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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/22/2025 with respect to amended claims 1 – 19, and newly added claim 21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant has amended the title of the invention to overcome the objection to the specification provided in the previous office action.
Applicant has amended claims to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112f interpretation and the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections provided in the previous office action.
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:
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 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.
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 1 – 11, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FURUHASHI (US PgPub No. 2016/0006945) in view of Penov (US PgPub No. 20130258117).
Regarding claim 1, FURUHASHI teaches an information processing apparatus (figure 1 item 1 imaging apparatus) comprising: circuitry configured to obtain assist information related to a target image displayed on a display (paragraphs 0051 – 0052; item 6 search unit for assisting information from item 14); display a selectable composition model based on the assist information in a state where the selectable composition model is simultaneously checked with the target image (paragraphs 0061 and 0073; item 8 controls to displays according to priority settings; additionally figures 4 – 6; user selects the composition assisting information which he or she likes from among the composition assisting information being displayed).
However, FURUHASHI fails to clearly teach in response to a selection of the selectable composition model, display a guide frame corresponding to the selected composition model superimposed on the target image. Penov, on the other hand teaches in response to a selection of the selectable composition model, display a guide frame corresponding to the selected composition model superimposed on the target image.
More specifically, Penov teaches in response to a selection of the selectable composition model, display a guide frame corresponding to the selected composition model superimposed on the target image (figures 5(a) – 7(d) and 9; in response to user selection display guide superimposed over the live frame).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Penov with the teachings of FURUHASHI because in at least the abstract and paragraphs 0046 and 0049 Penov teaches that using the invention can improve accuracy and increase the speed at which results can be obtained, thereby improving the processing of FURUHASHI.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, FURUHASHI in view of Penov teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, FURUHASHI teaches wherein the assist information includes a composition reference image extracted based on the target image, and the circuity displays the composition reference image as the image based on the assist information (figures 4 – 6 items 10b – 10d).
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, FURUHASHI in view of Penov teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, FURUHASHI teaches wherein the target image includes a subject image at a time of standby for an imaging recording operation (figure 2 items S2 – S3; detect kind of object for corresponding to the temporarily photographed image data i.e. standby time).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, FURUHASHI in view of Penov teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Penov teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to: determine whether or not an opportunity for an imaging recording operation is available to a user (figure 9 item 902); and when the circuitry determines that the opportunity is available to the user, set a subject image as the target image and obtain the assist information related to the target image (figure 9 items 904 - 912).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Penov with the teachings of FURUHASHI because in at least the abstract and paragraphs 0046 and 0049 Penov teaches that using the invention can improve accuracy and increase the speed at which results can be obtained, thereby improving the processing of FURUHASHI.
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, FURUHASHI in view of Penov teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, FURUHASHI teaches wherein the circuitry uses a subject image at a time of standby for an imaging recording operation as determination element information for obtaining the assist information (figures 2 – 3 items S3 – S7; determine priority based on type of subject; detect kind of object for corresponding to the temporarily photographed image data i.e. standby time).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, FURUHASHI in view of Penov teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, FURUHASHI teaches wherein the circuitry uses mode information related to acquisition of the assist information as determination element information for obtaining the assist information (paragraph 0084; information such as that regarding a photographing mode, a kind of an art filter and a lens type are used as the characteristic information mentioned above, and the differences in them are used as “characteristic information differences.”).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 2, FURUHASHI in view of Penov teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, FURUHASHI teaches wherein the composition reference image includes an image selected on subject determination processing or scene determination processing for a subject image at a time of standby for an imaging recording operation (figures 2 – 3 items S3 – S7; determine priority based on type of subject; detect kind of object for corresponding to the temporarily photographed image data i.e. standby time).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 2, FURUHASHI in view of Penov teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, FURUHASHI teaches wherein the composition reference image includes an image selected according to mode information related to acquisition of the assist information (paragraph 0084; information such as that regarding a photographing mode, a kind of an art filter and a lens type are used as the characteristic information mentioned above, and the differences in them are used as “characteristic information differences.”).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 2, FURUHASHI in view of Penov teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, FURUHASHI teaches wherein the composition reference image includes an image selected or prioritized according to learning information related to an individual user (paragraphs 0095 – 0097, 0112 – 0118, and 0126 - 0135; user skills and history used to set assist information).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 2, FURUHASHI in view of Penov teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, FURUHASHI teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to display, as the image based on the assist information, the composition reference image and a position display image that indicates a shooting spot of the composition reference image (figures 5 – 6; displaying marking/area on image).
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 2, FURUHASHI in view of Penov teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, FURUHASHI teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to simultaneously display an image subjected to imaging recording and the composition reference image after an imaging recording operation is performed (figures 4 – 6; figures 10a also 10b-d).
Regarding claim 19, FURUHASHI teaches an information processing method (figures 2 – 3), comprising: obtaining assist information acquisition related to a target image displayed on a display (paragraphs 0051 – 0052; item 6 search unit for assisting information from item 14); displaying a selectable composition model based on the assist information in a state where the selectable composition model is simultaneously checked with the target image (paragraphs 0061 and 0073; item 8 controls to displays according to priority settings; additionally figures 4 – 6; user selects the composition assisting information which he or she likes from among the composition assisting information being displayed).
However, FURUHASHI fails to clearly teach in response to a selection of the selectable composition model, displaying a guide frame corresponding to the selected composition model superimposed on the target image. Penov, on the other hand teaches in response to a selection of the selectable composition model, displaying a guide frame corresponding to the selected composition model superimposed on the target image.
More specifically, Penov teaches in response to a selection of the selectable composition model, displaying a guide frame corresponding to the selected composition model superimposed on the target image (figures 5(a) – 7(d) and 9; in response to user selection display guide superimposed over the live frame).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Penov with the teachings of FURUHASHI because in at least the abstract and paragraphs 0046 and 0049 Penov teaches that using the invention can improve accuracy and increase the speed at which results can be obtained, thereby improving the processing of FURUHASHI.
Regarding claim 21, FURUHASHI teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer executable instructions which, when executed by circuitry of an information processing apparatus (paragraphs 0003, 0030, and 0141), causes the information processing apparatus to: obtain assist information related to a target image displayed on a display (paragraphs 0051 – 0052; item 6 search unit for assisting information from item 14); display a selectable composition model based on the assist information in a state where the selectable composition model is simultaneously checked with the target image (paragraphs 0061 and 0073; item 8 controls to displays according to priority settings; additionally figures 4 – 6; user selects the composition assisting information which he or she likes from among the composition assisting information being displayed).
However, FURUHASHI fails to clearly teach in response to a selection of the selectable composition model, display a guide frame corresponding to the selected composition model superimposed on the target image. Penov, on the other hand teaches in response to a selection of the selectable composition model, display a guide frame corresponding to the selected composition model superimposed on the target image.
More specifically, Penov teaches in response to a selection of the selectable composition model, display a guide frame corresponding to the selected composition model superimposed on the target image (figures 5(a) – 7(d) and 9; in response to user selection display guide superimposed over the live frame).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Penov with the teachings of FURUHASHI because in at least the abstract and paragraphs 0046 and 0049 Penov teaches that using the invention can improve accuracy and increase the speed at which results can be obtained, thereby improving the processing of FURUHASHI.
Claims 12 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FURUHASHI (US PgPub No. 2016/0006945) in view of Penov (US PgPub No. 20130258117) in view of Ota (US PgPub No. 2017/0078566).
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, FURUHASHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, FURUHASHI in view of Penov fail to clearly teach wherein the assist information includes processing type information extracted for the target image having been recorded, and the circuitry is configured to display, as the image based on the assist information, a processed image obtained by processing the target image based on the processing type information. Ota, on the other hand teaches wherein the assist information includes processing type information extracted for the target image having been recorded, and the circuitry is configured to display, as the image based on the assist information, a processed image obtained by processing the target image based on the processing type information.
More specifically, Ota teaches wherein the assist information includes processing type information extracted for the target image having been recorded, and the circuitry is configured to display, as the image based on the assist information, a processed image obtained by processing the target image based on the processing type information (figure 3 and 5A – 5B also paragraphs 0031, 0062 - 0064; effect information acquired and applied by user selection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Ota with the teachings of FURUHASHI in view of Penov because in at least the abstract Ota teaches a plurality of effects that can be applied by the processing unit, thereby improving the imaging in FURUHASHI in view of Penov.
