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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that because Kuchiki and Fahn do not disclose “controlling the movement of the optical element and the image sensor that are mutually independently moveable” that the combination of Kuchiki, Fahn, Nakata and Kagaya do not disclose said feature (see pages 7 and 8 of Remarks). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nakata teaches “controlling the movement of the optical element and the image sensor that are mutually independently moveable” (paragraphs 87 and 88 teach that the sensor and lens are mutually independently movable). Therefore, the combination of Kuchiki, Fahn and Nakata teach claim 1 as amended for the reasons further detailed in the rejection below.
In view of the foregoing, the independent claims, as amended by the applicant, stand rejected as further detailed below.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are allowable due to their dependence on claim 1 (page 8 of Remarks). In view of claim 1 standing rejected for the reasons discussed above, the dependent claims also stand rejected as further detailed below.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuchiki (United States Patent Application Publication 2017/0318224) in view of Fahn et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2009/0128618), hereinafter referenced as Fahn, and further in view of Nakata (United States Patent Application Publication 2025/0080846).
Regarding claim 1, Kuchiki discloses a control apparatus used in an imaging system including an optical element and an image sensor, the control apparatus comprising: one or more processors (figure 1 exhibits CPU 103 as disclosed at paragraph 21) configured to: acquire first information on a position of an object (paragraph 48 teaches calculating an object position) and second information on speed of the object based on an image obtained by imaging the object using the imaging system (figure 2 exhibits step S204 in which an object speed is determined from image data as disclosed at paragraph 29), perform, during a first period in which a panning shot of the object is being executed by the imaging system (figure 2 shows that the follow shot assist movement occurs after imaging starts by pressing SW2 as disclosed at paragraph 54), a first control that moves at least one of the optical element and the image sensor based on the second information and third information on a motion of the imaging system (figure 6 exhibits step S602 in which a shift lens is moved based on the difference between the object velocity and the imaging device velocity as disclosed at paragraph 57; paragraph 71 teaches moving the sensor instead of the lens). However, Kuchiki fails to disclose perform, during a second period before execution of the panning shot, a second control that moves one of the optical element and the image sensor based on the first information so that an image of the object moves to a predetermined position on the imaging sensor or in a predetermined direction and that the optical element and image sensor are mutually independently movable.
Fahn is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Fahn teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of automatically aligning an image to be captured with a desired composition would have prompted a predictable variation of Kuchiki by applying Fahn’s known principal of performing during a second period before execution of the panning shot (paragraphs 58-60 teaches that the control of initially centering an object in an image is performed on a temporary image before a final image is captured) a control that moves the at least one of the optical element and the image sensor based on the object position before the imaging so that the object image moves to a predetermined position or direction on the image sensor (figure 4 exhibits a movement operation which occurs during a temporary image acquisition in which the lens is moved in order to center an object in the image before a final image is captured as disclosed at paragraphs 50 and 58).
In view of the motivations such as automatically aligning an image to be captured with a desired composition one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Kuchiki.
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.
However, Kuchiki in view of Fahn fails to disclose that the optical element and image sensor are mutually independently movable.
Nakata is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Nakata teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of facilitating image stabilization even when significant camera shake occurs would have prompted a predictable variation of Kuchiki by applying Nakata’s known principal of providing an optical element and image sensor that are mutually independently movable (paragraphs 87 and 88 teach that the sensor and lens are mutually independently movable).
In view of the motivations such as facilitating image stabilization even when significant camera shake occurs one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Kuchiki.
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, Kuchiki in view of Fahn and further in view of Nakata discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Kuchiki discloses wherein the one or more processors is configured to: in the first control, move the image sensor (paragraph 71 teaches moving the image sensor in the first control). However, Kuchiki fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to: stop, in the first control, one of the optical element and the image sensor at a position moved in the second control.
Fahn is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Fahn teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of automatically aligning an image to be captured with a desired composition would have prompted a predictable variation of Kuchiki by applying Fahn’s known principal of performing a control that moves the optical element based on the object position before the imaging so that the object image moves to a predetermined position or direction on the image sensor prior to image capturing (paragraphs 58-60 teaches that the control of initially centering an object in an image is performed on a temporary image before a final image is captured). When this known technique is applied to Kuchiki, it is clear that the lens movement taught by Fahn is performed and stopped prior to image capturing (capturing a final image) and then the sensor movement taught by Kuchiki is carried out during image capturing such that the lens movement would be stopped during the claimed first control at the position set during the movement taught by Fahn.
In view of the motivations such as automatically aligning an image to be captured with a desired composition one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Kuchiki.
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 3, Kuchiki in view of Fahn and further in view of Nakata discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, however, Kuchiki fails to disclose wherein the one or more processors is configured to move, in the first control, the optical element and the image sensor according to a ratio calculated based on respective drivable amounts of the optical element and the image sensor.
Nakata is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Nakata teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of maximizing the amount of correction that can be performed would have prompted a predictable variation of Kuchiki by applying Nakata’s known principal of driving an optical element and an image sensor according to a ratio calculated based on respective drivable amounts of the optical element and the image sensor (figure 6 exhibits step S3 in which image shifting is performed by moving both the lens and the sensor according to a ratio as disclosed at paragraph 86; paragraph 85 teaches determining allocation amounts of lens movement and sensor movement based on the optical system settings, the focal length and zoom amount influence the amount of correction that driving the lens is capable of).
In view of the motivations such as maximizing the amount of correction that can be performed one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Kuchiki.
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 4, Kuchiki in view of Fahn discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Kuchiki discloses wherein the one or more processors is configured to: perform the first control in the first period after the imaging starts (figure 2 shows that the follow shot assist movement occurs after imaging starts by pressing SW2 as disclosed at paragraph 54). However, Kuchiki fails to disclose perform the second control in the second period from when a start of the imaging is instructed to when the imaging starts.
Fahn is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Fahn teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of automatically aligning an image to be captured with a desired composition would have prompted a predictable variation of Kuchiki by applying Fahn’s known principal of performing a control that moves the at least one of the optical element and the image sensor based on the object position before the imaging so that the object image moves to a predetermined position or direction on the image sensor prior to image capturing (paragraphs 58-60 teaches that the control of initially centering an object in an image is performed on a temporary image before a final image is captured).
In view of the motivations such as automatically aligning an image to be captured with a desired composition one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Kuchiki.
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 5, Kuchiki in view of Fahn and further in view of Nakata discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Fahn discloses wherein the predetermined position is a center position of the image sensor or the predetermined direction is a direction approaching the center position (paragraph 50 teaches that the object is centered in the image after the adjustment).
Regarding claim 6, Kuchiki in view of Fahn and further in view of Nakata discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Fahn discloses control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined position or direction is a position or direction instructed by a user (paragraph 51 teaches that the position can be a selected position).
Regarding claim 8, Kuchiki in view of Fahn and further in view of Nakata discloses an optical apparatus comprising: the control apparatus according to claim 1; in addition, Kuchiki discloses at least one of the optical system and the image sensor (figure 1 exhibits optical system 101 as disclosed at paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 9, Kuchiki in view of Fahn and further in view of Nakata discloses an optical apparatus comprising: the control apparatus according to claim 1; in addition, Kuchiki the image sensor (figure 1 exhibits image sensor 102 as disclosed at paragraph 42) and Nakata discloses a driving unit configured to move the image sensor (figure 2 exhibits sensor driver 181 as disclosed at paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 10, Kuchiki in view of Fahn and further in view of Nakata discloses a lens apparatus connected to the image pickup apparatus according to claim 9, the lens apparatus comprising: the optical system (figure 1 exhibits optical system 101 as disclosed at paragraph 21); and a driving unit configured to move the optical element (paragraph 57 discloses moving the shift lens, therefore it is apparent that a driving unit is present). However, Kuchiki fails to disclose that the lens apparatus is detachably connected.
Nakata is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Nakata teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of allowing different lenses to be attached for different image capturing situations thereby increasing the versatility of the camera would have prompted a predictable variation of Kuchiki by applying Nakata’s known principal of providing a detachably connected lens apparatus (figure 2 and paragraph 24 teaches that the lens apparatus 200 is detachable from the camera body).
In view of the motivations such as allowing different lenses to be attached for different image capturing situations thereby increasing the versatility of the camera one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Kuchiki.
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 11, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 1.
Claim 12, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 1 (paragraph 22 discloses a memory storing a program).
Regarding claim 13, Kuchiki in view of Fahn and further in view of Nakata discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Fahn discloses wherein the second period is a period from when a start of the imaging for the panning-shot is instructed by a user to when the imaging for the panning-shot starts (paragraphs 58-60 teaches that the control of initially centering an object in an image is performed on a temporary image before a final image is captured).
Regarding claim 14, Kuchiki in view of Fahn and further in view of Nakata discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, the combination discloses wherein the one or more processors is configured to perform the first control in a state of stopping one of the optical element and the image sensor after moving the one by the second control (Kikuchi in figure 2 shows that the follow shot assist movement occurs after imaging starts by pressing SW2 to capture a final image as disclosed at paragraph 54). Because Fahn teaches that the second control is performed prior to capturing a final image and Kuchiki teaches that the first movement is performed during capturing of a final image, it is apparent that the movement taught by Kuchiki would be performed after the movement of Fahn has completed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuchiki in view of Fahn in view of Nakata and further in view of Kagaya et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0099652), hereinafter referenced as Kagaya.
Regarding claim 7, Kuchiki in view of Fahn and further in view of Nakata discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, however, Kuchiki fails to disclose wherein the predetermined position or direction is a position or direction according to an identification result of the moving object from the image.
Kagaya is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Kagaya teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of providing a composition which includes a larger area of the direction in which the subject is looking, thereby providing a more pleasing composition would have prompted a predictable variation of Kuchiki by applying Kagaya’s known principal of setting a position for an object according to an identification result of the object from the image (figures 8A-8C show different positions for an object to be located at based on the identification of the object and the identification of the direction of the object’s face as disclosed at paragraphs 127-130).
In view of the motivations such as providing a composition which includes a larger area of the direction in which the subject is looking, thereby providing a more pleasing composition one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Kuchiki.
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.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sato et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0262014) teaches a method for controlling blur.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights