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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2024 and 03/17/2025 have been considered by the examiner. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 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: "setting step” “selection step”, “switching step”, “recording step”, “display step”, “adjustment step”, and “change step” in claims 1 - 14.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations "setting step” “selection step”, “switching step”, “recording step”, “display step”, “adjustment step”, and “change step” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is inadequate written description for the terms "setting step” “selection step”, “switching step”, “recording step”, “display step”, “adjustment step”, and “change step”.
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 – 4 and 6 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TSUNASHIMA (US PgPub No. 2017/0372485).
Regarding claim 1, TSUNASHIMA teaches a display method of displaying a video captured by an imaging apparatus (figure 1 item 22; monitoring terminal also figures 2 – 3 with figure 1 item 10 camera), the method comprising: a setting step of automatically setting a plurality of candidates for a set region in a reference region which is an imaging region of a reference video (figure 7 item 60 setting criteria; also, figure 2 items 40a, 40b, 40c, and 40d; cropped regions selected based on motion and information from figure 7); a selection step of selecting a recording region, which is a region of a record video to be recorded, from among the plurality of candidates for the set region based on a selection of a user (figure 2 items 40a, 40b, 40c, and 40d leads to recording regions figure 3 items 50a, 50b, 50c, and 50d); and a switching step of reselecting the recording region from among the plurality of candidates for the set region to switch the recording region after the selection step is performed (figure 7 user can come back to this screen to change the criteria after the first image is set; or tracking and switching regions as discussed in at least paragraphs 0097, 0118 - 0120 and figures 10 - 11), wherein the setting step includes a first setting step of automatically setting a candidate in the reference region (figures 2 – 3; moving object), and a second setting step of setting the set region at a position at which the candidate is set, in accordance with an operation of a user on the candidate (figure 7 item 60; user sets criteria to be used in object tracking).
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, TSUNASHIMA teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, TSUNASHIMA teaches wherein, in the setting step, a feature portion in which a visual change occurs in the reference video is detected, and the set region or the candidate is automatically set at a position of the detected feature portion in the reference region (automatically tracking and switching regions as discussed in at least paragraphs 0097, 0118 - 0120 and figures 10 - 11).
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, TSUNASHIMA teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, TSUNASHIMA teaches wherein, in the setting step, an imaging scene of the reference video is recognized based on the reference video, and the set region or the candidate is automatically set at a position corresponding to the recognized imaging scene in the reference region (automatically tracking and switching regions as discussed in at least paragraphs 0097, 0118 - 0120 and figures 10 – 11 based on the object criteria from figure 7 and as shown in figures 2 - 3).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, TSUNASHIMA teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, TSUNASHIMA teaches wherein, in the setting step, the set region is automatically set at a position at which a feature for determining an imaging condition of the imaging apparatus satisfies a reference in the reference video (abstract and figures 2 – 3; moving object tracking and selection done automatically along with object conditions such as distance, aspect, time, speed, size, position set).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, TSUNASHIMA teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, TSUNASHIMA teaches wherein, in the setting step, the set region or the candidate is automatically set based on positional information of the set region stored in advance(abstract and figures 2 – 3; moving object tracking and selection done automatically along with object conditions such as distance, aspect, time, speed, size, position set in advance in figure 7).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 6, TSUNASHIMA teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, TSUNASHIMA teaches wherein the positional information includes at least one of the positional information of the set region set in the setting step performed in the past or the positional information of the set region determined based on an operation of a user (abstract and figures 2 – 3; moving object tracking and selection done automatically along with object conditions such as distance, size, position set in advance in figure 7).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, TSUNASHIMA teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, TSUNASHIMA teaches an adjustment step of, in a case in which a size or a position of the reference region is changed, adjusting at least one of a position or a size of the set region (automatically tracking and switching regions as discussed in at least paragraphs 0097, 0118 - 0120 and figures 10 – 11 based on the object criteria from figure 7 and as shown in figures 2 - 3).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, TSUNASHIMA teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, TSUNASHIMA teaches a recording step of recording a motion picture of the record video (paragraphs 0057, 0064, 0067, 0116, also figure 1 item 20); a display step of displaying a set video which is a video of the set region (paragraph 0059; and figure 1 item 22); and a change step of performing a change process relating to a change of a display number of the set video while the recording step is performed (paragraphs 0041, 0051 – 0052, 01111; number of cropped images shown in a display).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 9, TSUNASHIMA teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, TSUNASHIMA teaches wherein the change process includes a process of adding the set region to increase the display number in accordance with an increase in the number of subjects in the reference video (paragraphs 0041, 0051 – 0052, 01111; number of cropped images increased and shown in a display depending on the number of moving subjects).
