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 .
Acknowledgements
2. Applicant’s arguments/remarks, filed on 02/26/2026, are acknowledged. Amended claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12, and 13-20, and newly added claim 21 are acknowledged. Claims 1-2 and 4-21 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
3. Regarding claim 20, claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn with respect to currently amended subject matter.
4. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, with respect to the rejections of independent claim 1, 19, and 20 under U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Takahashi JP 2021150775 A.
The Applicant, on pages 8-9, states that Honda does not disclose “wherein the imaging instruction comprises:
“a full press of a shutter button of the imaging device, and
in response to the imaging instruction, recording an entire image corresponding to the live view image during display of the magnified image, wherein
causing the display to continuously display the magnified image after receiving the imaging instruction is carried out in response to a return-to-focus-magnification setting being on”.
5. Response
The Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with the argument that Honda fails to teach, “a full press of a shutter button of the imaging device”.
In independent claim 1 (or other dependent claims thereof), there are no additional limitations which may relate to the shutter button, so to limit a different mode of operation using the shutter button; by means of pressing the button to some extent of the button’s range of functionality so to determine different functions.
Therefore, Honda is viewed as teaching “a full press of a shutter button of the imaging device”, wherein Honda, in [0043], teaches the use of a release button 208a for shooting operation/exposure operation which is performed at a set aperture value and shutter speed whereby an image is obtained (step S25).
Regarding newly amended subject matter of claim 1, see respectively mapped limitations in accordance with newly introduced prior art reference (Takahashi), addressed below.
Independent claims 19 and 20 are similarly addressed below.
Further, dependent claims (of 1) 2, 8, 14, and 21 are also addressed below.
6. Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, with regards to dependent claims 4-7, 9-13, and 15-17, are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-2, 8, 14, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (JP2008160744A) in view of Takahashi (JP2021150775A).
9. Regarding claim 1, an imaging device comprising
a memory storing a program (…Honda, in [0020], teaches flash memory 207 which holds programs…), and
at least one processor configured to execute the program to perform operations(…wherein [0020] teaches a camera control unit 206 which executes programs held in memory 207 of various sequences and setting values…) comprising:
causing a display to continuously display a magnified image that is a magnified portion of a live view image based on an input image, after receiving an imaging instruction during display of the magnified image by the display (…[0021] teaches release button 208a which may be used for giving shooting instruction to control unit 206; enlargement button 208e is taught as an operation unit which gives instructions to the control unit when a live view image is enlarged (step S14, [0038]); further [0028] teaches when 208e is pressed, an enlargement point may be set by a user so that unit 206 enlarges and displays the image (see below for a “continuous” function of display)…), wherein
the imaging instruction comprises
a full press of a shutter button of the imaging device (…wherein [0043] describes that the use of the release button 208a is a shooting operation/exposure operation performed at a set aperture value and shutter speed whereby an image is obtained (step S25)…); and
in response to the imaging instruction, recording an entire image corresponding to the live view image during display of the magnified image (…[0043] further teaches that an obtained image and its data is recorded on an image recording medium 204 (step S26)…).
Honda doesn’t further explicitly teach where
causing the display to continuously display the magnified image after receiving the imaging instruction is carried out in response to a return-to-focus-magnification setting being on (…however, Takahashi teaches an imaging apparatus including a method to display pictures wherein a “quick view display” (also referred to as auto-review display) is taught to display a captured image after shooting the image in [0038]. [0057] and [0062] teach that the quick view display is a function that may be turned on or off. [0063] further teaches that the function, when on, can be set to an arbitrary value thus specifying a time which indicates the quick view display time for displaying a captured image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a quick view display as taught by Takahashi is a function that can be implemented in an image capturing device as taught by Honda, wherein a captured image may be available for reviewing by a photographer immediately post capturing the image without having to perform additional setting navigation…).
