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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/9/2026 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to amended claims 4-8, 13-14, 16 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 4-8, 13-14, 16 and 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 9-12, 15 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-3, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai US 2012/0062768.
Re claims 1, 15 and 17, Arai discloses a video output method, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that is executable by the computer wherein the program includes program code for causing the computer to function as a video output apparatus and a video output apparatus (mobile phone terminal 100) comprising one or more processors (110, 213, 218) and/or circuitry (figure 1; paragraphs 52, 60-66 which function as: a setting unit that is capable of setting a plurality of frames each indicative of partial video which is a part of input video and a selection unit that selects a subject according to an operation performed on the input video (subject detection unit 216 detects plural subjects in an image and generates subject rectangles and a specific subject is selected by a touch operation of an area on the display 106) (figures 9-10, 15; paragraphs 91-97, 113-116, 126-132, 143-146); an output unit that outputs video (captured image data may be displayed on display unit 106 and wirelessly transmitted by communication circuit 102) (paragraphs 60, 142-150); and a control unit that performs at least focus control corresponding to the subject selected by the selection unit and that controls selection of a frame to be output by the output unit while performing the focus control, wherein, in a case where the subject is selected under a state in which a plurality of frames are set, the control unit determines, from among the plurality of set frames, a frame including the selected subject as the frame indicative of a partial video to be output, and the output unit outputs partial video of the determined frame (an autofocus process of focusing a subject in a selected rectangle is performed, and an image that is in a state where focus is fixed is displayed on display unit 106 and captured) (paragraphs 142-150).
Re claim 2, Arai further discloses a display control unit that superimposes the frame or frames on the video, and displays superimposed video on display means (subject rectangles are superimposed and displayed on images displayed on display unit 106) (figures 9-10, 15; paragraphs 91-97, 113-116, 126-132).
Re claim 3, Arai further discloses that the control unit further performs at least one of exposure control, white balance control and image processing control (control unit 110 and image processing unit 213 perform image processing and exposure control) (figures 1,2; paragraphs 63, 77, 144).
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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai US 2012/0062768 in view of Nishio et al. US 2022/0360704.
Re claim 9, Arai discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above. However, although the Arai reference discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above, it fails to specifically disclose that in a case where the subject is not included in any of the frames, the output unit does not change the partial video of the frame currently being output.
Nishio discloses that it is well known in the imaging art for a display of an image capturing device to display a plurality of subject frames/regions in a display priority order and discloses that if a frame including a subject is currently being output and no new subject is detected the display priority remains the same and no change is made) (figures 18-24; paragraphs 199-256). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include the teaching of displaying captured images in a priority order as disclosed by the Nishio reference in the video output apparatus disclosed by the Arai reference. Doing so would provide a means for displaying captured images to a user of a device in a priority order in order to allow a user to view the images according to their preference.
Re claim 10, Arai discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above. However, although the Arai reference discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above, it fails to specifically disclose that in a case where the subject is not included in any of the frames, the output unit outputs the video.
Nishio discloses that it is well known in the imaging art for a display of an image capturing device to display a plurality of subject frames/regions in a display priority order and discloses that if a frame including a subject is currently being output and no new subject is detected the display priority remains the same and no display change is made (figures 18-24; paragraphs 199-256). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include the teaching of displaying captured images in a priority order as disclosed by the Nishio reference in the video output apparatus disclosed by the Arai reference. Doing so would provide a means for displaying captured images to a user of a device in a priority order in order to allow a user to view the images according to their preference.
Re claim 11, Arai discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above. However, although the Arai reference discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above, it fails to specifically disclose that in a case where the subject is not included in any of the frames, not to change the frame or to output the video can be selected.
Nishio discloses that it is well known in the imaging art for a display of an image capturing device to display a plurality of subject frames/regions in a display priority order and discloses that if a frame including a subject is currently being output and no new subject is detected the display priority remains the same and no display change is made and the user can freely select what kind of information is to be used to determine the priority of the subjects (figures 18-24; paragraphs 199-256). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include the teaching of displaying captured images in a priority order as disclosed by the Nishio reference in the video output apparatus disclosed by the Arai reference. Doing so would provide a means for displaying captured images to a user of a device in a priority order in order to allow a user to view the images according to their preference.
Re claim 12, Arai discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above. However, although the Arai reference discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above, it fails to specifically disclose that in a case where a frame of a partial video to be output by the output unit is changed from a first frame to a second frame, the output unit switches from a partial video of the first frame to a partial video of the second frame at a predetermined timing between start and end of the control by the control unit.
Nishio discloses that it is well known in the imaging art for a display of an image capturing device to display a plurality of subject frames/regions in a display priority order and discloses that information relating to subjects in the video is analyzed and a priority is determined for the plurality of regions based on the analyzed information and the user can freely select what kind of information is to be used to determine the priority of the subjects (paragraphs 232-256). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include the teaching of displaying captured images in a priority order as disclosed by the Nishio reference in the video output apparatus disclosed by the Arai reference. Doing so would provide a means for displaying captured images to a user of a device in a priority order in order to allow a user to view the images according to their preference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re claims 4-8, the prior art fails to teach or suggest, a video output apparatus having the specific configurations disclosed in claims 4-8, wherein the video output apparatus comprises one or more processors and/or circuitry which function as: a setting unit that is capable of setting a plurality of frames each indicative of partial video which is a part of input video and a selection unit that selects a subject according to an operation performed on the input video; an output unit that outputs video; and a control unit that performs at least focus control corresponding to the subject selected by the selection unit and that controls selection of a frame to be output by the output unit while performing the focus control, wherein, in a case where the subject is selected under a state in which a plurality of frames are set, the control unit determines, from among the plurality of set frames, a frame including the selected subject as the frame indicative of a partial video to be output, and the output unit outputs partial video of the determined frame, wherein, in a case where the plurality of frames are set, the setting unit sets a priority order of the plurality of frames according to a predetermined method, and in a case where the selected subject is included in two or more of the plurality of frames, the output unit outputs video in a frame with a highest priority among the two or more of the plurality of frames. The examiner notes that the specific arrangement of the video output apparatus for setting a plurality of frames of partial video and performing focus control disclosed in the specification and claimed in the claims is not disclosed by the prior art.
Claims 13-14, 16 and 18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Re claims 13-14, 16 and 18, the prior art fails to teach or suggest, a video output apparatus, a video output method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having the specific configurations disclosed in claims 13-14, 16 and 18, wherein the video output apparatus comprises one or more processors and/or circuitry which function as: a display control unit concurrently that displays, on a display unit, a plurality of input videos that are supplied from at least one external imaging apparatus; a selection unit that, in response to an operation performed on any one of the plurality of input videos, selects a subject included in the operated input video and obtains position information of the selected subject in the input videos; a notifying unit that transmits, via a communication interface, the position information of the selected subject to the external imaging apparatus that has supplied the operated input video; and an output unit that, based on a notification from the selection unit, selects the input video including the selected subject as an output video and outputs the selected input video. The examiner notes that the specific arrangement of the video output apparatus for selecting a subject in a video, obtaining position information, transmitting the position information to an external imaging apparatus and outputting the video disclosed in the specification and claimed in the claims is not disclosed by the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shanmugam et al. US 2020/0145583 discloses an image capture device capable of replacing an object in an image based on a user selection of a displayed area of an image.
Jung et al. US 9,900,516 discloses an imaging device allowing a user to select and output different subjects in a displayed image.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly L. Jerabek whose telephone number is (571) 272-7312. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
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 submitting all Official communications is (571) 273-7300. The fax phone number for submitting informal communications such as drafts, proposed amendments, etc., may be faxed directly to the Examiner at (571) 273-7312.
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 .
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KELLY L JERABEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699