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 action is in response to Remarks and Amendments filed on 04/17/2026
Application claims a FP date of 08/31/2023
Claims 1 and 7 are independent
Claims 1-2, 4 and 6-8 have been amended
Claims 1-9 are pending
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive in part. The amendments filed are sufficient to overcome the objections to the Specification and has therefore been withdrawn. With respect to the rejection based on prior art, the amendments are not sufficient to overcome the rejection, nor are Applicant's arguments persuasive. However, in order to hasten prosecution, Examiner has brought in a new reference to teach the deficiency as alleged by the Applicant on page 10 of the remarks document, and a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Moon et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0006956 A1) and a detailed explanation in provided in the following action.
In view of the above arguments, Examiner would like to maintain the rejections as detailed in the following action.
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 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0314491 A1) in view of Moon et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0006956 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Sakurai discloses an imaging apparatus (Sakurai’s disclosure is about imaging apparatus capable of suppressing an erroneous operation in image stabilization) comprising:
an image sensor configured to capture a subject image formed via an optical system to generate image data (In ¶0004, Sakurai discloses that the imaging apparatus includes an image sensor that captures a subject image formed through an optical system to generate image data);
an optical image stabilizer including at least one of a first image stabilizer and a second image stabilizer, the first image stabilizer performing optical image stabilization by moving a correction lens included in the optical system within a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the optical system, the second image stabilizer performing image stabilization by moving the image sensor within the plane perpendicular to the optical axis (In ¶0093, Sakurai discloses about the first image stabilizer (OIS processor 223 and CIS drive 221) that performs image stabilization by moving a correction lens included in the optical system within a lens movable range in a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the optical system, a second image stabilizer (IBIS processor 183 and sensor driver 181) that performs image stabilization by moving the image sensor withing a sensor movable range in the plane perpendicular to the optical axis);
an electronic electronic image stabilization by adjusting an area from which an image indicated by the image data is cropped (Further, in ¶0093, Sakurai also discloses a third image stabilizer (ETS processor 143) that performs image stabilization by adjusting an area from which an image indicated by the image data is to be cropped within a range of a preset cropping amount); and
a controller configured to control the optical image stabilization by the optical image stabilizer and the electronic image stabilization by the electronic stabilizer (In ¶0094, Sakurai discloses about a controller of the imaging apparatus), wherein
the controller is configured to
set an optical image stabilizer shake correction amount to be corrected by the optical image stabilizer for an amount of shake of the imaging apparatus (In ¶0094, he discloses that the controller detects the vibration caused by the device and controls whether to remove the detected vibration from the image in accordance with the detection result); and
calculate an electronic image stabilizer electronic to correct an error amount in the optical image stabilizer, the error amount indicating a difference between the optical image stabilizer shake correction amount set to the optical image stabilizer and a sensed displacement of one of the correction lens and the image sensor moved in the optical image stabilization by the optical image stabilizer (In ¶0060, Sakurai discloses that the controller 310 performs PIP control on the basis of the difference between the shake detection signal from the integrator 308 and the current position information of the OIS lens 220 received from the positions sensor and generates a drive signal for the OIS driver 221), and
the electronic electronic image stabilization based on the calculated electronic image stabilizer shake correction amount so as to correct the error amount in the optical image stabilizer (In ¶0069 Sakurai discloses that the EIS processor 143 calculates a shake correction amount on the basis of the input shake detection signal and adjusts the position at which the image is cropped by the calculated shake correction amount).
Sakurai discloses correction of EIS and the OIS, however, Examiner would like to use the teachings of Moon to teach calculate an electronic image stabilizer (Fig 1- Electronic image stabilization EIS unit 22) electronic to correct an error amount in the optical image stabilizer, the error amount indicating a difference between the optical image stabilizer (Fig 1- Optical image stabilization OIS unit 12) shake correction amount set to the optical image stabilizer and a sensed displacement of one of the correction lens and the image sensor moved in the optical image stabilization by the optical image stabilizer (In ¶0057 and throughout, Moon teaches that the OIS may output a control signal for adjusting the lens assembly 10 in response to variation and the EIS may output a second control signal for adjusting the image sensor 20 in response to the variation), and
the electronic electronic image stabilization based on the calculated electronic image stabilizer shake correction amount so as to correct the error amount in the optical image stabilizer (In ¶0012-¶0014, Moon teaches the stabilization controller may determine the first compensation value by subtracting a compensation value of the EIS unit from the variation signal, and the controller may determine the second compensation value by subtracting the compensation value of the OIS from the variation signal. In Fig 3 and in ¶0070-¶0072 Moon teaches the movement of the correction device).
Sakurai and Moon are combinable because both are related to imaging device for performing image stabilization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the correction amount determined by both the OIS and the EIS unit as taught by Moon in the imaging module disclosed by Sakurai.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “prevent deterioration in the quality of the camera due to the movement of the camera module attributable to external vibration such as hand tremors” as disclosed by Moon in ¶0058.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sakurai and Moon to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Sakurai in view of Moon discloses further comprising: a shake detector (In ¶0032, Sakurai disclose that a gyro sensor 184 has been used to detect shakes of the camera body) configured to detect the amount of shake of the imaging apparatus, wherein one of the first image stabilizer and the second image stabilizer is configured to perform the optical image stabilization on the amount of shake detected by the shake detector according to the shake correction amount set to the corresponding image stabilizer (Sakurai: Sakurai in ¶0032 discloses that the IBIS processor 183 controls the shake correction processing on the basis of the detection result of the gyro sensor 184).
Regarding Claim 3, Sakurai in view of Moon discloses further comprising: a position detector (Sakurai: position sensor 222, position sensor 182) configured to detect a position of the correction lens (Sakurai: In ¶0040 Sakurai discloses that the position sensor 222 is a sensor for detecting the position of the OIS lens 220 in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis) or a position of the image sensor in the plane perpendicular to the optical axis (Sakurai: In ¶0033, Sakurai discloses that the position sensor 182 is a sensor for detecting the position of the image sensor 110 in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis of the optical system), wherein the controller is configured to acquire, based on a detection result by the position detector, at least one of the displacement of the correction lens and the displacement of the image sensor (Sakurai: In ¶0034, Sakurai discloses that the IBIS processor 183 controls the sensor driver 181 on the basis of the gyro sensor 184 and the signal from the position sensor 182, to shift the image sensor 110 so that the shake of the camera body is canceled out.).
Regarding Claim 6, Sakurai in view of Moon discloses further comprising: an interchangeable lens (Sakurai: interchangeable lens 200) including the optical system and the first image stabilizer (Sakurai: In ¶0035 Sakurai discloses the optical image stabilizer (OIS) lens 220 and lens controller 240); a camera body (camera body 100) including the image sensor (Sakurai: image sensor 110) and the electronic image stabilizer (Sakurai: third image stabilizer ETS processor 143); and a communication interface (Sakurai: communication interface 152) configured to perform data communication between the interchangeable lens and the camera body, wherein the controller is configured to receive, from the interchangeable lens via the communication interface, at least one of the shake correction amount set to the first image stabilizer and the error amount in the image stabilization by the first image stabilizer (Sakurai: In ¶0039 Sakurai discloses that the OIS lens 220 is a lens for correcting a shake of a subject image formed by the optical system of the interchangeable lens 200 in the 013 function. The OIS lens 220 moves in a direction to cancel out the shake of the digital camera for reducing the shake of the subject image on the image sensor 110).
Regarding Claim 7, this claim is a broader claim that has limitations parallel to Claim 1. Since Sakurai in ¶0030 discloses that the image data can be stored in a memory card 171 – which is external, Sakurai in view of Moon discloses all the elements of Claim 7 and therefore Claim 7 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, Sakurai in view of Moon discloses image data (Sakurai: In ¶0004, Sakurai discloses that the imaging apparatus includes an image sensor that captures a subject image formed through an optical system to generate image data), and
one of the shake correction amount to be corrected by the optical image stabilizer and the error amount (Sakurai: In ¶0069, Sakurai discloses that the EIS processor 143 calculates a shake correction amount on the basis of the input shake detection signal), and
an electronic image stabilizer (Sakurai: EIS processor 143) configured to perform image stabilization by adjusting an area from which an image indicated by in the image data is cropped (Sakurai: In ¶0069-¶0070, Sakurai further discloses that the EIS processor 143 calculates a shake correction amount on the basis of the input shake detection signal and adjusts the position at which the image is cropped by the calculated shake correction amount); and
a processor (Sakurai: EIS processor 143) configured to control the image stabilization by the electronic image stabilizer,
wherein the processor (Sakurai: EIS processor 143) is configured to calculate a shake correction amount to be corrected by the electronic image stabilizer, based on the shake correction amount to be corrected by the optical image stabilizer or the error amount in the optical image stabilizer, and
the electronic image stabilizer is configured to perform the image stabilization by the calculate shake correction amount (Sakurai: In ¶0069 Sakurai discloses that the EIS processor 143 calculates a shake correction amount on the basis of the input shake detection signal and adjusts the position at which the image is cropped by the calculated shake correction amount).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0314491 A1) in view of Moon et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0006956 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Nakata et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0258488 A1) and Jota (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2025/0080847 A1 which has a FP date of Aug 28, 2023)
Regarding Claim 4, Sakurai in view of Moon fails to clearly disclose wherein the controller is configured to calculate, based on image data sequentially captured by the image sensor, a motion vector of the subject image in an image represented by the image data, and set the shake correction amount to be corrected by the third image stabilizer, by switching between a shake correction amount according to the error amount and a shake correction amount according to the calculated motion vector
Instead in a similar endeavor, Nakata discloses wherein the controller (In Fig 5 and in ¶0116 Nakata teaches about the camera controller 140) is configured to calculate, based on image data sequentially captured by the image sensor, a motion vector of the subject image in an image represented by the image data (In ¶0116, Nakata teaches that the gyro signal includes information on an angular velocity corresponding to shake of the camera; further in ¶0117 he teaches that the camera controller 140 calculates a motion vector of an image S10 – that is image motion amount. In Step S01 he teaches that motion vector of the entire image per time of a frame period is calculated as an image motion amount), and
set the shake correction amount to be corrected by the third image stabilizer (In ¶0187 Nakata teaches that the EIS operation corrects the camera shake by changing a position and orientation of the effective pixel area used in subsequent processing in image data),
Sakurai, Moon and Nakata are combinable because all are related to imaging device for performing image stabilization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the determine whether or not OIS operation is being executed based on the shake amount and the image motion as taught by Nakata in the imaging module disclosed by Sakurai in view of Moon.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “control whether to execute or stop image stabilization operation based on the shake amount and image motion amount” as disclosed by Nakata in ¶0012.
