Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/812,893

CONTROL APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD FOR IMAGE BLUR CORRECTION

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Aug 22, 2024
Examiner
CALDERON, CYNTHIA
Art Unit
2639
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
602 granted / 782 resolved
+15.0% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
799
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.9%
-35.1% vs TC avg
§103
42.1%
+2.1% vs TC avg
§102
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
§112
11.9%
-28.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 782 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Priority 2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of documents required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement 3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and was considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 4. Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 6: "the senor" should be replaced with “the sensor” to avoid a lack of proper antecedent basis. Claim 19, line 6: "the senor" should be replaced with “the sensor” to avoid a lack of proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Claims 1, 19, 6, 10, 12-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda (US-PGPUB 2021/0136290). Regarding claim 1, Ikeda discloses a control apparatus (see fig. 1) for controlling blur correction by a first correction unit configured to change a direction of an axis of a system by moving an element included in the system (The lens image stabilization control unit 224 controls the movement of the image stabilization lens 204 based on the image stabilization instruction from the lens microcomputer 226; see fig. 1 and paragraph 0042), a second correction unit configured to move a sensor in a direction intersecting the axis (The sensor image stabilization control unit 103 controls an actuator included in the shifting mechanism in accordance with the image stabilization instruction from the camera microcomputer 102 to shift the image sensor 101 by the shift amount; see figs. 1, 2A and paragraphs 0034-0035), and a third correction unit configured to correct, by processing, a tilt component of blur occurring from shake of an imaging apparatus in an image generated by processing a signal output from the senor (Electronic image stabilization that corrects shakes by shifting a range to be read from the image sensor 101 is effective, the correction of the roll shake is performed by the electronic image stabilization; see paragraph 0096), the sensor being configured to capture an object image formed by light transmitted through the system (Image sensor 101 senses an image of a subject formed by an imaging optical system 210; see paragraph 0033), the control apparatus comprising one or more processors (Microcomputer 102 and 226; see paragraphs 0035, 0042) that execute a program stored in a memory and thereby function as: a determination unit configured to determine strength of the blur correction of the tilt component by the third correction unit (Detecting roll shake correction based on the detected imaging condition; see figs. 4, 6A-6C); a calculation unit configured to calculate a correction amount of the third correction unit based on the determined strength of the blur correction and an amount of shake of the imaging apparatus (A larger correction amount can be assigned for the roll shake in the rotation direction in the moving image mode. Information from the camera shake detection unit 105 is used to determine the shooting-while-walking state; see paragraph 0071); and a control unit configured to control the first correction unit and the second correction unit using a plurality of schemes including at least a first scheme and a second scheme (Figures 6A-6C illustrate a plurality of image stabilization schemes using lens correction, the image sensor correction and the Roll shake correction); wherein the determination unit is configured to, in a case where the control unit controls the first and second correction units using the first scheme, determine a first correction strength as the strength of the blur correction, and in a case where the control unit controls the first and second correction units using the second scheme, determine a second correction strength higher than the first correction strength as the strength of the blur correction (In the moving image mode, a larger correction amount can be assigned for the roll shake in the rotation direction, and smaller correction amounts can be assigned for the angular shakes and shift shakes. This is to effectively correct the roll shake that occurs when shooting a moving image especially while walking. The correction of the roll shake can be performed only by the electronic image stabilization; see paragraphs 0071, 0096). Regarding claim 19, Ikeda discloses a control method (see figs. 4, 6A-6C) for controlling blur correction by a first correction unit configured to change a direction of an axis of an system by moving an element included in the system (The lens image stabilization control unit 224 controls the movement of the image stabilization lens 204 based on the image stabilization instruction from the lens microcomputer 226; see fig. 1 and paragraph 0042), a second correction unit configured to move a sensor in a direction intersecting the axis (The sensor image stabilization control unit 103 controls an actuator included in the shifting mechanism in accordance with the image stabilization instruction from the camera microcomputer 102 to shift the image sensor 101 by the shift amount; see figs. 1, 2A and paragraphs 0034-0035), and a third correction unit configured to correct, by processing, a tilt component of blur occurring from shake of an imaging apparatus in an image generated by processing a signal output from the senor (Electronic image stabilization that corrects shakes by shifting a range to be read from the image sensor 101 is effective, the correction of the roll shake is performed by the electronic image stabilization; see paragraph 0096), the sensor being configured to capture an object image formed by light transmitted through the system (Image sensor 101 senses an image of a subject formed by an imaging optical system 210; see paragraph 0033), the control method comprising: determining strength of the blur correction of the tilt component by the third correction unit (Detecting roll shake correction based on the detected imaging condition; see figs. 4, 6A-6C); calculating a correction amount of the third correction unit based on the determined strength of the blur correction and an amount of shake of the imaging apparatus (A larger correction amount can be assigned for the roll shake in the rotation direction in the moving image mode. Information from the camera shake detection unit 105 is used to determine the shooting-while-walking state; see paragraph 0071); and controlling the first correction unit, the second correction unit, and the third correction unit using a plurality of schemes including at least a first scheme and a second scheme (Figures 6A-6C illustrate a plurality of image stabilization schemes using lens correction, the image sensor correction and the Roll shake correction), wherein in a case where the first and second correction units are controlled using the first scheme, a first correction strength is determined as the strength of the blur correction, and in a case where the first and second correction units are controlled using the second scheme, a second correction strength higher than the first correction strength is determined as the strength of the blur correction (In the moving image mode, a larger correction amount can be assigned for the roll shake in the rotation direction, and smaller correction amounts can be assigned for the angular shakes and shift shakes. This is to effectively correct the roll shake that occurs when shooting a moving image especially while walking. The correction of the roll shake can be performed only by the electronic image stabilization; see paragraphs 0071, 0096). Regarding claim 6, Ikeda discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Ikeda discloses the control unit is configured to, in a case where the amount of shake is a first amount of shake, control the first and second correction units using the first scheme (Set correction axes for still image under exposure; see figs. 4, 6A), and in a case where the amount of shake is a second amount of shake greater than the first amount of shake, control the first and second correction units using the second scheme (Set correction axes for moving image; see figs. 4, 6C). Regarding claim 10, Ikeda discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Ikeda discloses the first correction strength is zero, and wherein in a case where the first and second correction units are controlled using the first scheme, the third correction unit does not correct the tilt component of the blur (The Roll shake correction is not performed under the correction axes for still image standby state; see figs. 4, 6B). Regarding claim 12, Ikeda discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Ikeda discloses the control unit is configured to control the first and second correction units using the plurality of schemes by outputting at least one of information about a correction ratio between the first and second correction units, a correction amount of the first correction unit, and a correction amount of the second correction unit to the first and second correction units (The image stabilization sensor performs control such that correction amounts for respective shakes do not exceed the correction limits which are set within the ranges determined by a correction ratio between the angular shakes, the shakes in the translational directions such as the shift shakes, and the shake in the rotational direction such as the roll shake; see paragraph 0009). Regarding claim 13, Ikeda discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 12). In addition, Ikeda discloses the information about the correction ratio includes at least either information indicating a correction ratio of the first correction unit determined based on the amount of shake of the imaging apparatus detected or information indicating a correction ratio of the second correction unit determined based on the amount of shake (The image stabilization sensor performs control such that correction amounts for respective shakes do not exceed the correction limits which are set within the ranges determined by a correction ratio between the angular shakes, the shakes in the translational directions such as the shift shakes, and the shake in the rotational direction such as the roll shake; see paragraph 0009). Regarding claim 14, Ikeda discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 12). In addition, Ikeda discloses the information about the correction ratio includes at least either information indicating a relationship between the amount of shake of the imaging apparatus and a correction ratio of the first correction unit or information indicating a relationship between the amount of shake and a correction ratio of the second correction unit (The image stabilization sensor performs control such that correction amounts for respective shakes do not exceed the correction limits which are set within the ranges determined by a correction ratio between the angular shakes, the shakes in the translational directions such as the shift shakes, and the shake in the rotational direction such as the roll shake; see paragraph 0009). Regarding claim 16, Ikeda discloses an imaging apparatus comprising: the control apparatus according to claim 1; the sensor; and the second correction unit (Image capturing system including a camera body; see fig. 1 and paragraph 0032), wherein the determination unit is configured to determine whether a lens apparatus mounted supports a coordination scheme where the first scheme and the second scheme are switched based on the amount of shake, and determine the strength of the blur correction based on a result of this determination (Setting the correction axes for the lens, the sensor and roll correction after determining the lens type and determining if the lens has image stabilization functionalities; see figs. 5, 6A-6C). Regarding claim 17, Ikeda discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 12). In addition, Ikeda discloses the determination unit is configured to, in a case where the lens apparatus mounted supports the coordination scheme, determine the strength of the blur correction based on the amount of shake of the imaging apparatus (Setting the correction axes after determining if the lens is capable of correcting shift shakes; see figs. 5, 6-6C). Allowable Subject Matter 5. Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11, 15 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 2, the specific limitation of “the first scheme has a higher effect than that of the second scheme in reducing blur in an area of the image where image height is high” in the combination as claimed is neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record. Regarding claim 3, the specific limitation of “the first scheme is a scheme for moving the sensor in a same direction as a direction of movement of the object image with respect to the sensor due to the shake of the imaging apparatus, and wherein the second scheme is a scheme for moving the sensor in a direction of reducing a movement of the object image with respect to the sensor due to the shake of the imaging apparatus” in the combination as claimed is neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record. Regarding claim 4, the specific limitation of “the first scheme is a scheme for moving the element so that a position of the object image moves more than an amount of movement of the object image with respect to the sensor due to the shake of the imaging apparatus, and wherein the second scheme is a scheme for moving the element so that the position of the object image moves less than the amount of movement of the object image with respect to the sensor due to the shake of the imaging apparatus” in the combination as claimed is neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record. Regarding claim 5, the specific limitation of “the first scheme includes moving the element excessively relative to the shake of the imaging apparatus, and moving the sensor to cancel excessive movement of the element, and wherein the second scheme includes moving the element and the sensor so that an amount of movement of the object image with respect to the sensor due to movement of the element and the amount of movement of the object image with respect to the sensor due to movement of the sensor are both smaller than the amount of movement of the object image with respect to the sensor due to the shake of the imaging apparatus” in the combination as claimed is neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record. Regarding claim 7, the specific limitation of “the strength of the blur correction is changed by changing an upper limit value of a blur correction amount by the third correction unit, and wherein the upper limit value of the blur correction amount by the third correction unit in a case where the first correction strength is set is lower than that of the blur correction amount by the third correction unit in a case where the second correction strength is set” in the combination as claimed is neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record. Regarding claim 8, the specific limitation of “the third correction unit is configured to correct blur by geometrically deforming the image using projective transformation” in the combination as claimed is neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record. Regarding claim 9, it is objected to for depending on claim 8. Regarding claim 11, the specific limitation of “the determination unit is configured to determine gain of the blur correction by the third correction unit as the strength of the blur correction, and wherein the calculation unit is configured to calculate the correction amount using the gain” in the combination as claimed is neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record. Regarding claim 15, the specific limitation of “the information about the correction ratio is information about a correction ratio between the first, second, and third correction units” in the combination as claimed is neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record. Regarding claim 18, the specific limitation of “the determination unit is configured to, in a case where the lens apparatus mounted does not support the coordination scheme, set the strength of the blur correction to a constant value regardless of the amount of shake of the imaging apparatus” in the combination as claimed is neither anticipated nor made obvious over the prior art made of record. Contact Information 6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)270-3580. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM. 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. /CYNTHIA CALDERON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639 03/18/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 22, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604088
IMAGE PICKUP APPARATUS CAPABLE OF CONTROLLING POWER SUPPLY, ITS CONTROL METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604108
LIGHTFIELD CAMERA THAT CAN SIMULTANEOUSLY ACQUIRE 2D INFORMATION AND 3D SPATIAL INFORMATION FROM SAME DEPTH
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598388
IMAGE CAPTURING APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593120
METHOD FOR ACQUIRING A PHOTOGRAPHIC PORTRAIT OF AN INDIVIDUAL AND APPARATUS IMPLEMENTING THIS METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587745
IMAGE CAPTURING APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+18.5%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 782 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month