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 9, TSUNASHIMA teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, TSUNASHIMA teaches wherein the change process includes a process of canceling displaying the set video of the set region that satisfies a cancellation condition to decrease the display number (figure 9 items S105 – S113; embodiment limiting the number of objects displayed).
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 9, TSUNASHIMA teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, TSUNASHIMA teaches wherein a cancel region, which is the set region in which displaying the set video is canceled, is stored while the recording step is performed, and the change process includes a process of redisplaying the set video of the stored cancel region based on a redisplay instruction of a user (figure 9 items S105 – S113; embodiment limiting the number of objects displayed and saving the rest).
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 9, TSUNASHIMA teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, TSUNASHIMA teaches wherein the change process includes a process of outputting suggestion information relating to the change of the display number (figure 4 items 40a – 40d; suggestion information relating to the change of the display number).
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 9, TSUNASHIMA teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, TSUNASHIMA teaches wherein, in a case in which the number of subjects in the reference video exceeds an upper limit value of the number of the set region, in the change step, the change process relating to a decrease in the display number is performed (figure 9 items S105 – S113; embodiment limiting the number of objects displayed and saving the rest).
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:
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUNASHIMA (US PgPub No. 2017/0372485) in view of Fujita (US PgPub No. 2014/0362247).
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 4, TSUNASHIMA teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, TSUNASHIMA fails to teach wherein the imaging condition is at least one of a focused position, an exposure amount, or a white balance in the reference video. Fujita, on the other hand teaches wherein the imaging condition is at least one of a focused position, an exposure amount, or a white balance in the reference video.
More specifically, Fujita teaches wherein the imaging condition is at least one of a focused position, an exposure amount, or a white balance in the reference video (paragraph 0037; focus position, an exposure amount, or a white balance (WB) in the reference video).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Fujita with the teachings of TSUNASHIMA because in at least paragraphs 0008 and 0037 Fujita teaches a proper parameter is selectable from a plurality of types of parameter based on a given photographing scene thereby allows acquisition of a plurality of images in response to one instruction to generate images without requiring a user to perform complicated setting operations and advanced knowledge thereby improving imaging of TSUNASHIMA.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Slatter (US PgPub No. 20030025812) teaches selecting different regions of an image.
Horiuchi (US PgPub No. 20020145667) teaches selecting different regions of an image.
Nonaka (US patent No. 6895181) teaches selecting different regions of an image.
Aimura (US PgPub No. 20070248245) teaches selecting different regions of an image.
Kim (US PgPub No. 20090284613) teaches selecting different regions of an image.
Jung (US PgPub No. 20100201842) teaches selecting different regions of an image.
Kim (US patent No. 8059164) teaches selecting different regions of an image.
OHBUCHI (US PgPub No. 20110317030) teaches selecting different regions of an image.
Nakamura (US PgPub No. 20160173759) teaches selecting different regions of an image.
KAWAI (US patent No. 20150244925) teaches a system with plural of the camera
sections are installed, image capture may be performed independently by switching the camera section with image capture, or image capture may be performed using plural of the camera sections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Usman A Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-1131. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 5:30 AM - 2 PM, F 5:30 AM - Noon.
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 on (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.
Usman Khan
/USMAN A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2696
02/02/2026