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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-5, 7, 12, 13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0016022), hereinafter referenced as Yoshioka, in view of 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 a plurality of units 19-21 of a camera module that perform calculations as disclosed at paragraphs 24-29), wherein the processor is configured to: start the exposure control in a case where a value exceeds a first threshold value (figure 5 shows a process in which when an exposure error exceeds a first threshold value, the coring range, then exposure control is started in step S15 as disclosed at paragraph 53); after the exposure control has been started, apply a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value to value (figure 4 shows that a second zero threshold is applied in step S8 to determine if exposure control should be stopped as disclosed at paragraph 49); continue the exposure control while the value exceeds the second threshold value (figure 4 shows that exposure control is continued in step S10 if the threshold is exceeded as disclosed at paragraph 49); and finish the exposure control in a case where the value becomes less than or equal to the second threshold value (figure 4 shows that exposure control is stopped in step S9 if the threshold is not exceeded as disclosed at paragraph 49), wherein the first threshold value is used for starting the exposure control (figure 5 shows that the first threshold is for starting exposure control) and the second threshold value is used for continuing or finishing the exposure (figure 4 shows that the threshold is used for determining whether to continue or finish exposure control). However, Hamada fails to disclose 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 exceeds a first threshold value, wherein the stop threshold is smaller than the first threshold value and wherein the first threshold value is used for starting exposure control. However, Yoshioka fails to disclose wherein the value is 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.
Yoshioka discloses comparing an exposure error to thresholds to control an auto exposure process (paragraphs 46 and 50). Hamada teaches that 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 can be compared to a first threshold in order to control an auto exposure process (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). Because both Yoshioka and Hamada discloses values which can be compared to a threshold value to start or stop an exposure control process, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the 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 taught by Hamada for the exposure error taught by Yoshioka to achieve the predictable result of using a value compared to a threshold value to start or stop an exposure control process.
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 2, Yoshioka in view of Hamada discloses the exposure control device according to claim 1, in addition, Yoshioka discloses wherein the processor is configured to supply the second threshold value only after the exposure control has been started (figure 5 shows that the stop condition is not used until exposure control is started).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshioka in view of Hamada discloses the exposure control device according to claim 1, in addition, Yoshioka discloses wherein the processor is configured to perform the exposure control such that oscillation of the exposure control is suppressed (paragraph 54 teaches that oscillation of the exposure control is suppressed).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshioka in view of Hamada discloses the exposure control device according to claim 1, in addition, Yoshioka discloses wherein the processor is configured to: 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 when finishing the exposure control (figure 5 shows that after exposure control has stopped, the threshold is changed to the first threshold which is larger than the second threshold).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshioka in view of Hamada discloses the exposure control device according to claim 1, in addition, Yoshioka discloses wherein the processor is configured to set the third threshold value to be the same as the first threshold value (figure 5 shows that after exposure control has stopped, the threshold is changed to the first threshold which is larger than the second threshold).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshioka in view of Hamada discloses the exposure control device according to claim 1, in addition, Yoshioka discloses wherein the processor is configured to finish the exposure control in a case where the absolute value of the difference become less than or equal to the second threshold value (figure 4 exhibits step S8 where exposure is stopped if the value becomes less than or equal to the second threshold as disclosed at paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshioka in view of Hamada discloses the exposure control device according to claim 1, in addition, Yoshioka discloses wherein the processor is configured to store histories of the absolute value of the differences (figure 5 shows a process by which if the exposure exceeds the first threshold for a predetermined number of frames. Step S14, then exposure control is restarted, in order to determine if a predetermined number of frames have passed, it is apparent that a history noting when the threshold was first exceeded must be stored in order to determine if the predetermined number of frames have passed).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshioka in view of Hamada discloses the exposure control device according to claim 12, in addition, Yoshioka discloses wherein processing is performed based on the stored histories (figure 5 shows a process by which if the exposure exceeds the first threshold for a predetermined number of frames. Step S14, then exposure control is restarted, in order to determine if a predetermined number of frames have passed, it is apparent that a history noting when the threshold was first exceeded must be stored in order to determine if the predetermined number of frames have passed).
Regarding claim 17, Yoshioka in view of Hamada discloses an imaging apparatus comprising: the exposure control device according to claim 1 (see claim 1); and an imaging element (Yoshida figure 1 exhibits image pickup device 7 as disclosed at paragraph 18).
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. However, Yoshioka fails to explicitly discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
However, Official Notice (MPEP 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of controlling a camera from a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program used to direct a computer to perform a process is well known and expected in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included controlling the process taught by Yoshioka by a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program used to direct a computer, for doing so would allow for the control of the camera to easily be updated if the process must be changed by providing the process as a computer program as opposed to executing the process through specific hardware units.
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.
Claim 19, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an operation program, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the device of claim 1.
However, Official Notice (MPEP 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of controlling a camera from a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program used to direct a computer to perform a process is well known and expected in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included controlling the process taught by Yoshioka by a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program used to direct a computer, for doing so would allow for the control of the camera to easily be updated if the process must be changed by providing the process as a computer program as opposed to executing the process through specific hardware units.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6, Yoshioka in view of Hamada discloses the exposure control device according to claim 1, however, Yoshioka 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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Hamada and further in view of Shiga (United States Patent Application Publication 2003/0179311).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshioka in view of Hamada discloses the exposure control device according to claim 1, however, Yoshioka fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to store state information of 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 11, Yoshioka in view of Hamada and further in view of Shiga discloses the exposure control device according to claim 10, in addition, the combination discloses wherein threshold values are switched based on the stored state information (by storing the exposure difference values in RAM in order to use them for exposure control as taught by the combination in the rejection of claim 10, and because Yoshioka discloses switching between first and second threshold values based on the exposure differences as taught by the starting and stopping conditions in figures 4 and 5, the combination teaches switching threshold values based on the stored state information).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9 and 15-16 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 8 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, Yoshioka in view of 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.
Claim 9 is objected to due to its dependence on claim 8.
Claim 14 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 histories are stored in a storage unit as many as a number set in advance, perform processing of subtracting the second threshold value from a maximum value, in combination with all of the elements of claims 1, 12 and 13 from which it is dependent. The closest prior art of record , Yoshioka in view of Hamada teaches storing a history of how many frames in a row have exceeded the threshold, however, the combination fails to teach or suggest “in a case where the histories are stored in a storage unit as many as a number set in advance, perform processing of subtracting the second threshold value from a maximum value” as currently claimed.
Claim 15 is objected to because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the processor is configured to not hand over the histories stored in the storage unit in a case where an operation instruction set in advance is received, in combination with all of the elements of claims 1, 12 and 13 from which it is dependent. The closest prior art of record, Yoshioka in view of Hamada teaches storing a history of how many frames in a row have exceeded the threshold, however, the combination fails to teach or suggest “wherein the processor is configured to not hand over the histories stored in the storage unit in a case where an operation instruction set in advance is received” as currently claimed.
Claim 16 is objected to due to its dependence on claim 15.
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 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
Prosecution Insights