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, filed on 06/24/2026, are acknowledged. Amended claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-12 and 14-21 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1,19, and 20 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Yoshimi (US2018184009A1) and Fujifilm Manual Focus Tools (further referred to as Dual Display).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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.
5. Claims 1-2, 8, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Yoshimi US 2018/0184009 A1 in view of Dual Display.
6. Regarding claim 1, an imaging device (…Yoshimi, in [0026], teaches digital camera 100; Fig. 1, Fig. 2…) comprising:
a memory storing a program (…[0034] teaches a non-volatile memory 56 for storing programs for executing a process; Fig. 1…), and
at least one processor configured to execute the program to perform operations (…wherein [0035] teaches system control unit 50 as a processor for controlling digital camera 100 to execute programs recorded in memory 56…) comprising:
causing a display to continuously display a first image that is a magnified portion of a second image that is a live view image based on a third image that is an input image after receiving an imaging instruction during display of the first image by the display, (…[0050], in accordance with Fig. 4, teaches S402 wherein an image based on image data input is displayed; wherein [0053] teaches a determination if magnified mode has been detected wherein a magnified form of the image is displayed; in S409 it is determined if shutter switch 62 (signal SW1) has been input; if so, SW1 process is performed (imaging preparation processing) after which MF operation S411 determines if to proceed to S413 ([0056]); in step S414 a determination is made if SW2 has been input; if so imaging operation is performed in S415…), wherein
the imaging instruction comprises a full press of a shutter button of the imaging device (…wherein the input of SW2, as taught in [0057], is viewed as a full press for recording image data…); and
causing the display to continuously display the first image after receiving the imaging instruction is carried out in response to a return-to-focus-magnification setting being on (…wherein after an imaging operation in S415, derived from process S412 or S413, flowchart goes back to operation 1 in which the process may eventually proceed to S405 after steps S402 and S403, wherein it may eventually be determined to perform step S408 (display image in magnified form)…), and
in response to the imaging instruction, recording the second image during display of the first image (…wherein figures 5A and 5B each display an image that is either in normal view (5A) or at a magnification of an AF/MF mode (5B); the reference doesn’t teach a dual display wherein, for example, the image of Fig. 5B is displayed while the image of Fig. 5A is captured.
However, Dual Display, between the times of 6:24-7:39, teaches dual display wherein in in manual focus mode two windows are displayed, a larger window (for displaying the entire frame) and a smaller one (for focus zoom of a magnified in focus area.
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 split screen display, as taught by Dual Display, can be beneficially implemented in an image capturing device, as taught by Yoshimi, thereby aiding a user determine a proper focus level during image capturing…).
7. Regarding claim 2, Yoshimi in view of Dual Display teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
the display resumes display of the first image after the imaging instruction (…wherein Yoshimi, according Fig. 4, teaches step S408 in which a magnified image is displayed; wherein this takes place after an imaging operation in step S415 and the flowchart in Fig. 4 repeats process 1 before step S402…).
8. Regarding claim 8, Yoshimi in view of Dual Display teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein the operations further comprise:
causing the display to display, as the first image, an image portion centered on a subject in focus (…wherein Yoshimi, in [0056], teaches a control unit 50 for adjusting a focus position in accordance with AF+MF mode in step S413; in step S408 a magnified image is already displayed…).
9. Regarding claim 18, 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 first image to the live view image according to the mode, or continuously display the first image after the imaging instruction according to the set mode (…wherein Yoshimi, in Fig. 4, teaches step S411, depending on whether an MF operation is yes or no, a displayed is either displayed in magnified view (S413) or in normal view (S412)…).
10. Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected for reasons related to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
11. Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected for reasons related to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
12. Regarding claim 21, Yoshimi in view of Dual Display teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
causing the display to continuously display the first image includes a temporary display of another image (…wherein Dual Display teaches a display of a larger and smaller windows, at 6:50-7:05.
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 split screen display, as taught by Dual Display, can be beneficially implemented in an image capturing device, as taught by Yoshimi, thereby aiding a user determine a proper focus level during image capturing…).
13. Claims 4-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimi US 2018/0184009 A1 in view of Dual Display and further view of Sandstrom et al. (US 2019/0208113 A1).
14. Regarding claim 4, Yoshimi in view of Dual Display teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein the operations further comprise:
recognizing a subject on a basis of the input image, wherein the display displays, as the first image, an image portion centered on the subject that has been recognized in the live view image (…wherein Dual Display, at 7:29-7:39, teaches that a focus area can be selected through user interaction of selecting a particular area (focused on trees) within a live view image, so to display as a magnified portion of the live view image; further, Sandstrom, in [0067], teaches object or human recognition logics…), wherein
the subject is a control target part (…wherein, as taught by Dual Display, the user selects what particular region to select within the live view image…), and wherein,
after the imaging instruction, the first image is moved such that the control target part is kept centered on the display (…wherein the selected region is kept central in the window displaying the focus and magnification region.
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 split screen display, as taught by Dual Display, in combination with the recognition logics as taught by Sandstrom, can be beneficially implemented in an image capturing device, as taught by Yoshimi, thereby aiding a user determine a proper focus level during image capturing…).
15. Regarding claim 5, Yoshimi in view of Dual Display and further view of 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 first image according to a category of the subject (…wherein Dual Display, at 7:29-7:39, teaches that a focus area can be selected through user interaction of selecting a particular area (focused on trees) within a live view image, so to display as a magnified portion of the live view 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 split screen display, as taught by Dual Display, in combination with the recognition logics as taught by Sandstrom, can be beneficially implemented in an image capturing device, as taught by Yoshimi, thereby aiding a user determine a proper focus level during image capturing…).
16. Regarding claim 6, Yoshimi in view of Dual Display and further view of 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 first 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 or human recognition logics to implement with a camera unit so to recognize human or other objects ([0067]), Dual Display further teaches a focus area can be selected through user interaction of selecting a particular area (focused on trees) within a live view image, so to display as a magnified portion of the live view 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 split screen display, as taught by Dual Display, in combination with the recognition logics as taught by Sandstrom, can be beneficially implemented in an image capturing device, as taught by Yoshimi, thereby aiding a user determine a proper focus level during image capturing…).
17. Regarding claim 7, Yoshimi in view of Dual Display and further view of Sandstrom teaches the imaging device according to claim 6, wherein
the control target part is selected by a user from the recognizable parts (…wherein Sandstrom teaches object or human recognition logics to implement with a camera unit so to recognize human or other objects ([0067]), Dual Display further teaches a focus area can be selected through user interaction of selecting a particular area (focused on trees) within a live view image, so to display as a magnified portion of the live view 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 split screen display, as taught by Dual Display, in combination with the recognition logics as taught by Sandstrom, can be beneficially implemented in an image capturing device, as taught by Yoshimi, thereby aiding a user determine a proper focus level during image capturing…).
18. Regarding claim 10, Yoshimi in view of Dual Display and further view of 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 first image to be displayed after the imaging instruction (…wherein Dual Display teaches a window that is based on a selection of a user displaying a magnified portion of a live view 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 split screen display, as taught by Dual Display, in combination with the recognition logics as taught by Sandstrom, can be beneficially implemented in an image capturing device, as taught by Yoshimi, thereby aiding a user determine a proper focus level during image capturing…).
19. Regarding claim 11, Yoshimi in view of Dual Display and further view of Sandstrom teaches the imaging device according to claim 10 (see claim 10 above), wherein the operations further comprise:
determining a region of the subject to be displayed as the first image to be displayed after the imaging instruction, according to a category of the subject (…wherein Sandstrom teaches object or human recognition logics to implement with a camera unit so to recognize human or other objects, Dual Display teaches the selection of a region so to be displayed as a magnified portion of a live view 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 split screen display, as taught by Dual Display, in combination with the recognition logics as taught by Sandstrom, can be beneficially implemented in an image capturing device, as taught by Yoshimi, thereby aiding a user determine a proper focus level during image capturing…).
20. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimi US 2018/0184009 A1 in view of Dual Display and further view of Ogawa (US 2019/0004400 A1).
21. Regarding claim 9, Yoshimi in view of Dual Display teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above). The combined references do not further teach wherein
the operations further comprise:
causing the display to display an image portion in the same area as an area of the first image in the live view image displayed at a time of the imaging instruction as the first 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 Yoshimi, so to give a
user the option to select different levels of magnification in the process of image
capturing…).
22. Claims 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimi US 2018/0184009 A1 in view of Dual Display and Sandstrom et al. (US 2019/0208113 A1) and further view of Honda (JP2008160744A).
23. Regarding claim 12, Yoshimi in view of Dual Display and further 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 of the first image to be displayed after the imaging instruction (…wherein Yoshimi teaches step S402 wherein after an imaging instruction in step S415 the flowchart loops back to operation 1 wherein in “During Imaging Standby” display unit 28 displays image based on image data input, as taught in [0050] (which is a continuation of step S415. Honda, in [0021], further teaches a focusing mode in which a focus point is set based on a predetermined condition, as such a center point, Sandstrom teaches object or human recognition logics to implement with a camera unit so to recognize human or other objects, in [0067];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that object recognition, so to be made center point, in an operation of focus setting, as taught by Honda and Sandstrom, is beneficial to an imaging apparatus as taught by Yoshimi thereby aiding a user determine a proper focus level for image capturing …).
24. Regarding claim 13, Yoshimi in view of Dual Display and Sandstrom and further view of Honda 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 Dual Display teaches the selection of a region according to user operation (06:24-07:39), Sandstrom further teaches object or human recognition logics to implement with a camera unit so to recognize human or other objects, in [0067].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that object recognition, as taught by Sandstrom, helps a user determine a selectable region during the processes of capturing an image…).
25. Regarding claim 15, Yoshimi in view of Dual Display and Sandstrom teaches the imaging device according to claim 4 (see claim 4 above). The combined references do not further teach wherein the operations further comprise:
causing the display to display an image portion in the same area as an area of the first image in the live view image displayed at a time of the imaging instruction (…however, Honda, in [0021], teaches that when in an automatic focusing mode, 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).
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
Honda by could have been implemented in the apparatus taught by Yoshimi, so to give a
user the option to select different levels of magnification in the process of image
capturing…).
26. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimi US 2018/0184009 A1 in view of Dual Display and further view of Honda (JP2008160744A).
27. Regarding claim 14, Yoshimi in view of Dual Display 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 a subject in focus as the first image to be displayed after the imaging instruction (…wherein Dual Display, between 7:29-7:39, teaches that the focus area can be moved in accordance with a user operation, a centering operation thus can be relative to a user’s determination. Further, Honda, in [0021], teaches a focusing mode in which a focus point is set based on a predetermined condition, as such a center point.
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 split screen display, as taught by Dual Display, can be beneficially implemented in an image capturing device, as taught by Yoshimi, in which a focus point in an image is central, thereby aiding a user determine a proper focus level during image capturing…).
28. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimi US 2018/0184009 A1 in view of Dual Display and Honda (JP2008160744A) and further view of Posa et al. (US 2012/0038796 A1).
29. Regarding claim 16, Yoshimi in view of Dual Display teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above). The combined reference doesn’t further teach 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
(…however, 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 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 an imaging apparatus to track an object as the object moves within the field of view of the imaging apparatus…).
30. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimi US 2018/0184009 A1 in view of Dual Display and Posa et al. (US 2012/0038796 A1).
31. Regarding claim 17, Yoshimi in view of Dual Display teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above). The combined references do not further teach wherein the operations further comprise:
determining whether or not to continuously display the first 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. 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
Prosecution Insights