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.
Claim Interpretation
The claims make use of the term “a visual effect” to refer to the results of “effect light” which exposes the photosensitive surface of film. The examiner notes that the specification as filed states in ¶0042 that “The visual effect refers to an effect that causes a visual change in the subject image, and the visual effect includes, for example, a tone effect or a brightness effect”. This statement is not a “special” definition, as it does not significantly differ from the manner in which the term “visual effect” would be used in the art (see MPEP 2111.01 IV discussing “special definition” as one that “differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess”) but it is particularly noteworthy because it acts to clarify and guide a person having ordinary skill in the art in their interpretation of the scope of the term – to be a “visual effect”, an effect must cause a visual change in the subject image not unlike the examples given in ¶0043-0044. The addition of indicia such as time, date, and location would not reasonably fall within this scope, as they do not change the visual appearance of the subject of the image in a meaningful way or impart a different “feel” to the photo (see ¶0043 indicating that a visual effect can be characterized by imparting a particular “nostalgic atmosphere” to a photo).
The examiner also notes that ¶0050 as filed includes a special definition for “disposed symmetrically with respect to the center C” as including not only something that has rotational symmetry around C (as the term would be ordinarily understood to mean) but also “being disposed in line symmetry with respect to a straight line that passes through the center C and extends along a side of the photosensitive surface), which would not be ordinarily understood as being included within the term. This is important with regard to the interpretation of claim 9.
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 1-5, 10-12, 14, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zawodny et al (US Patent 6,353,714 B1).
With regard to claims 1 and 25: Zawodny discloses in Figures 14-20 (and discussed in column 15 line 65 through column 18 line 65, although many features are shared with the “First Embodiment” discussed earlier in Zawodny) an imaging apparatus (a film camera 10) which comprises a housing (best seen in Figure 14, the main frame of the front of the camera which is configured to be loaded with a film 14 on which a photosensitive surface is caused to be exposed to subject light to record a subject image (see column 17 line 51 through column 18 line 3 discussing exposure process of the film) and a light source that is provided in the housing and is capable of emitting, to the photosensitive surface, effect light that exposes the photosensitive surface in a manner superimposed on the subject light to impart a visual effect to the subject image (see column 17 lines 61-67 discussing exposure of the film via illumination by the flash light redirected through the light pipe 132, although column 18 lines 32-37 explicitly indicate that a dedicated lamp may be used instead of the flash light redirection arrangement, note that a photographer or person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would readily recognize that the combination of a subject being photographed with a mask image as in Zawodny to be a change in the subject image which can dramatically change the feel of a photograph, and would reasonably consider this effect to be a “visual effect” as claimed). The examiner notes that the title of the Zawodny disclosure is “Camera With Means For Superimposing Images On Exposures” (emphasis added) indicating that the device and process disclosed in Zawodny can be reasonably considered to be “superimposing” the images of the subject and the mask image, as that is the word which Zawodny uses to describe the result. Additionally in regard to claim 25 specifically, film as in Zawodny is a type of imaging element, with the photosensitive surface of the film being the light-receiving surface which is to be exposed to subject and effect light.
With regard to claim 2: The light source which produces the effect light in Zawodny is disposed around an exposure aperture through which the subject light passes, as can be best seen in Figure 15 where the illumination source points (the round parts visible in region 50) can be seen on both sides of the exposure aperture in a left-right direction.
With regard to claim 3: Zawodny discloses that the imaging apparatus includes a frame member (the inner wall structure contained within the camera body which defines the film exposure chambers 48 and 50 from the objective lens to the film surface, best visible in Figure 18). This frame member is provided with the exposure aperture 62 and also carries the light source (illumination source 132 is positioned in the front wall(s) which define the exposure chambers, see Figure 18).
With regard to claim 4: Zawodny discloses that the imaging apparatus includes a housing body into which the film is loaded (main body 30 which receives the film within the combination of film receiving area 34, film spool 36, and a thin film passage region connecting the two) and the exposure aperture 62/64. The light source of Zawodny is shown as being positioned in this housing body and positioned around the exposure aperture. As can be best seen in Figure 15 which shows the main body from the rear, the illumination source points (the round parts visible in region 50) can be seen on both sides of the exposure aperture in a left-right direction).
With regard to claim 5: Zawodny discloses that the imaging apparatus includes a housing body into which the film is loaded (main body 30 which receives the film within the combination of film receiving area 34, film spool 36, and a thin film passage region connecting the two) and the exposure aperture 62/64. The light source of Zawodny is fixed to this housing body, as can be best seen in Figure 15 which shows the main body from the rear, (the illumination source points can be seen as round parts visible in region 50) and Figure 18 showing a cross section of the housing body with one illumination point 132 visible).
With regard to claims 10-12: The light source of Zawodny is provided at a position facing an outer peripheral edge of the photosensitive surface of the film (specifically the lower edge of the photosensitive surface of the film when the film is mounted in the camera, see Figure 19). Because the light source is arranged to face the entire bottom edge of the film, the light source is arranged to face at least one of the four corners of the film (the light source faces both of the lower corners) as well as an intermediate position of at least one of four sides of the photosensitive surface of the film (the intermediate, i.e. middle, section of the bottom side of the film).
With regard to claim 14: The light source of Zawodny is a singular light source, either guided from the strobe or sourced from a light bulb as noted in column 18 lines 33-34.
Claims 1, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doyle et al (US Statutory Invention Registration H654, which incorporates Costa et al US Patent 4,508,440 by explicit reference in column 2 lines 59-62)
With regard to claims 1 and 13: Doyle discloses an imaging apparatus comprising a housing loaded with film on which a photosensitive surface is caused to be exposed to subject light to record a subject image (the camera 12, which is described in Costa column 1 lines 10-41 as being an instant-development camera which incorporates photosensitive film which is exposed through the lens of the camera) and a light source that is provided in the housing (strobe 72 of Costa, discussed in column 4 lines 9-20) and is capable of emitting, to the photosensitive surface, effect light that exposes the photosensitive surface in a manner superimposed on the subject light to impact a visual effect to the subject image. The light source in Doyle includes a structure 10 and the perimeter portions of mirror 106 of Costa result in the light source (the reflections of 10 from the mirror positioned directly above the film pack) with respect to a center of the photosensitive surface of the film when the film in a loaded state is viewed in a plan view. Structure 10 of Doyle diverts light from the strobe such that the light is emitted concentrically around the optical axis of the objective lens (and thus approaches the film pack concentrically from the mirror) to form a “positive vignette” effect around the edge of the film, essentially exposing the edges of the film with while flash light to generate a subject image surrounded by a circular white region upon development (which occurs when the film is ejected from the camera), see column 4 line 52 through column 5 line 14.
With regard to claim 21: The film of Doyle is an instant film in which a developer for developing a latent image recorded on the photosensitive surface is sealed and the developer is capable of being applied on the exposed photosensitive surface (see column 3 lines 27-38)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zawodny in view of Abe (US 6,343,190 B1).
With regard to claims 6-9 and 22: Zawodny teaches that the camera should include a light shielding member which shields effect light, preventing leakage of the effect light from the effect light sources into a non-effect region of the film chamber. The light shield member takes the form of element 130, see column 17 lines 1-44. Zawodny however does not teach the inclusion of a diffusion member which diffuses the effect light, that the effect light is sourced from what a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would recognize to be a “plurality of light sources” (while multiple exit points for the light guide 132 are visible, the light guide still only contains a singular “source” or light in the form of the flash bulb, and only a singular “light bulb” is mentioned in column 18 lines 32-34 as a disclosed alternative configuration). The visual effect applied by Zawodny does not generate a change to color development of the film - the structure does not have any mechanism to alter the color of the illumination applied to the mask so the masked effect will always be the same color.
Abe teaches that a camera may make use of a plurality of light sources, each with a different color temperature, when directly illuminating an image sensitive region within the camera (“Directly illuminating” is being used by the examiner to contrast Abe with standard photographic strobes, which indirectly illuminate the image sensitive region by directing light onto a photographic subject. Indirect illumination is of limited applicability to Zawodny, but the direct illumination of Abe is of similar arrangement and mechanism of action as the masking illumination of Zawodny and the teachings of Abe regarding such illumination sources would be expected to apply to Zawodny). Abe includes a diffusion member as part of the arrangement in order to allow the lights to be made uniform across the desired illumination area (see column 12 lines 10-43). The lights are subject to automatic control to ensure that the net illumination is provided at an appropriate color temperature (see column 13 lines 25-40). The diffusion parts and light sources are positioned within the camera body and secured in position therein (shown diagrammatically in Figure 13), and any camera body structure forming a physical link between the two light sources can be reasonably considered as a coupling structure, and the light sources are arranged with line-symmetry around relative to a line passing through the center of the imaging area and parallel to a side.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found it obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have configured the Zawodny to use a controllable multiple-light-source illumination source consisting of two light sources arranged line-symmetrically around a line passing through the center of the imaging area as in Abe as the source of the effect light, with diffusors provided over the light sources to ensure uniform illumination of the mask area with light having a calculated target color temperature. Said person would have expected this arrangement to provide for more uniform mask exposure as well as allow a change in the color temperature of the mask exposure region to adjust the appearance of the mask image to match the subject being photographed (or contrast with, depending upon the artistic intent of the photographer or camera designer).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-24 are allowed.
Claims 15-20 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:
With regard to claims 15 (and claims dependent thereupon), 23, and 24: The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose nor indicates that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found obvious the claimed combination of limitations regarding a camera which includes a housing, film, and effect light producing light source which is capable of emitting a plurality of types of effect light according to a setting of a parameter as claimed, with control of the effect light being performed by acquiring effect specification information specifying the type of visual effect and executing control to set the parameter according to the type of visual effect specified. While there are numerous different types of visual effects which can be applied to a image sensitive element in a camera by application of effect light disclosed in the prior art (as in Zawodny, Doyle, and Abe), the prior art does not teach configurations which are capable of switching the type of effect applied in the manner claimed. This appears at least in part to be due to prior art systems which utilize film largely predating modern camera control systems which and instead relying on the incorporation of substantial amounts of specialized physical structure for implementing the effect (as in Zawodny and Doyle) such that the system cannot be switched from one effect to another without substantially reconfiguring the system (this is consistent with the problem noted by applicant in ¶0045 of the specification as filed). Other prior art systems of note include Wheeler (US Patent 4,717,930) which is similar to that of Doyle with the addition of a mask similar to that of Zawodny, and Denner (US Patent 3,528,737) which discloses a positive vignetting arrangement which makes use of subject light, not camera light.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leon W Rhodes Jr whose telephone number is (571)270-5774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/LEON W RHODES, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2852