CTFR 18/893,987 CTFR 86258 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 10, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (United States Patent Application Publication 2010/0123795) in view of Shin et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0144294), hereinafter referenced as Shin . Regarding claim 1, Ikeda discloses an imaging method comprising: an imaging step of generating image data by performing imaging through an imaging lens (paragraph 15 teaches capturing an image); a detection step of detecting a first subject and a second subject from the image data (paragraph 23 teaches detecting multiple subjects in the image); and an adjustment step of performing imaging adjustment in the imaging step based on a state of the second subject (paragraph 24 teaches determining the exposure based on the subject in the spotlight area). However, Ikeda fails to disclose a first focusing step of focusing on the first subject, wherein, in a case in which the first subject is set in the first focusing step, the adjustment step performs exposure control based on the second subject. Yoshida is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Yoshida teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of allowing a user to set different subjects for focus and exposure control would have prompted a predictable variation of Ikeda by applying Yoshida’s known principal of a first focusing step of focusing on a first subject, wherein, in a case in which the first subject is set in the first focusing step, the adjustment step performs exposure control based on the second subject (figure 7 exhibits a process in which separate focus and exposure subjects can be set as disclosed at paragraph 43). When applying this known technique to Ikeda, it would have been obvious that in a case in which a user sets the larger subject in a lower light area as a subject for focusing, the subject H2 can still be used for autoexposure. In view of the motivations such as allowing a user to set different subjects for focus and exposure control one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Ikeda. 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, Ikeda in view of Shin discloses the imaging method according to claim 1, wherein the state is brightness (paragraph 20 teaches determining high brightness areas), and in the adjustment step, exposure is adjusted (paragraph 24 teaches adjusting the exposure). Regarding claim 3, Ikeda in view of Shin discloses the imaging method according to claim 2, wherein the adjustment step includes a determination step of determining whether or not an imaging environment is a specific imaging environment based on the brightness of the second subject (paragraph 20 teaches determining high brightness areas which indicate a spotlight imaging environment), and in the adjustment step, the exposure is adjusted based on a determination result in the determination step (paragraph 24 teaches adjusting the exposure based on the presence of the spotlight area). Regarding claim 4, Ikeda in view of Shin discloses the imaging method according to claim 2, wherein in the adjustment step, the exposure is adjusted by prioritizing the brightness of the second subject over brightness of the first subject (paragraph 24 teaches that only the brightness of the second subject is used thereby prioritizing the brightness of the second subject). Regarding claim 10, Ikeda in view of Shin discloses the imaging method according to claim 1, however, Ikeda fails to disclose a second focusing step of focusing on the second subject; and a selection step of selecting the first focusing step or the second focusing step, wherein in the adjustment step, the imaging adjustment is performed based on the state of the second subject even in a case where any of the first focusing step or the second focusing step is selected. Shin is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Shin teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of allowing a user to decide where to focus would have prompted a predictable variation of Ikeda by applying Shin’s known principal of switching between focusing on different subjects without changing the area used for autoexposure (figure 7 exhibits a flow chart where focus can be changed from a first location at step S730 to a second location at step S750 as disclosed at paragraph 48; this process is followed by setting a separate exposure location as disclosed at paragraph 49). When applying this known technique to Ikeda, it is clear that the combination would result in being able to switch focus between first and second locations while keeping the exposure location at the same point. In view of the motivations such as allowing a user to decide where to focus one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Ikeda. 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, Ikeda discloses an imaging apparatus comprising: a processor (figure 1 exhibits DSP 240 as disclosed at paragraph 16), wherein the processor performs imaging processing of generating image data by performing imaging through an imaging lens (paragraph 15 teaches capturing an image), detection processing of detecting a first subject and a second subject from the image data (paragraph 23 teaches detecting multiple subjects in the image), and adjustment processing of performing imaging adjustment in the imaging processing based on a state of the second subject (paragraph 24 teaches determining the exposure based on the subject in the spotlight area). However, Ikeda fails to disclose first focusing processing of causing the imaging lens to focus on the first subject, wherein, in a case in which the first subject is set in the first focusing step, the adjustment step performs exposure control based on the second subject. Yoshida is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Yoshida teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of allowing a user to set different subjects for focus and exposure control would have prompted a predictable variation of Ikeda by applying Yoshida’s known principal of a first focusing step of focusing on a first subject, wherein, in a case in which the first subject is set in the first focusing step, the adjustment step performs exposure control based on the second subject (figure 7 exhibits a process in which separate focus and exposure subjects can be set as disclosed at paragraph 43). When applying this known technique to Ikeda, it would have been obvious that in a case in which a user sets the larger subject in a lower light area as a subject for focusing, the subject H2 can still be used for autoexposure. In view of the motivations such as allowing a user to set different subjects for focus and exposure control one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Ikeda. 