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 12, FURUHASHI in view of Penov in view of Ota teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
Additionally, Ota teaches wherein the circuitry uses metadata recorded corresponding to the target image as determination element information for obtaining the assist information (paragraphs 0048 – 0051; metadata read and processed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Ota with the teachings of FURUHASHI in view of Penov because in at least the abstract Ota teaches a plurality of effects that can be applied by the processing unit, thereby improving the imaging in FURUHASHI in view of Penov.
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 12, FURUHASHI in view of Penov in view of Ota teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
Additionally, Ota teaches wherein the processing type information includes an image selected based on subject determination processing or scene determination processing for the target image (figure 7 items S703 – S707; apply effect based on scene determination also figures 4A – 5B subject in scene).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Ota with the teachings of FURUHASHI in view of Penov because in at least the abstract Ota teaches a plurality of effects that can be applied by the processing unit, thereby improving the imaging in FURUHASHI in view of Penov.
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 12, FURUHASHI in view of Penov in view of Ota teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
Additionally, Ota teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to display a processing type name together with the processed image (figure 5A – 5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Ota with the teachings of FURUHASHI in view of Penov because in at least the abstract Ota teaches a plurality of effects that can be applied by the processing unit, thereby improving the imaging in FURUHASHI in view of Penov.
Regarding claim 16, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 12, FURUHASHI in view of Penov in view of Ota teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
Additionally, Ota teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to: enable a recording operation in which a part or all of the processed image is designated (figures 4A and 5B selected portion); and record the designated processed image in a recording medium in response to the recording operation (figure 5A – 5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Ota with the teachings of FURUHASHI in view of Penov because in at least the abstract Ota teaches a plurality of effects that can be applied by the processing unit, thereby improving the imaging in FURUHASHI in view of Penov.
Regarding claim 17, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, FURUHASHI in view of Penov teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, FURUHASHI in view of Penov fails to clearly teach wherein the circuitry is configured to: display the image based on the assist information; and perform one of image feed processing, image enlargement processing, or image registration processing in response to an operation input directed to the displayed image. Ota, on the other hand teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to: display the image based on the assist information; and perform one of image feed processing, image enlargement processing, or image registration processing in response to an operation input directed to the displayed image.
More specifically, Ota teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to: display the image based on the assist information; and perform one of image feed processing, image enlargement processing, or image registration processing in response to an operation input directed to the displayed image (figure 3 and 5A – 5B also paragraphs 0031, 0062 - 0064; effect information acquired, assistance of effects to be displayed, and applied by user selection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Ota with the teachings of FURUHASHI in view of Penov because in at least the abstract Ota teaches a plurality of effects that can be applied by the processing unit, thereby improving the imaging in FURUHASHI in view of Penov.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FURUHASHI (US PgPub No. 2016/0006945) in view of Penov (US PgPub No. 20130258117) in view of LEE (US PgPub No. 2014/0267867).
Regarding claim 18, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, FURUHASHI in view of Penov teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, FURUHASHI in view of Penov fail to teach wherein the circuitry is configured to: enable a designation operation and an image feed operation for the image based on the assist information; and when the image feed operation is performed, perform processing of moving, while keeping an image designated by the designation operation displayed, another image on a display screen. LEE, on the other hand teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to: enable a designation operation and an image feed operation for the image based on the assist information; and when the image feed operation is performed, perform processing of moving, while keeping an image designated by the designation operation displayed, another image on a display screen.
More specifically, LEE teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to: enable a designation operation and an image feed operation for the image based on the assist information (paragraphs 0064 – 0068; assistance information related to effects); and when the image feed operation is performed, perform processing of moving, while keeping an image designated by the designation operation displayed, another image on a display screen (paragraphs 0064 – 0068; assistance information related to effects; perform processing of moving, while keeping an image designated by the designation operation displayed, another image on a display screen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of LEE with the teachings of FURUHASHI in view of Penov because in at least the paragraph 0005 LEE teaches new user interfaces for applying photographic effects to images that are both effective and easy-to-use, thereby improving the imaging in FURUHASHI in view of Penov.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakagawa (US PgPub No. 2022/0312143) teaches a system detecting object and processing accordingly.
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Usman A Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-1131. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 5:30 AM - 2 PM, F 5:30 AM - Noon.
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 on (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.
Usman Khan
/USMAN A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
10/09/2025