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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on October 24, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it would not cause undue burden . This is not found persuasive because the non-elected Species requires the generation of an intermediate image and then generating the HDR image using the intermediate image. This is different from the elected Species, which does not require an intermediate image to generate the HDR image.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: “exposure control unit”, “generation unit” and “saving unit” in claim 1 – 5 and 8 – 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “shooting control unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 11 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keisuke (JP2024-055489 machine translation used).
Regarding claim 1, Keisuke discloses a shooting control apparatus comprising: a shooting control unit configured to control at least two shots to be taken in response to a shooting instruction, using an image sensor configured to generate, in a single shot, a first image and a second image having different exposures (¶11, 37: a control means for controlling the imaging device to pan while imaging multiple times so that a set of first images and second images and a set of the first images and third images are obtained alternately and in multiple sets); and an exposure control unit configured to perform first exposure control or second exposure control alternately from shot to shot in each of the at least two shots (¶11, 37: a control means for controlling the imaging device to pan while imaging multiple times so that a set of first images and second images and a set of the first images and third images are obtained alternately and in multiple sets), wherein the first exposure control is exposure control in which the first image is generated at a first exposure and the second image is generated at a second exposure lower than the first exposure (¶34: capturing (exposing) one frame to obtain a set of a properly exposed image (first image) and an underexposed image (second image)), and the second exposure control is exposure control in which the first image is generated at the first exposure and the second image is generated at a third exposure higher than the first exposure (¶34: acquiring a set of a properly exposed image (first image) and an overexposed image (third image) by capturing one frame).
Regarding claim 2, Keisuke disclose the limitations of claim 1. Keisuke also teaches further comprising: a generating unit configured to generate a High Dynamic Range (HDR) composite image by compositing the first image generated in a current shot, the second image generated in the current shot, and the second image generated in a shot one previous, for each shot aside from an earliest shot among the at least two shots (¶48: composites all of the images).
Regarding claim 3, Keisuke disclose the limitations of claim 2. Keisuke also teaches wherein the generating unit generates an HDR composite image by compositing the first image generated in the earliest shot, the second image generated in the earliest shot, and the second image generated in a second earliest shot (¶48: composites all of the images).
Regarding claim 4, Keisuke disclose the limitations of claim 1. Keisuke also teaches further comprising: a generating unit configured to generate an HDR composite image by compositing the first image generated in a shot one previous, the second image generated in the shot one previous, and the second image generated in a current shot, for each shot aside from an earliest shot among the at least two shots (¶48: composites all of the images).
Regarding claim 11, Keisuke disclose the limitations of claim 1. Keisuke also teaches wherein the first exposure is an appropriate exposure, the second exposure is underexposure, and the third exposure is overexposure (¶34, 35).
Regarding claim 12, Keisuke disclose the limitations of claim 1. Keisuke also teaches wherein the exposure control unit is configured to perform the first exposure control in an earliest shot among the at least two shots (¶34, 35).
Regarding claim 13, Keisuke disclose the limitations of claim 1. Keisuke also teaches wherein the shooting control unit is configured to perform control such that at least three shots are taken as the at least two shots (¶36: multiple “shots” can be taken).
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Keisuke also teaches an image sensor (22) (¶15).
Claims 15 and 16 and rejected as applied to claim 1 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Keisuke.
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.
Claim(s) 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke in view of Takahashi (US 2018/0152662).
Regarding claim 8, Keisuke disclose the limitations of claim 1. Keisuke also teaches further comprising: a saving unit configured to save the first image and the second image. in each shot among the at least two shots (¶21). Keisuke fails to explicitly disclose a saving unit configured to save the first image and the second image as a single RAW image file.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Keisuke with the teachings of Takahashi. Keisuke discloses saving first and second images in a recording medium. Takahashi teaches shot frames may be recorded as-is (data compression may be performed) in the RAW format (fig. 4; ¶123). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using saving multiple RAW images in a single, as taught by Takahashi, with the invention of Keisuke would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 9, Keisuke disclose the limitations of claim 1. Keisuke also teaches further comprising: a saving unit configured to save the first image and the second image. in each shot among the at least two shots (¶21). Keisuke fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: a saving unit configured to generate a RAW image file including a first storage region corresponding to the first exposure, a second storage region corresponding to the second exposure, and a third storage region corresponding to the third exposure, save each first image obtained in each of the at least two shots in the first storage region, and save each second image obtained in each of the at least two shots in the second storage region or the third storage region in accordance with an exposure of the corresponding second image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Keisuke with the teachings of Takahashi. Keisuke discloses saving first and second images in a recording medium. Takahashi teaches shot frames may be recorded as-is (data compression may be performed) in the RAW format in separate storage regions(fig. 4; ¶123). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using saving multiple RAW images in a single, as taught by Takahashi, with the invention of Keisuke would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keisuke.
Regarding claim 10, Keisuke disclose the limitations of claim 1. Keisuke also teaches wherein the exposure control unit is configured to, in each shot in which the second exposure control is performed, excluding an earliest shot among the at least two shots (fig. 4). Keisuke fails to explicitly disclose perform control such that an ISO sensitivity for the second image in a current shot matches an ISO sensitivity for the first image in a shot one previous.
The limitations in claim 10 do not define a patentable distinct invention over that in Keisuke since both the invention as a whole and Keisuke are directed to capturing and combining properly exposed, under exposed and overexposed images to produce an HDR image. The order in which the images are captured in each shot presents no new or unexpected results, so long as the images are combined additively, the dynamic range will increase. To capture the first properly exposed image of the second shot after the overexposed image is essentially the same as capturing the properly exposed image of the second shot before the overexposed image since, in Keisuke, the images are being aligned. Therefore, to capture the over exposed image first in the second shot would have been routine experimentation and optimization in the absence or criticality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE T. SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm 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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639