10. Regarding claim 2, Honda in view of Takahashi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
the display resumes display of the magnified image after the imaging instruction (…wherein Takahashi teaches a quick view display that may display a captured image after capturing the image (as mapped in claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a quick view display as taught by Takahashi is a function that can be implemented in an image capturing device as taught by Honda, wherein a captured image may be available for reviewing by a photographer immediately post capturing the image without having to perform additional setting navigation…).
11. Regarding claim 8, Honda in view of Takahashi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein the operations further comprise:
causing the display to display, as the magnified image, an image portion centered on a subject in focus (…wherein Honda, in [0027], teaches that a user may be notified that an in-focus point has been achieved, wherein after the enlarging and displaying of regions selected by a user is taught; as such [0028], after a focus point is set by a user, a frame for selecting an enlargement point is displayed on the live view image; see Figures 5 and 6…).
12. Regarding claim 14, Honda in view of Takahashi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1,wherein the operations further comprise:
causing the display to display an image portion centered on a subject in focus as the magnified image to be displayed after the imaging instruction (…Honda, in [0021], teaches that when the focusing mode is automatic a focus point is set based on a predetermined condition, as such a center point; further [0028] teaches that when after a focus point is set by a user a frame for selecting an enlargement point is displayed on the live view image; wherein after the camera control un it enlarges and displays the image within the in-focus point (Fig. 6)…).
13. Regarding claim 18, Honda in view of Takahashi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above),wherein the operations further comprise:
in a case where the imaging instruction is performed according to a set mode, determining whether or not to change display from the magnified image to the live view image according to the mode (…wherein Honda, in [0044-45] teaches a preview mode in which a preview button 208f may be pressed at various times of image capturing wherein the preview mode is not exited until the preview button 208f is pressed again; wherein after, if button 208f is pressed, an enlargement point can be selected during live view display…), or
continuously display the magnified image after the imaging instruction, according to the set mode.
14. Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected for reasons related to claim 1.
15. Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected for reasons related to claim 1.
16. Regarding claim 21, the imaging device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
causing the display to continuously display the magnified (see claim 1) image includes a temporary display of another image (…wherein Honda, in [0035], further teaches a display area of the image within the focus point and an image within another point may be the same; Fig. 7…).
17. Claims 4-7, 10-12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (JP2008160744A) in view of Takahashi (JP2021150775A) and further view of Sandstrom et al. (US 2019/0208113 A1).
18. Regarding claim 4, Honda in view of Takahashi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein the operations further comprise:
the display displays, as the magnified image, an image portion centered on the subject that has been recognized in the live view image (…wherein Honda, in [0021], teaches that when the focusing mode is automatic a focus point is set based on a predetermined condition, as such a center point; further [0028] teaches that when after a focus point is set by a user a frame for selecting an enlargement point is displayed on the live view image; wherein after the camera control unit enlarges and displays the image within the in-focus point (Fig. 6)…), wherein
the subject is a control target part (…wherein Honda teaches the capturing of a subject relative to a background, in [0013]; further Sandstrom teaches an object/human recognition logic wherein further details may be detected, as taught in [0067]…) ,and wherein,
after the imaging instruction, the magnified image is moved such that the control target part is kept centered on the display (…in [0021], teaches that when the focusing mode is automatic a focus point is set based on a predetermined condition, as such a center point; further [0028] teaches that when after a focus point is set by a user a frame for selecting an enlargement point is displayed on the live view image; as such after setting a focus point as an enlargement point, camera control unit 206 displays the image set by the user, as taught in [0026-0028]; wherein Fig. 5 and 6 show the process of such an operation…).
recognizing a subject on a basis of the input image (…wherein Honda, in [0013], teaches the capturing of a subject captured relative to a background; [0027], teaches that a user may be notified that an in-focus point has been achieved, element 501 is displayed as depicted in Fig. 5.
Honda does not further explicitly teach a recognition unit.
However, Sandstrom, in [0067], teaches an object recognition logic 282 and a human recognition logic; wherein as taught in [0069] the units may detect objects in images and boundaries of the objects (e.g., humans and faces within an image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an object/human recognition logic as taught by Sandstrom could have been implemented in an apparatus as taught by Honda, thus to let a user choose an exact shape to focus and enlarge…).
19. Regarding claim 5, Honda in view of Takahashi and Sandstrom teaches the imaging device according to claim 4 (see claim 4 above), wherein the operations further comprise:
determining a region of the subject to be displayed as the magnified image according to a category of the subject (…wherein Sandstrom teaches object/human recognition units to detect objects and boundaries of the objects in images; Honda further teaches the enlarging and displaying of regions selected by a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an object/human recognition logic as taught by Sandstrom could have been implemented in an apparatus as taught by Honda, thus to let a user choose an exact shape to focus and enlarge…).
20. Regarding claim 6, Honda in view of Takahashi and Sandstrom teaches the imaging device according to claim 5 (see claim 5 above), wherein the operations further comprise:
causing the display to display, as the magnified image, an image portion centered on a recognized control target part of recognizable parts according to the category of the subject (…wherein Sandstrom teaches object/human recognition units to detect objects and boundaries of the objects in images; Honda further teaches the enlarging and displaying of regions selected by a user, wherein as taught by Honda, in [0028], after a focus point is set by a user a frame for selecting an enlargement point is displayed on the live view image; wherein after the camera control unit enlarges and displays the image, as such Honda shows a centered image of a face in Fig. 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an object/human recognition logic as taught by Sandstrom could have been implemented in an apparatus as taught by Honda, thus to let a user choose an exact shape to focus and enlarge…).
21. Regarding claim 7, Honda in view of Takahashi and Sandstrom teaches the imaging device according to claim 6 (see claim 6 above), wherein
the control target part is selected by a user from the recognizable parts (…wherein Honda, in [0028], teaches the enlarging and displaying of regions selected by a use…).
22. Regarding claim 10, Honda in view of Takahashi and Sandstrom teaches the imaging device according to claim 4 (see claim 4 above), wherein the operations further comprise:
causing the display to display the image portion centered on the subject that has been recognized in the live view image as the magnified image to be displayed after the imaging instruction (…wherein Honda, in [0021], teaches that when the focusing mode is automatic a focus point is set based on a predetermined condition, as such a center point; further [0028] teaches that when after a focus point is set by a user, a frame for selecting an enlargement point is displayed on the live view image; wherein after the camera control unit enlarges and displays the image within the in-focus point (Fig. 6)…).
23. Regarding claim 11, Honda in view of Takahashi and Sandstrom teaches the imaging device according to claim 10,wherein the operations further comprise:
determining a region of the subject to be displayed as the magnified image to be displayed after the imaging instruction, according to a category of the subject (…wherein Honda, in [0027], teaches that a user may be notified that an in-focus point has been achieved, element 501 is displayed as depicted in Fig. 5. Further, Sandstrom, in [0067], teaches an object recognition logic 282 and a human recognition logic; wherein as taught in [0069] the units may detect objects in images and boundaries of the objects (e.g., humans and faces within an image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an object/human recognition logic as taught by Sandstrom could have been implemented in an apparatus as taught by Honda, thus to let a user choose an exact shape to focus and enlarge…).
24. Regarding claim 12, Honda in view of Sandstrom teaches the imaging device according to claim 11 (see claim 11 above), wherein the operations further comprise:
causing the display to display an image portion centered on a recognized control target part of recognizable parts according to the category of the subject as the magnified image to be displayed after the imaging instruction (…wherein Honda, [0021], teaches that when the focusing mode is automatic a focus point is set based on a predetermined condition, as such a center point; further [0028] teaches that when after a focus point is set by a user a frame for selecting an enlargement point is displayed on the live view image; wherein after the camera control unit enlarges and displays the image within the in-focus point (Fig. 6). Further, Sandstrom, in [0067], teaches an object recognition logic 282 and a human recognition logic; wherein as taught in [0069] the units may detect objects in images and boundaries of the objects (e.g., humans and faces within an image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an object/human recognition logic as taught by Sandstrom could have been implemented in an apparatus as taught by Honda, thus to let a user choose an exact shape to focus and enlarge…).
