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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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:
Object detection unit introduced in claims 1 and 18;
First calculation unit introduced in claims 1 and 18;
Information detection unit introduced in claims 1 and 18;
First setting unit introduced in claims 1 and 18;
Adjustment unit introduced in claims 1 and 18;
Control unit introduced in claims 1 and 18;
Second setting unit introduced in claim 3; and
Second calculation unit introduced claim 11;
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
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over us patent application no. 2021/0185231 to Narita et al. (hereinafter Narita) in view of us patent application publication no. 2017/0163894 to Wakamatsu (hereinafter Waka).
For claims 1, 18 and 19, Narita as applied teaches an imaging apparatus comprising:
an imaging unit (see, e.g., pars. 35-39 and FIG. 1);
an object detection unit configured to detect an object from an input image and output information about the detected object (see, e.g., pars. 37 and 43-45 and FIGS. 1-2, which teach detecting a specific subject from image data and outputting the subject information);
a first calculation unit configured to calculate an object blur correction amount based on a position of the detected object in the input image and a target position set in the input image (see, e.g., pars. 36-39, 49-70 and 95-99 and FIGS. 1-3 of Narita, which teach determining the first blur/hand shake correction amount and the second blur/subject shake correction amount based on the subject information);
an information detection unit configured to detect information included in a background from the input image as background information and output the background information (see, e.g., pars. 36 and 71-81 and FIGS. 1, 2, 4A-B, and 5A-B of Narita, which teach detecting and outputting information about the background motion);
a first setting unit configured to set a first direction in which object blur correction is performed from among a plurality of directions (see, e.g., pars. 49-70 and 95-99 and FIGS. 1-3 of Narita, which teach determining the first blur/hand shake and second blur/subject shake correction amounts and the background and subject degrees; the examiner interprets the directions of the hand/background shake correction amount and the subject shake correction amount as the claimed first and second directions, respectively; the examiner notes that horizontal and vertical directions of the hand and subject shakes as the claimed first and second directions may also be interpreted as the first and second directions);
an adjustment unit configured to adjust the object blur correction amount so that an object blur correction amount in a second direction is more limited than an object blur correction amount in the first direction (see, e.g., 5, 40-41, 70, 93-96, and 100-102 and FIGS. 1, 2 and 6A-B, which teach adjusting the hand shake correction amount and the subject sake correction amount by correcting/adjusting their weights, wherein the blur correction amount in the hand/background shake direction may be weighted more so that the subject shake in the second direction may be more limited); and
a control unit configured to control blur correction so as to bring the position of the object closer to the target position based on the adjusted object blur correction amount (see, e.g., pars. 40-41 and FIG. 1, which teach performing the optical blur correction),
wherein the first setting unit sets the first direction based on the background information (see, e.g., pars. 49-70 and FIGS. 1-3 of Narita, which teach that the direction of the hand shake correction amount is based on the background motion vectors).
Narita as applied does not explicitly teach that the first and second correction amounts are calculated based on the target position set in the image and that the blur correction brings the position of the object closer to the target position. Waka in the analogous art teaches calculating the tracking correction amount based on the position of the subject and the target position (see, e.g., pars. 48-60 and 80 and FIGS. 2-4 of Waka) and bringing the position of the subject to the target position by performing the subject tracking control with the image blur correction (see, e.g., pars.43-44, 60 and 79-81 and FIGS. 1 and 7 of Waka).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Narita to track the subject while correcting the blur as taught by Waka because doing so would allow obtaining the desired blur correction effect (see, e.g., par. 104 of Narita).
For claim 2, Narita in view of Waka teaches that the background information includes at least one of a boundary included in the background, a contrast of the background, and a type of the background (see, e.g., pars. 85, 107 and 115 of Narita, which teach separating background motion vectors based on the boundary and contrast between the background and the subject).
For claim 3, Narita in view of Waka teaches a second setting unit configured to set a direction in which the object blur correction is performed from among the plurality of directions, wherein the first setting unit sets the first direction based on the direction in which the object blur correction is performed set by the second setting unit and the background information (see, e.g., pars. 49-70 and 95-99 and FIGS. 1-3 of Narita, which teach determining the first blur/hand shake correction amount and the second blur/subject shake correction amount; the examiner interprets the directions of the hand/background shake correction amount and the subject shake correction amount as the claimed first and second directions, respectively).
For claim 4, Narita in view of Waka teaches that the second setting unit sets the direction in which the object blur correction is performed based on a blur amount in each of the plurality of directions of an imaging apparatus that captures the input image (see, e.g., pars. 46-48, 88 and 95-99 and FIGS. 1-3 of Narita, which teach determining the first blur/hand shake correction amount based on the inertial sensor information indicative of the positional operation of the camera form the angular velocity sensor of the camera).
For claim 5, Narita in view of Waka teaches that the second setting unit sets the direction in which the object blur correction is performed based on a user operation (see, e.g., pars. 46-47 and 70 and FIG. 2 of Narita, which teach using the user’s instruction information as information indicative of degree of interest for the background or the subject).
For claim 8, Narita in view of Waka teaches that, in a case where the first setting unit sets a plurality of directions as the first direction, the adjustment unit does not adjust the object blur correction amount different in each direction (see, e.g., pars. 95-99 and FIG. 2 of Narita, which teach that the blur correction amount has X and Y direction components, and value in each component is not adjusted differently) .
For claim 11, Narita in view of Waka teaches a second calculation unit configured to acquire an imaging apparatus shake amount that is a shake amount applied to an imaging apparatus that captures the input image and calculate an imaging apparatus shake correction amount based on the imaging apparatus shake amount (see, e.g., pars. 46-70 and 82-99 and FIGS. 1-3 of Narita, which teach acquiring camera information and motion vectors of the background and calculating the first blur/hand shake correction amount therefrom),
wherein the adjustment unit combines the object blur correction amount output from the first calculation unit and the imaging apparatus shake correction amount output from the second calculation unit to acquire a blur correction amount to be used by the control unit for controlling the blur correction, and adjusts the object blur correction amount by changing a ratio of the combining (see, e.g., pars. 40 and 100-102 and FIGS. 1-3 of Narita, which teach combining the hand shake correction amount and the subject shake correction amount to generate a final blur correction amount, wherein the ratio of the combining is changed based on the background and subject degrees), and
wherein the control unit performs the blur correction based on the blur correction amount acquired by combining the object blur correction amount and the imaging apparatus shake correction amount (see, e.g., pars. 41 and 103-105 and FIGS. 1-3 of Narita, which teach performing the optical and/or electronic blur correction based on the generated blur correction amount).
For claim 12, Narita in view of Waka teaches the adjustment unit sets a combination ratio to be used in the combining of the object blur correction amount in the second direction smaller than a combination ratio of the object blur correction amount in the first direction to more limit the object blur correction amount in the second direction than the object blur correction amount in the first direction (see, e.g., pars. 100-102 of Narita, which teach an instance, where the combination ratio is such that the second direction, i.e., the direction of the subject correction, is more limited than the first direction).
For claim 13, Narita in view of Waka teaches the adjustment unit increases the combination ratio of the imaging apparatus shake correction amount by an amount corresponding to reduction in the combination ratio of the object blur correction amount (see, e.g., pars. 100-102 of Narita, which teach that the ratios of the first and second correction amounts add up 1).
For claim 16, Narita in view of Waka teaches the adjustment unit adjusts the object blur correction amount by making a gain by which the object blur correction amount in the second direction is multiplied smaller than a gain by which the object blur correction amount in the first direction is multiplied (see, e.g., pars. 100-102 of Narita, which teach multiplying the first and second correction amounts with the background and subject degrees, wherein the background degree may be 100%).
For claim 17, while Narita does not explicitly teach, Waka in the analogous art teaches that, in a case where the object detection unit detects a plurality of objects, the first calculation unit calculates the object blur correction amount based on a position of a target object of object blur correction in the input image and the target position (see, e.g. pars. 45-48 of Waka, which teach when there are multiple subject images, determining the main subject and its position and calculating the tracking correction amount based on the position and the target position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Narita to recognize and track a main subject from multiple subjects as taught by Waka because doing so would allow more reliable detection of the main subject detecting the desired blur correction effect (see, e.g., par. 46-48 of Waka).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 are 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.
In regard to claim 6, when considered as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“wherein, in a case where the direction in which the object blur correction is performed set by the second setting unit matches a direction of a boundary included in the background information, the direction set is set as the first direction.”
In regard to claim 7, when considered as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“wherein, in a case where the direction in which the object blur correction is performed set by the second setting unit does not match a direction of a boundary included in the background information, the direction set and the direction of the boundary are set as the first direction.”
In regard to claim 9, when considered as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“wherein the adjustment unit more limits the object blur correction amount as the contrast of the background included in the background information is higher.”
In regard to claim 10, when considered as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“wherein the adjustment unit more limits the object blur correction amount as a larger number of types of the background are included in the background information.”
Additional Citations
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
Cragg et al. (us pat. pub. 2020/0344411)
Describes techniques of automatically filtering an image based on the content of the image. In one embodiment, an image processing application executing on a processing device detects an object in an image that is in a field of view of a camera associated with the processing device. The image processing application further determines, based on the object detected in the image, a recommended filter for the image from a list of filters available for filtering the image. The image processing application causes a display device to display a user interface that includes a contextual user interface control. The contextual user interface control indicates that a context-aware image filtering mode is available for the image. Responsive to receiving a selection of the contextual user interface control, the image processing application enables the context-aware image filtering mode by automatically applying the recommended filter to the image to generate a filtered image and causes the display device to display the filtered image.
Yu (us pat. pub. 2019/0098215)
Describes an image blur correction device and a control method. In one embodiment, an image blur correction device tracks a feature point in a captured image, calculates feature point tracking information, and estimates a positional relationship including a depth between a subject and an imaging apparatus as three-dimensional coordinates of the feature point on the basis of the feature point tracking information and position attitude information of the imaging apparatus calculated on the basis of shake information relating to shake of the imaging apparatus. The image blur correction device also controls a degree of contribution of the feature point to the estimation of the three-dimensional coordinates. The image blur correction device corrects the position attitude information according to a result of the estimation of the three-dimensional coordinates of the feature point, calculates a target position of a shake correction lens based on the shake information and the position attitude information, and drives the shake correction lens.
Shibata (us pat. pub. 2023/0090592)
Describes an image stabilization apparatus that reduces image blurring by moving a correction mechanism in accordance with a motion of an image capture apparatus. The apparatus controls a movement of the correction mechanism in accordance with a target position of the correction mechanism, the target position being intended to reduce the image blurring. The apparatus detects a vibration of a preset frequency included in the motion, the preset frequency being higher than a first frequency of a vibration caused by a camera shake. The apparatus, in a case where the vibration of the preset frequency has been detected, further reduces a control gain used for controlling the movement of the correction mechanism compared to a case where the vibration of the preset frequency has not been detected.
Table 1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Table 1 and form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOO RHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6560. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 am - 6:00 pm et.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/WOO C RHIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights