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 .
This communication is in response to the Application No. 18/682,725 filed 02/09/2024. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35. U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/09/2024 has been entered and considered. Initialed copies of the PTO-1449 by the examiner are attached.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 11 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 should recite “wherein the output processing unit alternately outputs the first image and the second image with identifiers added to the first image and the second image for each of the lines”. Additionally, there is no mentioning of “lines” in claim 2 or claim 1 for that matter and thus has antecedent issues.
Claim 11 contains the same issues as discussed in claim 3. That is, there is no mentioning of “lines” anywhere on claim 10 or 9 for that matter and thus also contains antecedent issues.
Claim 14 contains the same issues as discussed in claim 3. That is, there is no mentioning of “lines” anywhere on claim 13 and thus also contains antecedent issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-17 recite limitations that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language and do invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claims 1, 9, 16 and 17; recites the limitation, “pixel unit including……,”.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 15, and 16; recites the limitation, “generation processing unit that……,”.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-14, and 16; recites the limitation, “output processing unit that……,”.
Claim 6; recites the limitation, “storage unit that……,”.
Claims 7 and 8; recites the limitation, “first correction processing unit that……,”.
Claims 7 and 8; recites the limitation, “second correction processing unit that……,”.
Claims 9 and 12; recites the limitation, “crop processing unit that……,”.
Claim 16; recites the limitation, “optical system that……,”.
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.
After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification the following limitations in claims 1-4 and 6-17:
“pixel unit” (Figs. 1-2, 4-6, and 8-9, #11. PGPUB Paragraph [0045]- “The pixel unit 11 is a pixel array unit including a plurality of pixels (unit pixels) 11a”. thus, have sufficient structure or material wherein pixel unit is an array of pixels).
“generation processing unit” (Fig. 2, #23. PGPUB Paragraph [0056]- “The generation processing unit 23 is a processing unit that performs, for example, binning processing on the capture image G1 processed by the correction processing unit 22 to generate a preview image G2 having resolution lower than the resolution of the capture image G1” and paragraph [0060]- “the functional units such as the preprocessing unit 21, the correction processing unit 22, the generation processing unit 23, and the output processing unit 24 explained above may be configured by both or one of hardware and software. Configurations of the units are not particularly limited. For example, the functional units may be implemented by an integrated circuit such as an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) or an FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Array). The functional units may be implemented by a program stored in advance in a ROM being executed by a computer such as a CPU or an MPU using a RAM or the like as a work area”. thus, have sufficient structure or material wherein generation processing unit is an ASIC or FPGA).
“output processing unit” (Fig. 2, #24. PGPUB Paragraph [0057]- “The output processing unit 24 is a processing unit that identifiably outputs the capture image G1 processed by the correction processing unit 22 and the preview image G2 generated by the generation processing unit 23. For example, the output processing unit 24 alternately outputs the capture image G1 and the preview image G2 in the same frame and with identifiers added to the capture image G1 and the preview image G2 for each of lines” and paragraph [0060]- “the functional units such as the preprocessing unit 21, the correction processing unit 22, the generation processing unit 23, and the output processing unit 24 explained above may be configured by both or one of hardware and software. Configurations of the units are not particularly limited. For example, the functional units may be implemented by an integrated circuit such as an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) or an FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Array). The functional units may be implemented by a program stored in advance in a ROM being executed by a computer such as a CPU or an MPU using a RAM or the like as a work area”. thus, have sufficient structure or material wherein output processing unit is an ASIC or FPGA).
“storage unit” (Fig. 4, #31. PGPUB Paragraph [0045]- “As illustrated in FIG. 4, the signal processing unit 20 according to the second embodiment includes a storage unit (a memory) 31 in addition to the units 21 to 24 according to the first embodiment”. thus, have sufficient structure or material wherein storage unit is a memory).
“first correction processing unit” (Fig. 5, #22. PGPUB Paragraph [0077]- “As illustrated in FIG. 5, the signal processing unit 20 according to the third embodiment includes a correction processing unit 32 in addition to the units 21 to 24 according to the first embodiment. Note that the correction processing unit 22 is equivalent to the first correction processing unit and the correction processing unit 32 is equivalent to the second correction processing unit” and paragraph [0060]- “the functional units such as the preprocessing unit 21, the correction processing unit 22, the generation processing unit 23, and the output processing unit 24 explained above may be configured by both or one of hardware and software. Configurations of the units are not particularly limited. For example, the functional units may be implemented by an integrated circuit such as an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) or an FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Array). The functional units may be implemented by a program stored in advance in a ROM being executed by a computer such as a CPU or an MPU using a RAM or the like as a work area”. thus, have sufficient structure or material wherein first correction processing unit is an ASIC or FPGA).
“second correction processing unit” (Fig. 5, #22. PGPUB Paragraph [0077]- “As illustrated in FIG. 5, the signal processing unit 20 according to the third embodiment includes a correction processing unit 32 in addition to the units 21 to 24 according to the first embodiment. Note that the correction processing unit 22 is equivalent to the first correction processing unit and the correction processing unit 32 is equivalent to the second correction processing unit” and paragraph [0060]- “the functional units such as the preprocessing unit 21, the correction processing unit 22, the generation processing unit 23, and the output processing unit 24 explained above may be configured by both or one of hardware and software. Configurations of the units are not particularly limited. For example, the functional units may be implemented by an integrated circuit such as an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) or an FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Array). The functional units may be implemented by a program stored in advance in a ROM being executed by a computer such as a CPU or an MPU using a RAM or the like as a work area”. thus, have sufficient structure or material wherein second correction processing unit is an ASIC or FPGA).
“crop processing unit” (Fig. 6, #33. PGPUB Paragraph [0083]- “As illustrated in FIG. 6, the signal processing unit 20 according to the fourth embodiment includes a crop processing unit 33 in addition to the units 21 to 24 according to the first embodiment. The crop processing unit 33 is a processing unit that performs crop processing on the capture image G1 processed by the correction processing unit 22. The crop processing is processing of cutting out a crop image (a zoom image) G3 from the capture image G1” and paragraph [0060]- “the functional units such as the preprocessing unit 21, the correction processing unit 22, the generation processing unit 23, and the output processing unit 24 explained above may be configured by both or one of hardware and software. Configurations of the units are not particularly limited. For example, the functional units may be implemented by an integrated circuit such as an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) or an FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Array). The functional units may be implemented by a program stored in advance in a ROM being executed by a computer such as a CPU or an MPU using a RAM or the like as a work area”. thus, have sufficient structure or material wherein crop processing unit is an ASIC or FPGA).
“optical system” (Fig. 11, #301. PGPUB Paragraph [0117]- “The optical system 301 includes one or a plurality of lenses. The optical system 301 guides light (incident light) from a subject to the imaging element 303 and causes the light to form an image on a light receiving surface of the imaging element 303”. thus, have sufficient structure or material wherein optical system is one or more lenses).
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US 20190394402 A1) in view of Ju et al. (US 20130314580 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baek discloses an imaging element comprising (“an image sensor and an electronic device” Baek, [0004]): a pixel unit including a plurality of pixels (“a pixel array having a plurality of pixels” Baek, [0005]); a generation processing unit that generates, from a first image having first resolution obtained by the pixel unit, a second image having second resolution lower than the first resolution (“an image sensor generating still images and preview images, having a resolution lower than a resolution of the still images” Baek, [0006]).
Baek discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching an output processing unit that identifiably outputs the first image and the second image. However, Ju in the same field of endeavor teaches an output processing unit that identifiably outputs the first image and the second image (“the input image IMG_IN is an image output of the capture unit, and the first preview image IMG_P1 and the second preview image IMG_P2 are two image outputs of the ISP” Ju, [0022]; Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Baek and Ju before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to allow the user to have an overview of an image to be captured and a detailed view of a selected region within the image to be captured (Ju, [0020]). This motivation for the combination of Baek and Ju is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 2, Baek and Ju disclose the imaging element according to claim 1, wherein the output processing unit outputs the first image and the second image in a same frame (“As can be seen from FIG. 8, the display size DS.sub.P1 of the first preview image IMG_P1 is larger than the display size DS.sub.P2 of the second preview image IMG_P2. That is, the second preview image IMG_P2 is displayed in a smaller display area.” Ju, [0043]).
Therefore, combining Baek and Ju would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Baek and Ju disclose the imaging element according to claim 2, wherein the output processing unit alternately outputs the first image and the second image with identifiers added to the first image and the second image for each of lines (Ju, Fig. 8 discloses Img_p2 and Img_p1 as identifiers for each image).
Regarding claim 5, Baek and Ju disclose the imaging element according to claim 1, wherein an angle of view of the first image and an angle of view of the second image are the same (“For example, the preview image may be a preview screen provided to a user through the display 11 during the execution of the camera function and may have a size, and/or a resolution, smaller than that of the still image generated by capturing an image of an object by the image sensor 14” Baek, [0031]; wherein the still image is the same image as the preview image, i.e., captured at the same angle).
Regarding claim 6, Baek and Ju disclose the imaging element according to claim 1, further comprising a storage unit that stores the first image, wherein the generation processing unit generates the second image from the first image stored by the storage unit and sends the second image to the output processing unit (“an image sensor generating still images and preview images, having a resolution lower than a resolution of the still images, and storing the still images in an internal memory” Baek, [0006]), and sends the first image stored by the storage unit to the output processing unit as it is (“The result image may be simultaneously displayed on the display 11 and stored in the memory 12” Baek, [0028]).
Regarding claim 9, Baek and Ju disclose an imaging element comprising (“an image sensor and an electronic device” Baek, [0004]): a pixel unit including a plurality of pixels (“a pixel array having a plurality of pixels” Baek, [0005]); a generation processing unit that generates, from a first image having first resolution obtained by the pixel unit, a second image having second resolution lower than the first resolution (“an image sensor generating still images and preview images, having a resolution lower than a resolution of the still images” Baek, [0006]); a crop processing unit that cuts out a third image from the first image (“the first preview image IMG_P1 is generated by scaling a cropped image extracted from the full-size input image IMG_IN, the selected portion of the input image IMG_IN may be defined to correspond to a portion of the cropped image” Ju, [0029]); and an output processing unit that identifiably outputs the second image and the third image (“the input image IMG_IN is an image output of the capture unit, and the first preview image IMG_P1 and the second preview image IMG_P2 are two image outputs of the ISP” Ju, [0022]; wherein “the second preview image IMG_P2 is cropped from the input image IMG_IN that is slightly down-scaled or slightly up-scaled” Ju, [0036]; Fig. 8).
Therefore, combining Baek and Ju would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Baek and Ju disclose the imaging element according to claim 9, wherein the output processing unit outputs the second image and the third image in a same frame (“As can be seen from FIG. 8, the display size DS.sub.P1 of the first preview image IMG_P1 is larger than the display size DS.sub.P2 of the second preview image IMG_P2. That is, the second preview image IMG_P2 is displayed in a smaller display area.” Ju, [0043]; wherein “the second preview image IMG_P2 is cropped from the input image IMG_IN that is slightly down-scaled or slightly up-scaled” Ju, [0036]; Fig. 8).
Therefore, combining Baek and Ju would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Baek and Ju disclose the imaging element according to claim 10, wherein the output processing unit alternately outputs the second image and the third image with identifiers added to the second image and the third image for each of lines (Ju, Fig. 8 discloses Img_p2 and Img_p1 as identifiers for each image).
Therefore, combining Baek and Ju would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Baek and Ju disclose an imaging device comprising: an imaging element (“an image sensor and an electronic device” Baek, [0004]); and an optical system that guides light to the imaging element (“An image sensor, as a sensor generating an image by converting light coming from an external source into an electric signal” Baek, [0003]; “optical components” Baek, [0073]), wherein the imaging element includes: a pixel unit including a plurality of pixels (“a pixel array having a plurality of pixels” Baek, [0005]); a generation processing unit that generates, from a first image having first resolution obtained by the pixel unit, a second image having second resolution lower than the first resolution (“an image sensor generating still images and preview images, having a resolution lower than a resolution of the still images” Baek, [0006]); and an output processing unit that identifiably outputs the first image and the second image (“the input image IMG_IN is an image output of the capture unit, and the first preview image IMG_P1 and the second preview image IMG_P2 are two image outputs of the ISP” Ju, [0022]; Fig. 8).
Therefore, combining Baek and Ju would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Baek and Ju disclose an imaging method comprising: causing an imaging element (“an image sensor and an electronic device” Baek, [0004]), which includes a pixel unit including a plurality of pixels (“a pixel array having a plurality of pixels” Baek, [0005]), to generate, from a first image having first resolution obtained by the pixel unit, a second image having second resolution lower than the first resolution (“an image sensor generating still images and preview images, having a resolution lower than a resolution of the still images” Baek, [0006]); and causing the imaging element to identifiably output the first image and the second image (“the input image IMG_IN is an image output of the capture unit, and the first preview image IMG_P1 and the second preview image IMG_P2 are two image outputs of the ISP” Ju, [0022]; Fig. 8).
Therefore, combining Baek and Ju would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Ju and in further view of Lyon et al. (US 20030164441 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Baek and Ju as whole does not expressly disclose wherein the generation processing unit executes binning processing on the first image to generate the second image. However, Lyon in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the generation processing unit executes binning processing on the first image to generate the second image (“One known application of binning includes generating a reduced resolution video image or viewfinder "preview" image from an imager that is capable of producing a high-resolution still image” Lyon, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Baek, Ju and Lyon before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to accomplish a reduced-resolution image with better image quality than is achievable by simply subsampling (Lyon, [0002]). This motivation for the combination of Baek, Ju and Lyon is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding 15, Baek, Ju and Lyon disclose the imaging element according to claim 9, wherein the generation processing unit executes binning processing on the first image to generate the second image (“One known application of binning includes generating a reduced resolution video image or viewfinder "preview" image from an imager that is capable of producing a high-resolution still image” Lyon, [0003]).
Therefore, combining Baek, Ju and Lyon would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 4.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Ju and in further view of Ozeki et al. (JP 2013207432 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Baek and Ju as whole does not expressly disclose a first correction processing unit that corrects the first image; and a second correction processing unit that corrects the first image as an image to be used for generating the second image, wherein the generation processing unit generates the second image from the first image corrected by the second correction processing unit, and the output processing unit identifiably outputs the first image corrected by the first correction processing unit and the second image generated by the generation processing unit. However, Ozeki in the same field of endeavor teaches a first correction processing unit that corrects the first image; and a second correction processing unit that corrects the first image as an image to be used for generating the second image, wherein the generation processing unit generates the second image from the first image corrected by the second correction processing unit, and the output processing unit identifiably outputs the first image corrected by the first correction processing unit and the second image generated by the generation processing unit (“The preceding K-1 preview images are created in parallel with the K electronic image acquisition process and without distortion correction. This shortens the time required to acquire K electronic images. Also, a preview image corresponding to the last electronic image is created through distortion correction, and K preview images are alternatively displayed in the order of creation. This improves the apparent quality of the preview image. Furthermore, K recorded images are created through distortion correction” Ozeki, pg. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Baek, Ju and Ozeki before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to shorten the time required to acquire a plurality of electronic images while preview images are created (Ozeki, pg. 3). This motivation for the combination of Baek, Ju and Ozeki is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 8, Baek, Ju and Ozeki disclose the imaging element according to claim 7, wherein a correction degree of the second correction processing unit is lower than a correction degree of the first correction processing unit (“The first creation means 2 creates K-1 preview images respectively corresponding to the preceding K-1 electronic images among the K electronic images acquired by the acquisition means 1 without undergoing distortion correction” Ozeki, pg. 3).
Therefore, combining Baek, Ju and Ozeki would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 7.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Ju and in further view of Jia et al. (CN 114972369 A).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Baek and Ju as whole does not expressly disclose wherein a plurality of the crop processing units are provided, and the output processing unit identifiably outputs a plurality of the third images respectively cut out by the plurality of crop processing units and the second image generated by the generation processing unit. However, Jia in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein a plurality of the crop processing units are provided, and the output processing unit identifiably outputs a plurality of the third images respectively cut out by the plurality of crop processing units and the second image generated by the generation processing unit (“FIG. 5 is another example diagram of generating a thumbnail according to the above-mentioned image processing method, wherein, in FIG. 5 , the image on the left is the image to be processed, and the image on the right is the thumbnail. The image to be processed contains mountains and portraits. Since the portrait can reflect the characteristics of the image, the portrait is the target object, and the generated thumbnail needs to contain a portrait. In this way, thumbnails with different aspect ratios containing portraits can be obtained according to the aspect ratios required by the thumbnails to be generated.” Jia, pg. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Baek, Ju and Jia before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to intuitively generate thumbnails containing target objects for display as the main content of the image(s) (Jia, pg. 7). This motivation for the combination of Baek, Ju and Jia is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 13, Baek, Ju and Jia disclose the imaging element according to claim 12, wherein the output processing unit outputs the plurality of third images and the second images in a same frame (Jia, Fig. 5 illustrates plurality of cropped images, i.e., thumbnails, in the same frame).
Therefore, combining Baek, Ju and Jia would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 12.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek in view of Ju in view of Jia and in further view of Funamoto et al. (US 20220269716 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Baek, Ju and Jia as whole do not expressly disclose wherein the output processing unit outputs the plurality of third images and the second image in order with identifiers added to the plurality of third images and the second image for each of lines. However, Funamoto in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the output processing unit outputs the plurality of third images and the second image in order with identifiers added to the plurality of third images and the second image for each of lines (“In step S22, for example, after waiting for an operation and the like by the user on the digital camera 10 to display a thumbnail image, the UI control unit 47 requests the file control unit 43 to display the thumbnail image. In response to the request for display of the thumbnail image from the UI control unit 47, the file control unit 43 reads, from the HEIF file, (the frame of) the thumbnail image of the frame of the master image identified by the handle of the handle list. Then, the file control unit 43 causes, for example, the liquid crystal panel 19 (FIG. 1) to display a list of thumbnail images” Funamoto, [0215]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Baek, Ju, Jia and Funamoto before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to provide an identification for the data type in association with the specific image (Funamoto, [0176]). This motivation for the combination of Baek, Ju, Jia and Funamoto is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Corey et al. (US 20120033103 A1) discloses reducing run-time bandwidth requirements within digital image capture devices by obtaining a full resolution and display resolution images at the same time from the image capture circuitry.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL SILVA-AVINA whose telephone number is (571)270-0729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 AM - 8 PM 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/EMMANUEL SILVA-AVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673