25. Regarding claim 13, Honda in view of Takahashi and Sandstrom teaches the imaging device according to claim 12 (see claim 12 above), wherein
the control target part is selected by a user from the recognizable parts (…wherein
Honda, in [0028], teaches that a focus point is set by a user and a frame for selecting an
enlargement point is displayed on the live view image;
Sandstrom further, in [0067], teaches an object recognition logic 282 and a human
recognition logic; wherein as taught in [0069] the units may detect objects in images and
boundaries of the objects (e.g., humans and faces within an image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention that an object/human recognition logic as taught by
Sandstrom could have been implemented in an apparatus as taught by Honda, thus to let
a user choose an exact shape to focus and enlarge…).
26. Regarding claim 15, Honda in view of Takahashi and Sandstrom teaches the imaging device according to claim 4, wherein the operations further comprise:
causing the display to display an image portion in the same area as an area of the magnified image in the live view image displayed at a time of the imaging instruction (…Honda, in [0021], teaches that when the focusing mode is automatic a focus point is set based on a predetermined condition, as such a center point; further [0028] teaches that when after a focus point is set by a user a frame for selecting an enlargement point is displayed on the live view image; wherein after the camera control unit enlarges and displays the image within the in-focus point (Fig. 6)…), or
the image portion centered on the subject that has been recognized in the live view image, as the magnified image to be displayed after the imaging instruction according to a predetermined condition.
27. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (JP2008160744A) in view of Takahashi (JP2021150775A) and further view of Ogawa ((US 2019/0004400 A1).
28. Regarding claim 9, Honda in view of Takahashi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above). Honda does not further teach the operations further comprise:
causing the display to display an image portion in the same area as an area of the magnified image in the live view image displayed at a time of the imaging instruction as the magnified image to be displayed after the imaging instruction (…however, Ogawa teaches a magnification indicator indicating a magnified position within a live view (LV) image; as such, different magnification levels can be set and be displayed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a magnification indicator as taught by Ogawa by could have been implemented in the apparatus taught by Honda, so to give a user the option to select different levels of magnification in the process of image capturing…).
29. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (JP2008160744A) in view of Takahashi (JP2021150775A) and further view Posa et al. (US 2012/0038796 A1).
30. Regarding claim 16, Honda in view of Takahashi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein the operations further comprise:
causing the display to display an image portion centered on the subject as the magnified image to be displayed after the imaging instruction when the subject is in the live view image (…wherein Honda teaches the enlarging and displaying of regions selected by a user, [0028] teaches that after a focus point is set by a user a frame for selecting an enlargement point is displayed on the live view image; wherein after the camera control unit enlarges and displays the image, as such Honda shows a centered image of a face in Fig. 6…).
Honda in view of Takahashi doesn’t further teach
causing the display to display the live view image instead of the magnified image to be displayed after the imaging instruction when a subject goes out of the live view images (…however, Posa, in [0017], teaches that an identified subject in a field of view of an apparatus determines if a target begins to move or leave within a field of view, in which case the apparatus automatically zooms out.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an apparatus as taught by Posa could have been implemented in the life view imaging as taught by Honda, thus to improve an ability of imaging apparatus to track an object as the object moves within the field of view of the apparatus…).
31. Regarding claim 17, Honda in view of Takahashi teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above). However, Honda in view of Takahashi doesn’t further teach wherein the operations further comprise:
determining whether or not to continuously display the magnified image after the imaging instruction according to a motion of a subject (…(…however, Posa, in [0017], teaches that an identified subject in a field of view of an apparatus determines if a target begins to move or leave within a field of view, in which case the apparatus automatically zooms out.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an apparatus as taught by Posa could have been implemented in the life view imaging as taught by Honda, thus to improve an
ability of imaging apparatus to track an object as the object moves within the field of
view of the apparatus…).
Conclusion
32. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SURAFEL YILMAKASSAYE whose telephone number is (703)756-1910. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
/SURAFEL YILMAKASSAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639