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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged 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) submitted on 6/27/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“flicker detection unit” in claim(s) 1-3.
“correction unit” in claim(s) 1, 3, 13 and 18.
“control unit” in claim(s) 1-9 and 11-16.
“flicker region detection unit” in claim(s) 10.
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.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 20 is directed to a program claimed in the absence of any underlying medium or other system, but a program is not a method, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The claim thus falls outside the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101 and is therefore nonstatutory. If the specification includes written description support, this rejection could be overcome by claiming the invention as being stored in a nontransitory computer readable medium; however, see MPEP 2111.05 for a discussion of functional and nonfunctional descriptive material as related to computer readable media.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, 14-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakajima (US 20190268524 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakajima teaches An imaging device (Fig. 1) comprising:
an imaging element (12);
a flicker detection unit (25) that detects a flicker component from an image outputted from the imaging element (para. 0040);
a correction unit (24) that corrects the flicker component included in the image (para. 0040); and
a control unit (14) that makes a flicker detection adaptive setting that facilitates detection of the flicker component in the flicker detection unit in response to a shift from a normal imaging mode to a flicker detection mode and causes an image display unit to display an image in which the flicker component has been corrected by the correction unit (Figs. 6-7, 13; paras. 0097-01014, 0153; “a manipulation of pushing one button included in the manipulation unit 18a. While the button is pushed, the parameters of the correction signal CS are automatically optimized. Hereinafter, a mode in which this process is performed is appropriately referred to as one-push flickering correction”; “a feedback loop in which the flickering components included in the image are detected while the button is pushed and the parameters of the correction signal CS are automatically adjusted on the basis of the detection result is formed”).
Regarding claim 2, Nakajima teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit shifts to the normal imaging mode that is a normal setting not considering easiness of detection of the flicker component by the flicker detection unit, in response to detection of the flicker component by the flicker detection unit in the flicker detection mode (Fig. 12; paras. 0091-0096).
Regarding claim 3, Nakajima teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit shifts to a normal imaging mode that is a normal setting not considering easiness of detection of the flicker component by the flicker detection unit, in response to correction of the flicker component by the correction unit (Fig. 12; paras. 0091-0096).
Regarding claim 4, Nakajima teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit sets a number of pixels (all/many pixels) of the image outputted from the imaging element to a number of pixels suitable for detection of the flicker component as the flicker detection adaptive setting (Fig. 6; para. 0040, 0071, 0101).
Regarding claim 6, Nakajima teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit sets a shutter speed of the imaging element to a speed suitable for detection of the flicker component as the flicker detection adaptive setting (paras. 0091-0096; a frame rate/reading speed of the CMOS image sensor 12 is set to a speed (for example, 60 fps or 50 fps) at which the flickering components are easily detected; setting the frame rate includes setting a shutter speed to a value higher than a certain speed).
Regarding claim 7, Nakajima teaches the imaging device according to claim 6, wherein the control unit sets the shutter speed of the imaging element to be higher than a predetermined speed as the flicker detection adaptive setting (paras. 0091-0096).
Regarding claim 8, Nakajima teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit sets a readout time of the imaging element to a time suitable for detection of the flicker component as the flicker detection adaptive setting (paras. 0091-0096).
Regarding claim 9, Nakajima teaches the imaging device according to claim 8, wherein the control unit sets the readout time of the imaging element to be longer than a predetermined time as the flicker detection adaptive setting (paras. 0091-0096).
Regarding claim 10, Nakajima teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, comprising a flicker region detection unit that detects a flicker region in which a flicker component is generated in a frame of an image (Figs. 1-3; a flicker region is the whole region).
Regarding claim 11, Nakajima teaches the imaging device according to claim 10, wherein the control unit performs control in a manner such that a flicker occurrence state is displayed for each flicker region (Figs. 1-3, 7; paras. 0071-0072; a screen showing the degree of deviation displayed on the display unit 18b for the whole region).
Regarding claim 12, Nakajima teaches the imaging device according to claim 11, wherein the control unit controls the image display unit in a manner such that the flicker occurrence state is displayed in a form corresponding to a flicker intensity for each flicker region (Fig. 7; paras. 0071-0072).
Regarding claim 14, Nakajima teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit causes the image display unit to display a flicker adjustment user interface (Fig. 7) in a case where flicker intensity is higher than a threshold (32a or SMALL) (Fig. 7; paras. 0071-0072).
Regarding claim 15, Nakajima teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit causes the image display unit to display a flicker adjustment user interface in a case of a moving image capturing mode (Fig. 7; paras. 0055, 0071-0072, 0091-0096, 0116).
Regarding claim 16, Nakajima teaches the imaging device according to claim 15, wherein the control unit causes the image display unit to display the flicker adjustment user interface (Fig. 7) in a case of a moving image capturing mode and in a case where the flicker intensity is equal to or lower than a threshold (LARGE, 32a) (Fig. 7; paras. 0055, 0071-0072, 0091-0096, 0116).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 20, Nakajima teaches A program (paras. 0032, 0159) for causing an imaging device to execute processes of: (corresponding features as presented in claim 1).
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 10, 13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US 11588985 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches An imaging device (Fig. 1) comprising:
an imaging element (Fig. 1; 101);
a flicker detection unit (CPU 103) that detects a flicker component from an image outputted from the imaging element (Fig. 8; S102, S105, S108-S109);
a correction unit (CPU 103) that corrects the flicker component included in the image (Fig. 8; S104, S106, S110); and
a control unit that makes a flicker detection adaptive setting (“first actuation control” or “second actuation control” at S101/S107) that facilitates detection (S102, S105, S108-S109) of the flicker component in the flicker detection unit in response to a shift from a normal imaging mode (a moving image mode under “a second actuation control in which first pixel rows (first region) and second pixel rows (second region) are actuated using different shooting conditions” as shown in figures 3A, 3B to read out a thinning “moving image” and a thinning “flicker detection image”) to a flicker detection mode (a moving image mode under “a first actuation control in which all the pixels of the image sensor 101 are actuated under the same shooting conditions” as shown in figure 2 to read out full-resolution “moving image”), and causes an image display unit to display an image in which the flicker component has been corrected by the correction unit (Fig. 8; col. 5, lines 23- col. 6, line 17; col. 8, lines 28- col. 9, line 47; col. 12; live view display of the corrected moving image).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit sets a number of pixels of the image outputted from the imaging element to a number of pixels suitable for detection of the flicker component as the flicker detection adaptive setting (Figs. 2, 3, 8; col. 5, lines 23- col. 6, line 17; col. 8, lines 28- col. 9, line 47; S107 set to “first actuation control” to read out all pixels as 4k “moving image” for detecting flickers in S108).
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi teaches the imaging device according to claim 4, wherein the control unit sets the number of pixels of the image outputted from the imaging element to be larger than that in the normal imaging mode as the flicker detection adaptive setting (Figs. 2, 3, 8; col. 5, lines 23- col. 6, line 17; col. 8, lines 28- col. 9, line 47; 4k “moving image” output in S107 larger than thinning “moving image” output in S101).
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, comprising a flicker region detection unit that detects a flicker region (whole region) in which a flicker component is generated in a frame of an image (Fig. 8; S102, S105, S108-S109).
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit sets the correction unit to an image correction mode for correcting the flicker component by image processing in a case of a moving image capturing mode (S106, S110 in a moving image mode), and sets the correction unit to a shutter speed correction mode for correcting the flicker using a shutter speed in a case of a still image capturing mode (S104, S110 in a still image live view mode) (Fig. 8; col. 5, lines 23- col. 6, line 17; col. 8, lines 28- col. 9, line 47).
Regarding claim 18, Kobayashi teaches the imaging device according to claim 10, wherein the correction unit sets a shutter speed to 1/N (N is a positive number) times a flicker frequency of any flicker region in a case where a plurality of flicker regions is generated in a frame (Fig. 8; S104).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 20, Kobayashi teaches A program (col. 13, lines 30-65) for causing an imaging device to execute processes of: (corresponding features as presented in claim 1).
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 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) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (US 20190268524 A1) in view of Kunishige et al (US 20130342726 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Nakajima teaches everything as claimed in claim 14, but fails to teach
wherein the flicker adjustment user interface includes an operation tool capable of roughly adjusting and finely adjusting a shutter speed.
However, in the same field of endeavor Kunishige teaches
wherein the flicker adjustment user interface includes an operation tool capable of roughly adjusting and finely adjusting a shutter speed (Fig. 7D, para. 0078: “a warning indicating the presence of flickering is displayed on the live view and the automatic SYNC setting mode becomes to a mode which allows the shutter speed of the flickering cycle to be manually set”; Fig. 6; para. 0133: “The shutter speed is changed with the coarse step or the fine step depending on the difference in the operation methods such as the up/down buttons or the R-dial 315”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Kunishige in Nakajima to have wherein the flicker adjustment user interface includes an operation tool capable of roughly adjusting and finely adjusting a shutter speed for providing additional shutter speed in the flicker adjustment user interface for enabling more method in the flicker adjustment yielding a predicted result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Quan Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-4438. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-7pm.
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 at (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.
/Quan Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637