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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 19 is directed to a program per se.
Claim 19 explicitly recites “An operation program of an exposure control device”
Thus, only a “program” per se is actually claimed with the “computer” being intended use.
Since a computer program per se “has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category” (MPEP 2106.03), claim 19 is nonstatutory under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamada (United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0373636).
Regarding claim 1, Hamada discloses an exposure control device that performs an exposure control of causing an exposure value in an imaging apparatus to follow a target exposure value, the exposure control device comprising: a processor (figure 1 exhibits control section 10 which includes a processor as disclosed at paragraph 29), wherein the processor is configured to: start the exposure control in a case where an absolute value of a difference between a first target exposure value of a first frame captured by the imaging apparatus and a second target exposure value of a second frame captured earlier than the first frame is increased above a first threshold value (figure 3 exhibits step S15 in which it is determined if an amount of brightness difference is larger than a third determination value as disclosed at paragraph 51; paragraph 55 teaches that the brightness value is defined to be “an appropriate exposure value BV”, therefore BV is an exposure value); acquire a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value in accordance with the start of the exposure control (figure 3 exhibits step S19 in which a threshold β is obtained as disclosed at paragraph 54; it is apparent that the threshold β is smaller than the third determination value, if β was larger, then no change would occur, if β was equal then there would be no need to retrieve it, therefore β must be smaller than the third determination value); and in a case where a magnitude relationship between the absolute value of the difference and the second threshold value satisfies a condition set in advance (figure 3 exhibits step S23 wherein if the change in BV is less than or equal to the threshold, then exposure adjustment is ended as disclosed at paragraph 60), set a threshold value to be compared with the absolute value of the difference to a third threshold value greater than the second threshold value and finish the exposure control (paragraph 63 teaches that after exposure adjustment is ended, then the process restarts from step S1, this would necessarily include resetting the threshold to the third determination value of step S15).
Regarding claim 2, Hamada discloses the exposure control device according to claim 1, in addition, Hamada discloses wherein the processor is configured to set the third threshold value to the same value as the first threshold value (paragraph 63 teaches that after exposure adjustment is ended, then the process restarts from step S1, this would necessarily include resetting the threshold to the third determination value of step S15).
Regarding claim 6, Hamada discloses the exposure control device according to claim 1, in addition, Hamada discloses wherein the processor is configured to, in a case where the absolute value of the difference becomes less than or equal to the second threshold value, set the threshold value to be compared with the absolute value of the difference to the third threshold value greater than the second threshold value and finish the exposure control (figure 3 exhibits step S23 wherein if the change in BV is less than or equal to the threshold, then exposure adjustment is ended as disclosed at paragraph 60; and paragraph 63 teaches that after exposure adjustment is ended, then the process restarts from step S1, this would necessarily include resetting the threshold to the third determination value of step S15).
Regarding claim 17, Hamada discloses an imaging apparatus comprising: the exposure control device according to claim 1 (see claim 1); and an imaging element (figure 1 exhibits imaging section 1 which includes an image sensor as disclosed at paragraph 20).
Claim 18, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an operation method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the device of claim 1 (paragraph 23 discloses storing an operating program in memory).
Claim 19, an operation program of an exposure control device, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the device of claim 1 (paragraph 23 discloses storing an operating program in memory).
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada in view of Price et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2013/0027581), hereinafter referenced as Price.
Regarding claim 3, Hamada discloses the exposure control device according to claim 1, however, Hamada fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to set the third threshold value to a value different from the first threshold value in accordance with a condition.
Price is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Price teaches an auto exposure process wherein the motivation of ensuring that scene with high change are properly exposed would have prompted a predictable variation of Hamada by applying Price’s known principal of setting a threshold value to a value different from the first threshold value in accordance with a condition (paragraph 51 teaches reducing an exposure change threshold, the sensitivity, in response to a change in motion).
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that scene with high change are properly exposed one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Hamada.
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 4, Hamada in view of Price discloses the exposure control device according to claim 3, in addition, Price discloses wherein the processor is configured to set the third threshold value to a value smaller than the first threshold value in accordance with the condition (paragraphs 51 and 53 teach reducing the exposure change sensitivity threshold when motion decreases).
Regarding claim 5, Hamada in view of Price discloses the exposure control device according to claim 3, in addition, Price discloses wherein the condition is a condition based on a detection result of a subject (paragraphs 51 and 53 teach reducing the exposure change sensitivity threshold when detected motion of the subject decreases).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada in view of Shiga (United States Patent Application Publication 2003/0179311).
Regarding claim 7, Hamada discloses the exposure control device according to claim 1, however, Hamada fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to store whether the absolute value of the difference is greater than the first threshold value, the second threshold value, or the third threshold value and an exposure control state in which the exposure control is performed is reached, or the absolute value of the difference becomes less than or equal to the first threshold value, the second threshold value, or the third threshold value and an exposure control finish state in which the exposure control is finished is reached, in a storage unit for each frame.
Shiga is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Shiga teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of ensuring that proper exposure control is carried out would have prompted a predictable variation of Hamada by applying Shiga’s known principal of storing data required for exposure control in RAM (paragraph 24 teaches storing various pieces of data required for exposure control in RAM). When applying this known technique to Hamada, it would have been obvious to store whether the absolute value of the difference is greater than the first threshold value, the second threshold value, or the third threshold value and an exposure control state in which the exposure control is performed is reached, or the absolute value of the difference becomes less than or equal to the first threshold value, the second threshold value, or the third threshold value and an exposure control finish state in which the exposure control is finished is reached, in a storage unit for each frame in RAM as the decision for each step is required to be known in order to continue processing.
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that proper exposure control is carried out one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Hamada.
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 8, Hamada in view of Shiga discloses the exposure control device according to claim 7, in addition, Hamada discloses wherein the processor is configured to: set the threshold value to be compared with the absolute value of the difference to the first threshold value or to the third threshold value in a case where the second frame is in the exposure control finish state (paragraph 63 teaches that after exposure adjustment is ended, then the process restarts from step S1, this would necessarily include resetting the threshold to the third determination value of step S15); and set the threshold value to be compared with the absolute value of the difference to the second threshold value in a case where the second frame is in the exposure control state (figure 3 exhibits step S19 in which a threshold β is obtained as disclosed at paragraph 54).
Regarding claim 9, Hamada in view of Shiga discloses the exposure control device according to claim 7, however, Hamada fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to store the second target exposure value in the storage unit for each frame.
Shiga is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Shiga teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of ensuring that proper exposure control is carried out would have prompted a predictable variation of Hamada by applying Shiga’s known principal of storing data required for exposure control in RAM (paragraph 24 teaches storing various pieces of data required for exposure control in RAM). When applying this known technique to Hamada, it would have been obvious to store the second target exposure value in the storage unit for each frame, in a storage unit for each frame in RAM as the threshold is required to be known in order to continue processing.
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that proper exposure control is carried out one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Hamada.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 are 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.
Claim 10 is objected to because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the processor is configured to, in a case where the absolute value of the difference is less than or equal to the first threshold value or the third threshold value and greater than the second threshold value and where a state where a sign of the difference is reversed continues for the number of frames set in advance, set the threshold value to be compared with the absolute value of the difference to the third threshold value greater than the second threshold value and finish the exposure control, in combination with the other elements of the claim. The closest prior art of record, Hamada teaches switching between different thresholds during exposure control. Price teaches changing an auto exposure sensitivity. However, the combination does not disclose determining if a state where a sign of the difference is changed for a number of frames and ending exposure control. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “wherein the processor is configured to, in a case where the absolute value of the difference is less than or equal to the first threshold value or the third threshold value and greater than the second threshold value and where a state where a sign of the difference is reversed continues for the number of frames set in advance, set the threshold value to be compared with the absolute value of the difference to the third threshold value greater than the second threshold value and finish the exposure control” as currently claimed.
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to due to their dependence on claim 10.
Claim 13 is objected to because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the processor is configured to: store histories of the absolute value of the difference after reaching the exposure control finish state in the storage unit; and subtract the second threshold value from a maximum value in the histories in a case where the maximum value is smaller than the second threshold value, in combination with the other elements of the claims from which it is dependent. The closest prior art of record, Hamada discloses a method for adjusting exposure thresholds for exposure control and Price discloses adjusting an auto exposure change sensitivity threshold. However, both Hamada and Price end exposure control when the auto exposure change threshold is not exceeded and do not store histories of the values used to stop exposure control. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “wherein the processor is configured to: store histories of the absolute value of the difference after reaching the exposure control finish state in the storage unit; and subtract the second threshold value from a maximum value in the histories in a case where the maximum value is smaller than the second threshold value” as currently claimed.
Claims 14-16 are objected to due to their dependence on claim 13.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0162655) discloses an exposure control method.
Wang (United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0068121) disclose a method for controlling exposure in a night scene.
Naing et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0309919) discloses a method for controlling exposure including having a working memory area.
Nakamura (United States Patent Application Publication 2017/0374259) teaches a method for controlling exposure adjustments over time.
Tamura (United States Patent Application Publication 2017/0214837) teaches a method for controlling exposure adjustments over time.
Matsunaga (United States Patent Application Publication 2017/019579) teaches a method for controlling exposure.
Hirooka et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0222800) teaches a method for controlling exposure which accounts for hysteresis.
Noyes et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2008/0050109) teaches a method for dynamically controlling exposure.
Conclusion
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