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 12, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 11. However, Ikeda fails to disclose storing an operating program on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. However, it is Applicant Admitted Prior Art (MPEP 2144.03) that both the concepts and advantages of controlling a camera from a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program 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 Ikeda by a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Shin and further in view of Ogawa (United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0091793) . Regarding claim 5, Ikeda in view of Shin discloses the imaging method according to claim 2, however, Ikeda fails to disclose wherein in the adjustment step, the exposure is adjusted such that a difference between brightness of the first subject and the brightness of the second subject after the exposure adjustment is within a predetermined range. Ogawa is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Ogawa teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of ensuring that multiple subjects are properly exposed would have prompted a predictable variation of Ikeda by applying Ogawa’s known principal of setting an exposure so that different subjects can be captured within a set dynamic range of brightness values (paragraph 41 teaches setting the dynamic range for the image which results in adjusting the exposure time as required). In view of the motivations such as ensuring that multiple subjects are properly exposed one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Ikeda. 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Shin and further in view of Chen et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2017/0358063), hereinafter referenced as Chen . Regarding claim 6, Ikeda in view of Shin discloses the imaging method according to claim 1, however, Ikeda fails to disclose wherein in the adjustment step, a tone of the image data is adjusted. Chen is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Chen teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of improving image quality would have prompted a predictable variation of Ikeda by applying Chen’s known principal of dynamically adjusting a tone curve based on luminance intensity (paragraph 45 discusses tone adjustment based on luminance and scene type). In view of the motivations such as improving image quality one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Ikeda. 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Shin and further in view of Yoshida (United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0139034) . Regarding claim 7, Ikeda in view of Shin discloses the imaging method according to claim 1, wherein in the detection step, the first subject and the second subject are detected by using a machine-trained model. Yoshida is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Yoshida teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of improving subject detection accuracy would have prompted a predictable variation of Ikeda by applying Yoshida’s known principal of detecting subjects using a machine learned model (paragraphs 34 and 43 teach detecting subjects using a machine learning model). In view of the motivations such as improving subject detection accuracy one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Ikeda. 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 8, Ikeda in view of Shin discloses the imaging method according to claim 1, wherein the first subject and the second subject are subjects of different types. Yoshida is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Yoshida teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of allowing a user to capture images focused on different kinds of subjects without needing to manually adjust the focal distance would have prompted a predictable variation of Ikeda by applying Yoshida’s known principal of detecting. In view of the motivations such as allowing a user to capture images focused on different kinds of subjects without needing to manually adjust the focal distance one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Ikeda. 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 9, Ikeda in view of Shin and further in view of Yoshida discloses the imaging method according to claim 8, in addition, Ikeda discloses wherein the second subject is a human (figure 2 exhibits wherein the subject in area A1 is a human), and Yoshida discloses the first subject is a subject other than the human (figure 6D shows that a bird may be set as a main subject even when a human is present as disclosed at paragraph 78). Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 Application/Control Number: 18/893,987 Page 2 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/893,987 Page 3 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/893,987 Page 4 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/893,987 Page 5 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/893,987 Page 6 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/893,987 Page 7 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/893,987 Page 8 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/893,987 Page 9 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 18/893,987 Page 10 Art Unit: 2637
Prosecution Insights