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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy of Japanese patent application number 2022-091160, filed on June 3, 2022, has been received and made of record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (lDS) submitted on 11/26/2024 and 10/03/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “acquisition unit”, and “breathing correction unit” in claims 1-5 and 14-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3, 6-11, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozone et al. (US 2022/0108541 A1, hereinafter “Ozone”), in view of Cao et al. (US 20140313374 A1, hereinafter “Cao”).
Regarding claim 1, Ozone teaches an information processing device (Figs. 1&6: mobile terminal 2) comprising:
a meta-information acquisition unit (Figs. 5-6&9: metadata generation processing (step S93))configured to acquire meta-information regarding Figs. 5-6&9, [0232]&[0249]-[0261]: metadata generation processing of step S93 is, for example, processing of generating metadata associated with moving image according to IMU data obtained by sensor unit 23 or a camera control signal. Fig. 9 shows examples of correction parameters in the metadata);
and a meta-information associating unit (Figs. 5-6&9: image file generation processing (step S94)) configured to associate the meta-information acquired by the meta-information acquisition unit with the moving image (Figs. 5-6&9, [0233]&[0249]-[0261]: the image file generation processing of step S94 is performed to generate an image file including the image data subjected to the camera processing of step S92 and the metadata generated through the metadata generation processing of step S93, and the image file MF is generated.).
Ozone does not teach wherein the meta-information regarding correction breathing.
However, Cao discloses wherein the meta-information regarding breathing correction (Figs. 1-3, [0011], [0071]&[0078]-[0079]: associate each captured image (in a video)) with a magnification value to compensate for visual effects of lens breathing when capturing a sequence of images with variations in magnification, for example arising from variations in focus.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the meta-information regarding breathing correction as taught by Cao into Ozone information processing device. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would be to perform breathing correction in order to enable compensation for visual effects resulting from changes in magnification between two consecutively captured images (Cao: [0013]).
Regarding claim 2, Ozone and Cao combination teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, in addition Ozone discloses further comprising: an imaging element configured to capture an object image incident through a lens device including a focus lens (Fig. 2, [0148]: lens system 11 includes, for example, lenses such as a cover lens, a zoom lens, and a focus lens, and an aperture mechanism.).
Regarding claim 3, Ozone and Cao combination teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, in addition Cao discloses further comprising: an internal breathing correction unit configured to perform internal breathing correction for the moving image on a basis of the meta-information. (Fig. 2, [0082]: The digital compensation for variations in magnification between two successively captured images (video) in a sequence also allows keeping the autofocusing module active during continuous acquisition of a sequence of digital images.)
Regarding claim 6, Ozone and Cao combination teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, in addition Cao discloses wherein the meta-information includes information regarding a minimum value and a maximum value of a correction amount of the breathing correction. (Fig. 3 : [0079]: With such a calibration table, controlling the positions of the autofocusing module for each image allows determining the respective magnification values for each captured image.)
Regarding claim 7, Ozone and Cao combination teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, in addition Cao discloses wherein the meta-information includes at least one of information regarding presence or absence of execution of the internal breathing correction or information regarding a correction amount when the internal breathing correction is performed (Fig. 2, [0077]: the electronic processing unit of the system detects a difference between the magnification values G1 and G2 of two successively captured images (step 103), it determines a digital compensation C for the variation in magnification (step 104).).
Regarding claim 8, Ozone and Cao combination teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, in addition Cao discloses wherein the meta-information includes information regarding presence or absence of limitation in the internal breathing correction, information regarding a correction amount before the limitation of the internal breathing correction, and information regarding a correction amount after the limitation of the internal breathing correction (Fig. 2, [0077]: the electronic processing unit of the system detects a difference between the magnification values G1 and G2 of two successively captured images (step 103), it determines a digital compensation C for the variation in magnification (step 104).).
Regarding claim 9, Ozone and Cao combination teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, in addition Cao discloses wherein the meta-information includes information regarding a position of a focus lens and a position of a zoom lens detected at an interval shorter than an imaging cycle of each frame constituting the moving image ([0071]: The electronic processing unit 5 is also able to differentiate whether a variation in magnification between the two captured images arises from a change in focal length of the lens unit 2 (a controlled zoom) or a change in focus in order to focus on the scene to be imaged. The lens system 11 includes a zoom lens, and a focus lens).
Regarding claim 10, Ozone and Cao combination teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, in addition Ozone discloses wherein the meta-information includes information regarding a setting of the imaging element at a time of capturing the moving image ([0254]: An example of content of the metadata is illustrated in FIG. 9B, IMU data, coordinate transformation parameter HP, timing information TM, and camera parameter CP are described for one frame.).
Regarding claim 11, Ozone and Cao combination teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, in addition Cao discloses wherein the meta-information includes information regarding presence or absence of execution of optical breathing correction for the moving image (Fig. 2, [0077]: the electronic processing unit of the system detects a difference between the magnification values G1 and G2 of two successively captured images (step 103), it determines a digital compensation C for the variation in magnification (step 104).).
Regarding claim 13, Ozone and Cao combination teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, in addition Ozone discloses wherein the meta-information is classified into one of frame meta-information associated with each frame constituting the moving image and clip meta-information associated with the moving image ([0249]-[0261]: An example of content of the metadata is illustrated in FIG. 9B, IMU data, coordinate transformation parameter HP, timing information TM, and camera parameter CP are described for one frame.).
Regarding claim 16, Method claim 16 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, method claim 16 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 4-5, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the Ozone and Cao combination as applied above, in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 20170034421 A1, hereinafter “Yamazaki”).
Regarding claim 4, Ozone and Cao combination teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, except wherein the meta-information associating unit is capable of switching whether or not to associate the moving image with the meta-information.
However, Yamazaki discloses wherein the meta-information associating unit is capable of switching whether or not to associate the moving image with the meta-information (Fig. 6, [0076]-[0081]: In Step S608, the parameter generating unit 117 records the metadata in the volatile memory 105 based on the result of determination in Step S607. Then either adds the metadata generated at S608 to the image acquired by photographing based on the status of the switch SW2 at S609).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the meta-information associating unit is capable of switching whether or not to associate the moving image with the meta-information as taught by Yamazaki into Ozone and Cao combination. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would be to perform breathing correction in order to quickly determine whether or not refocusing for bringing a plurality of objects on the photographed image into focus is possible (Yamazaki: [0008]).
Regarding claim 5, Ozone, Cao and Yamazaki combination teaches the information processing device according to claim 4, in addition Yamazaki discloses wherein the meta-information associating unit is capable of switching whether or not to associate the moving image with the meta-information on a basis of at least one of diaphragm information at a time of capturing the moving image, information of an imaging element, information of a position of a focus lens and a position of a zoom lens, information regarding internal breathing correction, or information regarding a recording medium on which the moving image is recorded (Fig. 6, [0076]-[0081]: In Step S608, the parameter generating unit 117 records the metadata in the volatile memory 105 based on the result of determination in Step S607 which determines whether or not the refocusing for bringing each of the objects into focus is possible).
Regarding claim 14, Ozone and Cao combination teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, except wherein the meta-information associating unit is capable of changing the meta-information to be associated with on a basis of a predetermined condition.
However, Yamazaki discloses wherein the meta-information associating unit is capable of changing the meta-information to be associated with on a basis of a predetermined condition (Fig. 6, [0076]-[0081]: In Step S608, the parameter generating unit 117 records the metadata in the volatile memory 105 based on the result of determination in Step S607 which determines whether or not the refocusing for bringing each of the objects into focus is possible. Then either adds the metadata generated at S608 to the image acquired by photographing based on the status of the switch SW2 at S609).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the meta-information associating unit is capable of changing the meta-information to be associated with on a basis of a predetermined condition as taught by Yamazaki into Ozone and Cao combination. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would be to perform breathing correction in order to quickly determine whether or not refocusing for bringing a plurality of objects on the photographed image into focus is possible (Yamazaki: [0008]).
Regarding claim 15, Ozone, Cao and Yamazaki combination teaches the information processing device according to claim 14, in addition Yamazaki discloses wherein the meta-information associating unit is capable of switching the meta-information to be associated with on a basis of at least one of diaphragm information at a time of capturing the moving image, information of an imaging element, information of a position of a focus lens and a position of a zoom lens, information regarding internal breathing correction, or information regarding a recording medium on which the moving image is recorded (Fig. 6, [0076]-[0081]: In Step S608, the parameter generating unit 117 records the metadata in the volatile memory 105 based on the result of determination in Step S607 which determines whether or not the refocusing for bringing each of the objects into focus is possible).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the Ozone and Cao combination as applied above, in view of STERN; Jonathan Michael (US 20170134620 A1, hereinafter “STERN”).
Regarding claim 12, Ozone and Cao combination teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, except wherein the meta-information includes information regarding executability of breathing correction based on a correction amount for each line of each frame constituting the moving image.
However, STERN discloses wherein the meta-information includes information regarding executability of breathing correction based on a correction amount for each line of each frame constituting the moving image (Figs. 1-3, [0047]: image breathing correction process involves using a one line buffer in the memory and applying the correction to form a corrected line of image data line by line.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the meta-information includes information regarding executability of breathing correction based on a correction amount for each line of each frame constituting the moving image as taught by STERN into Ozone and Cao combination. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would be to enable real time processing of high-speed scans, significantly reducing latency and memory requirements, essential for artifacts corrections.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELAAZIZ TISSIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, Ye Lin can be reached on 571-272-7372. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDELAAZIZ TISSIRE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638