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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Minato in view of Nobuki fails to teach or suggest “making a weight of pixels corresponding to the feature point located in the shielded part of the detection target smaller than a weight of pixels corresponding to the feature point located in an unshielded part, and then calculating a weighted average of pixel values of pixels corresponding to the feature point” as currently claimed in claim 1 (see pages 8-10 of Remarks). Applicant argues that Minato and Nobuki only teach excluding shielded parts from the calculation (see page 10 of Remarks). However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this conclusion.
Minato at paragraph 71 teaches calculating an average brightness using pixel values of a feature point such as the eyes. Paragraph 67 of Nobuki teaches performing correction after weighting feature points based on their reliability. Below is an image of figure 8 of Nobuki translated. As shown in figure 8, the reliability of objects is never set to 0 and therefore those features are never fully discarded.
PNG
media_image1.png
242
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, when applying this known technique of weighting based on reliability to Nobuki, it is clear that the combination would calculate the average brightness using both shielded and unshielded parts depending on their reliability.
In view of the foregoing, the Examiner is not persuaded by Applicants arguments with respect to claim 1. Therefore, the claim stands rejected as further detailed below.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Applicant argues that they are allowable for reasons similar to those of claim 1 (see page 11 of Remarks). Therefore, claims 10 and 19 also stand rejected, as detailed below, for reasons similar to those presented with respect to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9-11, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minato et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2009/0180696), hereinafter referenced as Minato, and further in view of Nobuki et al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication 2013196294), hereinafter referenced as Nobuki. All text citations of Nobuki refer to the machine translation provided with the 10/20/2025 Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Minato discloses a control apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions (paragraph 207 discloses memory storing programs); and at least one processor (paragraph 207 discloses a CPU) configured to execute the instructions to: acquire an image obtained by photographing a surrounding environment (figure 5 exhibits step SO3 in which an image is obtained as disclosed at paragraph 187); perform a process for detecting a detection target from the acquired image (figure 5 exhibits step S04 in which a detection target is determined as disclosed at paragraphs 188 and 189); calculate brightness by using pixels corresponding to at least one feature point characterizing the detection target, in an area of the detection target detected from the image, (paragraph 201 discloses measuring light; paragraph 71 teaches using a portion of the pixel in the face area such as the eyes); determine a control parameter used in a photographing apparatus based on the calculated brightness (paragraph 201 teaches determining an exposure adjustment); and control the photographing apparatus so as to perform photographing by using the determined control parameter (paragraph 201 teaches performing imaging with the updated settings). However, Minato fails to disclose making a weight of pixels corresponding to the feature point located in the shielded part of the detection target smaller than a weight of pixels corresponding to the feature point located in an unshielded part, and then calculating a weighted average of pixel values of pixels corresponding to the feature points.
Nobuki is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Nobuki teaches an image processing device wherein the motivation of improving the accuracy of image processing would have prompted a predictable variation of Minato by applying Nobuki’s known principal of making a weight of pixels corresponding to the feature point located in the shielded part of the detection target smaller than a weight of pixels corresponding to the feature point located in an unshielded part, and then calculate a weighted average of pixel values of pixels corresponding to the feature points (figure 6 shows that when part of the face is shielded, the weight of the shieled part is lowered relative to the weight of the unshielded part for image processing, such as brightness correction as disclosed at paragraphs 52 and 75). When applying this known technique to Minato, it would have been obvious to reduce the impact of regions such as covered eyes from being used in exposure control by reducing the weights of shielded areas of the face as disclosed by Nobuki.
In view of the motivations such as improving the accuracy of image processing one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Minato.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Minato in view of Nobuki discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Minato discloses wherein the calculation means calculates the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate the brightness by using pixels in the area of the detection target, corresponding to at least one part constituting the detection target (paragraph 71 teaches using a portion of the pixel in the face area such as the eyes for exposure control).
Regarding claim 6, Minato in view of Nobuki discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, however, Minato fails to disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate the brightness by preferentially using pixels corresponding to a feature point for a part of the detection target having a high priority over pixels corresponding to a feature point for a part thereof having a low priority, the priorities being set for the parts of the detection target in advance.
Nobuki is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Nobuki teaches an image processing device wherein the motivation of improving the accuracy of image processing would have prompted a predictable variation of Minato by applying Nobuki’s known principal of using preferred portions of the face if they are unshielded and using secondary portions of the face if the preferred portions are shielded (figure 10 shows that when part of the face is shielded, the unshielded portions of the face are used for image processing, such as brightness correction as disclosed at paragraphs 98, 99 and 75; and when the preferred areas of the face are shielded, then lower priority areas such as areas around the outline of the head are used). When applying this known technique to Minato, it would have been obvious to exclude regions such as covered eyes from being used in exposure control using preferred areas of the face as disclosed by Nobuki.
In view of the motivations such as improving the accuracy of image processing one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Minato.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Minato discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Minato discloses wherein the detection target is a face of a person (paragraphs 189 and 190 teach that the detection target is a face).
Claim 10, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same of the apparatus of claim 1.
Claim 11, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same of the apparatus of claim 2.
Claim 15, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same of the apparatus of claim 6.
Claim 18, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same of the apparatus of claim 9.
Claim 19, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, corresponds to and is analyzed the same of the apparatus of claim 1 (paragraph 207 discloses memory storing programs).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minato in view of Nobuki and further in view of Omori (United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0362269).
Regarding claim 8, Minato in view of Nobuki discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, however, Minato fails to disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate the brightness by using pixels located at a predetermined interval in the area of the detection target.
Omori is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Omori teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of reducing the time required to generate exposure control data would have prompted a predictable variation of Minato by applying Omori’s known principal of skipping rows of pixels for readout during exposure control (figure 3B exhibits wherein every 6th row is read out for data D2 as disclosed at paragraph 40; paragraph 46 teaches that data D2 is used for exposure control).
In view of the motivations such as reducing the time required to generate exposure control data one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Minato.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same of the apparatus of claim 8.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00.
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.
JASON A. FLOHRE
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/JASON A FLOHRE/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights