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 without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on December 16, 2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: first focus detector, second focus detector, alert unit in claims.
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 § 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.
(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 – 2, 4 – 7, 9, and 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takao (US 2022/0400208).
Regarding claim 1, Takao discloses an image pickup apparatus comprising: an image sensor (211) having a plurality of focus detecting pixels (402/403) configured to receive light beams that have passed through different pupil partial regions in an imaging optical system (fig. 2-4; ¶103); a first focus detector (218) configured to acquire a defocus amount of a first optical system (301R) based on a pair of signals from the focus detecting pixels (¶173); a second focus detector configured to acquire a defocus amount of a second optical system (301L) based on a pair of signals from the focus detecting pixels (¶173); and an alert unit (focus guide display) configured to issue an alert to prompt adjustment of the first optical system or the second optical system in a case where a difference between the defocus amount of the first optical system and the defocus amount of the second optical system is larger than a first predetermined value (fig. 10, 11; ¶171-183).
Regarding claim 2, Takao discloses the limitations of claim 1. Takao also teaches wherein the alert unit issues the alert in a case where a correlation between a focus detecting area of the first focus detector and a focus detecting area of the second focus detector is larger than a second predetermined value (fig. 11; ¶173: S604).
Regarding claim 4, Takao discloses the limitations of claim 1. Takao also teaches further comprising an object detector configured to detect a position and size of an object (¶173: position/size based on face), wherein the alert unit issues the alert in a case where a focus detecting area of the first focus detector and a focus detecting area of the second focus detector are set by a detection result of the object detector (fig. 11; ¶177-182: display formats).
Regarding claim 5, Takao discloses the limitations of claim 1. Takao also teaches wherein the image pickup apparatus is configured to perform a live-view display using a captured image, and wherein the alert unit issues the alert on the live-view display (fig. 12; ¶185-188).
Regarding claim 6, Takao discloses the limitations of claim 1. Takao also teaches wherein in a case where the difference is larger than the first predetermined value, the alert unit makes different at least one of a display of the focus detecting area of the first focus detector and a display of the focus detecting area of the second focus detector from a corresponding display in a case where the difference is smaller than the first predetermined value (fig. 10; ¶162-167).
Regarding claim 7, Takao discloses the limitations of claim 1. Takao also teaches further comprising a setting unit configured to set the first predetermined value according to a user operation (¶302: set calibration value by user).
Regarding claim 9, Takao discloses the limitations of claim 1. Takao also teaches wherein the alert unit issues the alert in a case where the defocus amount of the first optical system or the defocus amount of the second optical system is smaller than a third predetermined value (fig. 11: S604-S611).
Regarding claim 11, Takao discloses the limitations of claim 1. Takao also teaches wherein the alert unit issues the alert by changing a display of at least one of a focus detecting area of the first focus detector and a focus detecting area of the second focus detector (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 12, Takao discloses the limitations of claim 11. Takao also teaches wherein the alert unit issues the alert by changing a color of the at least one (fig. 10; ¶162).
Regarding claim 13, Takao discloses the limitations of claim 11. Takao also teaches wherein the alert unit issues the alert by blinking the at least one (fig. 10; ¶162).
Claim 14 and 16 are rejected as applied to claim 1 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Takao.
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) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takao in view of Kawanishi (US 2018/0048805).
Regarding claim 3, Takao discloses the limitations of claim 2. Takao fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the first predetermined value and the second predetermined value is set according to a state of the image pickup apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Takao with the teachings of Kawanishi. Takao discloses multiple threshold values for determining focus, but is silent as to how the values are set. Kawanishi teaches setting threshold values for focusing based on an image capturing condition or a state of the AF image signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of setting threshold values based on the imaging device, as taught by Kawanishi, with the invention of Takao would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system capable of dynamic settings and increased effectiveness.
Regarding claim 10, Takao discloses the limitations of claim 9. Takao fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the first predetermined value and the third predetermined value is set according to a state of the image pickup apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Takao with the teachings of Kawanishi. Takao discloses multiple threshold values for determining focus, but is silent as to how the values are set. Kawanishi teaches setting threshold values for focusing based on an image capturing condition or a state of the AF image signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of setting threshold values based on the imaging device, as taught by Kawanishi, with the invention of Takao would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system capable of dynamic settings and increased effectiveness.
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 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
Prosecution Insights