Sakurai in view of Nakata fails to clearly disclose set the shake correction amount by switching between a shake correction amount according to the error amount and a shake correction amount according to the calculated motion vector.
Instead in a similar endeavor, Jota discloses set the shake correction amount by switching between a shake correction amount according to the error amount and a shake correction amount according to the calculated motion vector (In ¶0021-¶0029, Jota teaches that the motion vector detection unit 109 detects motion information about a feature point in the image data as a motion vector by using a plurality of pieces of image data at different imaging timing. The image correction unit 110 electronically performs blur correction – EIS image stabilization – by performing image processing based on image blur information. He also discloses in ¶0023 that camera shake detection unit 105. In ¶0128, Jota teaches that the target correction amounts may be based on accelerations sensors or motion vectors calculated based on an image – a plurality of pieces of information may be used to calculate amounts of shake)
Sakurai, moon, Nakata and Jota are combinable because all are related to imaging device for performing image stabilization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use plurality of pieces of information to perform shake correction as taught by Jota in the imaging module disclosed by Sakurai in view of Moon and Nakata.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “reduce the effect of blur” as disclosed by Jota throughout his disclosure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sakurai, Moon, Nakata and Jota to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0314491 A1) in view of Moon et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0006956 A1) as applied to Claim 1 and 7 above and further in view of Ikeda (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0063443 A1)
Regarding Claim 5, Sakurai in view of Moon fails to clearly disclose wherein the controller is configured to calculate the error amount for at least one direction of: two orthogonal directions in the plane perpendicular to the optical axis; and a rotation direction around a rotation axis along the optical axis.
Instead in a similar endeavor, Ikeda discloses wherein the controller is configured to calculate the error amount for at least one direction of: two orthogonal directions in the plane perpendicular to the optical axis; and a rotation direction around a rotation axis along the optical axis (In Fig 3 and in ¶0068 - ¶0070, Ikeda teaches that the camera image stabilization controller 123, receives from the lens controller pitch, yaw direction correction amounts (angular displacement amount equivalent values) as the lens electronic image stabilization correction amounts).
Sakurai and Ikeda are combinable because both are related to imaging device for performing image stabilization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the pitch, yaw direction correction amount as taught by Ikeda in the imaging module disclosed by Sakurai.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “provide an image capturing apparatus capable of preventing image blur from occurring due to unsmoothness of image stabilization control” as disclosed by Ikeda in ¶0007.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sakurai and Ikeda to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding Claim 9, Sakurai in view of Ideka discloses wherein the processor (Sakurai: In ¶0094, Sakurai discloses about a controller of the imaging apparatus; Ikeda: controller 106, 124) is configured to control simulation processing predicting based on the shake correction amount to be corrected by the optical image stabilizer (Ikeda: In ¶0115, Ikeda teaches that the camera controller 124 switches depending on a detection result of the camera shake detected by the camera based on correction amount between one used for the previous frame and one acquired by prediction calculation; He also teaches in ¶0126-¶0127 how the prediction is calculated), at least one of the displacement of the correction lens and the displacement of the image sensor moved in the image stabilization by the optical image stabilizer (Ikeda: In ¶0031 he teaches that stabilizing optical element is moved or shifted to perform optical image stabilization and in ¶0038 he teaches that image stabilization may be performed by shifting the image sensor in a plane orthogonal to the optical axis in the camera body).
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 PADMA HALIYUR whose telephone number is (571)272-3287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM - 4PM.
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.
/PADMA HALIYUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639 May 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights