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 .
This action is in response to Application filed on 09/25/2024
Application is a 371 of PCT/JP2023/015646 04/19/2023
Application claims a FP date of 05/12/2022
Claims 1 and 20-21 are independent
Claims 1-21 are pending
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the instant Application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4). Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claims 21 recites, inter alia, "A program causing …. To perform a process …" After close inspection of the specification, the Examiner interprets the “program” to potentially be stored as a transitory propagating signal and therefore the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. However, the Examiner respectfully submits a claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. For additional information, please see the Patents' Official Gazette notice published February 23, 2010 (1351 OG 212). A suggested preamble might include “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program, executable by a computer”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 14-15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seki et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0027187 A1 ).
Regarding Claim 1, Seki discloses an imaging device (Fig 1 – camera system) comprising:
an imaging element unit (Fig 1 – image sensor 102) that is exposed to incident light and that outputs a captured image signal (¶0037-¶0038);
a notification unit (follow-shot assist controller 134); and
a control unit (Fig 10 system controller 130) that performs control in such a way as to cause the notification unit to perform notification (In ¶0047 and throughout, Seki discloses that the follow shot assist controller 134 is provided in the system controller 130 and controls the process) corresponding to still image capture exposure (In ¶0047, Seki also discloses that the controller 134 notifies the AE controller 132 of a shutter control amount such that a blur angle in exposure and controls the flow amount in the image), which is performed by the imaging element unit to generate a still image in response to a still image capture instruction, in a period different from an exposure period of the still image capture exposure (Seki discloses this process in the flow chart of Fig 4 and throughout, especially in ¶0072 - ¶0078 where he discloses the exposure control (Step S402) happens prior to the capture of still image (S403) which is clearly reads on “in a period different from an exposure period of the still image capture exposure”).
Regarding Claim 14, Seki discloses wherein the control unit performs control in such a way as to present a result of a determination as to an image capture condition during a display period of an image based on a captured image signal obtained through the still image capture exposure (Seki: In ¶0041-¶0043 Seki discloses that the image capture condition such as shutter speed, a follow-shot assist results and object position are displayed on the display unit. Further he also discloses that the shutter switch 115 instructs AE process and exposure start to the system controller and the image capturing condition and follow assist results are embedded in the still image).
Regarding Claim 15, Seki discloses wherein the result of the determination as to the image capture condition includes a result of a determination as to a situation of camera shake correction (In ¶0054 (and ¶0099) Seki discloses the reduction in image blur caused by camera vibration or a manual blur), a situation of excessive or insufficient exposure, a situation of tracking or loss of a tracking subject, or a situation of in-focus or out-of-focus (Seki: In ¶0041-¶0043 Seki discloses that the image capture condition such as shutter speed, Further he also discloses that the shutter switch 115 instructs AE process and exposure start to the system controller. In ¶0038, Seki discloses that the shutter 101 controls an exposure amount. Further in ¶0076, Seki discloses that the image capturing condition include lens information, shutter speed and F-number).
Regarding Claim 20, this claim is a method claim that has limitations parallel to claim 1. Claim 20 is therefore rejected on the same grounds as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 21, this claim is a program claim that has limitations parallel to claim 1. Claim 21 is therefore rejected on the same grounds as Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0027187 A1 ) in view of Mizutani (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0328370 A1 – Since the FP date of Mizutani is prior to the instant Application, Mizutani is a prior art until such time as the record shows that the exceptions apply).
Regarding Claim 2, Seki discloses notification unit but, Seki fails to clearly disclose wherein the notification unit is a vibration unit that vibrates a housing, and
the control unit performs control such that the vibration unit performs vibration corresponding to the still image capture exposure within a display period of an image based on a captured image signal obtained through the still image capture exposure.
Instead in a similar endeavor, Mizutani discloses wherein the notification unit is a vibration unit that vibrates a housing (Mizutani in ¶0003 teaches that image pickup apparatus that can notify the user of the operation by vibration by causing vibration device to vibrate simultaneously with the operation. Further in ¶0018 he teaches that vibration device 100 serves as a vibration generator and is provided in the front grip portion 90 – which can be interpreted as part of “a housing”), and
the control unit performs control such that the vibration unit performs vibration corresponding to the still image capture exposure within a display period of an image based on a captured image signal obtained through the still image capture exposure (Mizutani teaches this throughout his disclosure, especially in ¶0050-¶0051 where he teaches that the first vibration is effecting in informing the user that imaging (exposure) has definitely started and the second vibration occurs in step S2005 to inform the user of the end of imaging).
Seki and Mizutani are combinable because both are related to imaging devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the vibration device as taught by Mizutani in the imaging module disclosed by Seki.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “notify the user” as disclosed by Mizutani in ¶0003 since the electronic shutter does not generate and operating noise unlike the mechanical shutter, and is thus difficult for the user to recognize the imaging timing as disclosed in ¶0002.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Seki and Mizutani to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 8, Seki in view of Mizutani discloses wherein the control unit controls presence or absence of notification performed by the notification unit or execution timing of the notification in accordance with the exposure time of the still image capture exposure (Mizutani: In ¶0050-¶0052, Mizutani teaches that the first vibration is effecting in informing the user that imaging (exposure) has definitely started and the second vibration occurs in step S2005 to inform the user of the end of imaging).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0027187 A1 ) in view of Hu (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2021/03366438 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Seki fails to clearly disclose wherein the control unit presents the result of the determination as to the image capture condition by changing a display mode of an entire still image.
Instead in a similar endeavor, Hu discloses wherein the control unit presents the result of the determination as to the image capture condition by changing a display mode of an entire still image (In ¶0037, Hu teaches adjusting display parameters on a display object in the image. He also teaches adjusting display parameters on a region or in a peripheral region so as to ensure higher display quality).
Seki and Hu are combinable because both are related to imaging devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change display parameters as taught by Hu in the imaging module disclosed by Seki.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “ensure higher display quality” as disclosed by Hu in ¶0037.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Seki and Hu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17, Seki in view of Hu discloses wherein the control unit presents the result of the determination as to the image capture condition by changing a display mode of a peripheral region of the still image (In ¶0037, Hu teaches adjusting display parameters on a display object in the image. He also teaches adjusting display parameters on a region or in a peripheral region so as to ensure higher display quality).
Regarding Claim 18, Seki in view of Hu discloses wherein the control unit changes a display mode stepwise in accordance with the result of the determination as to the image capture condition (Hu teaches, throughout his disclosure, the method of layer-based display – As further taught in S24 of Fig 2, Hu teaches that the module performs display parameter adjustment on the layer data based on image adjustment instruction and renders and merges the layer data subjected to display parameter adjustment. – Examiner would like to state that “stepwise” has not been disclosed in the claim – therefore Examiner’s interpretation are reasonable).
Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seki et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0027187 A1 ) in view of Mizutani (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0328370 A1 – Since the FP date of Mizutani is prior to the instant Application, Mizutani is a prior art until such time as the record shows that the exceptions apply) as applied to Claim 2 above and further in view of Noda et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0018820 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Seki in view of Mizutani discloses wherein the housing has a structure in which a lens barrel is replaceable (Seki: Seki discloses using interchangeable lens 200 which is detachably attached to the camera body 100),
However, Saki in view of Mizutani fails to clearly disclose that the control unit sets a vibration mode of the vibration unit in accordance with type information regarding the lens barrel attached to the housing.
Instead in a similar endeavor, Noda discloses the control unit sets a vibration mode of the vibration unit in accordance with type information regarding the lens barrel attached to the housing (Noda in the Abstract and throughout teaches that the apparatus allows external apparatus that is detachably attachable and includes a controlling unit configured to make a vibration device vibrate by using a vibration parameter corresponding to a type of external apparatus to be attached to the apparatus, the vibration device being provided on at least one of the electronic apparatus and the external apparatus. Further in Fig 6 and corresponding disclosure he teaches about lens barrel vibration device controller 139).
Seki, Hu and Noda are combinable because all are related to imaging devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change display parameters as taught by Hu and use the vibration device as taught by Noda in the imaging module disclosed by Seki.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “ensure higher display quality” as disclosed by Hu in ¶0037 and to “reproduce complex and various tactile sensations such as high quality click feeling” as disclosed by Noda in ¶0004.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Seki, Hu and Noda to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 9-13 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.
Reference Cited
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakamura (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0232095 A1) discloses a vibration apparatus includes a vibrating unit, and a control unit configured to control vibration of the vibrating unit. The control unit changes a vibration pattern of the vibrating unit by controlling the vibrating unit so as to change at least one of a vibration amplitude, a vibration frequency, and a vibration time according to at least one of a detection result of an offset amount from an in-focus position and a detection result of a predetermined object image in a mode that continuously performs autofocus processing.
Kuwahara (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0037186 A1) discloses an imaging device, a solid-state imaging element, a camera module, a drive control unit, and an imaging method for enabling reliable correction of an influence of a motion on an image. A state determination unit determines a state of a motion of an imaging unit that performs imaging to acquire an image via an optical system that collects light, and an exposure control unit performs at least control for an exposure time of the imaging unit according to a determination result by the state determination unit. Then, relative driving for the optical system or the imaging unit is performed to optically correct a blur appearing in the image according to an exposure period of one frame by the exposure time, and driving for resetting a relative positional relationship between the optical system and the imaging unit, the relative positional relationship being caused during the exposure period, is performed according to a non-exposure period in which exposure is not performed between the frames. The present technology can be applied to, for example, a stacked CMOS image sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PADMA HALIYUR whose telephone number is (571)272-3287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM - 4PM.
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.
/PADMA HALIYUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639 March 19, 2026