, in at least figures 1 and 8, an image processing apparatus that generates display image data for live view display on a display device, the image processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors (101) that execute a program stored in a memory and thereby function as: an obtaining unit configured to obtain information indicating a current maximum display brightness of the display device (¶64, 68); a determining unit configured to determine a parameter for correcting at least one of noise and resolution of image data based on the information (¶63, 68); and a generating unit configured to generate display image data for display on the display device by correcting obtained image data according to the parameter (¶62, 69). Matsuoka fails to explicitly disclose generate display image data for live view display on the display device by correcting obtained image data according to the parameter.
In a similar field of endeavor, Toyoda teaches an image display device capable of reproducing, with high presence, a high-luminance portion of a subject wherein the maximum luminance for each display area is determined and a gradation characteristic is determined to use to display live view images with corrected luminance (fig. 3; ¶76-79). In light of the teaching of Matsuoka, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Toyoda’s teaching in Matsuoka’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in live-view imaging that is displayed with appropriate luminance and so that it is possible to provide a display image with a dazzling feeling and express high presence.
Regrading claim 2, Matsuoka in view of Toyoda disclose the limitations of claim 1, Matsuoka also teaches wherein the display device is an external apparatus, and the obtaining unit obtains the information by communicating with the display device (¶29).
Regrading claim 3, Matsuoka in view of Toyoda disclose the limitations of claim 1, Matsuoka also teaches the one or more processors further function as: a scene determining unit configured to determine a scene represented by the obtained image data, based on luminance of the image data; and an adjusting unit configured to adjust the maximum display brightness of the display device according to a scene determined by the scene determining unit, wherein the obtaining unit obtains information indicating maximum display brightness adjusted by the adjusting unit (¶42: the maximum display luminance of the display device 106 is preferably made different depending on the brightness of the captured scene, and this makes the range of the display luminance that represents tonal expression different).
Regrading claim 4, Matsuoka in view of Toyoda disclose the limitations of claim 1, Matsuoka also teaches wherein the parameter is a parameter for correcting at least one of the noise and resolution, in an ICtCp color space (¶45).
Regrading claim 5, Matsuoka in view of Toyoda disclose the limitations of claim 1, Matsuoka also teaches wherein the parameter is a parameter for suppressing change in noise and resolution perceived in display image data displayed in the display device due to change in image capture sensitivity and the maximum display brightness of the image data (¶54-55).
Claim 6 and 7 rejected as applied to claim 1 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Matsuoka in view of Toyoda.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE T. SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm 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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639