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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/27/2026 with respect to amended claims 1, 3 – 12 and newly added claims 13 – 15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant has amended the title of the invention to overcome the objection to the specification provided in the previous office action.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 – 7 and 11 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KODAMA (US PgPub No. 2014/0210957) in view of Katayama (US PgPub No. 2018/0332214).
Regarding claim 1, KODAMA teaches an electronic device (figure 1 item 10; stereo camera) comprising: a processor (figure 2 item 28 and/or item 27); and a memory storing a program which, when executed by the processor (paragraphs 0035, 0045, 0054, and 0058; instructions of the CPU 28 executed), causes the electronic device to: execute acquisition processing of acquiring a captured image having a plurality of image areas captured through a plurality of optical systems, respectively (figures 1 – 2 12L and 12R used to captures images 37 and 40 of figure 3), and execute display control processing of performing control to display the captured image (figures 3 and 5), wherein, in a case where focus adjustment is performed in autofocus (AF), control is performed in the display control processing such that an image to be displayed is switched from the captured image to an enlarged image obtained by enlarging an area in which the AF is performable in any one of the plurality of image areas (figure 5 displaying AF area 41a in image 41 selected and resized image (i.e. enlarged) as item 43 displayed; Note: paragraphs 0035, 0040 – 0062, AF).
However, KODAMA fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of image areas has an area in which autofocus (AF) is performable and an area in which the AF is not performable, and wherein the AF is performed in a part of the area in which the AF is performable. Katayama, on the other hand teaches wherein each of the plurality of image areas has an area in which autofocus (AF) is performable and an area in which the AF is not performable, and wherein the AF is performed in a part of the area in which the AF is performable.
More specifically, Katayama teaches wherein each of the plurality of image areas has an area in which autofocus (AF) is performable and an area in which the AF is not performable (figures 2B, 3, 4, 5A, and 7 – 10; detected subject(s) area and non-subject area(s)), and wherein the AF is performed in a part of the area in which the AF is performable (figures 2B, 3, 4, 5A, and 7 – 10; detected subject(s) area able to be autofocus).
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 Katayama with the teachings of KODAMA to have a system with improved focus on subject of interest thereby improving KODAMA invention.
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, KODAMA in view of Katayama teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, KODAMA teaches wherein in a case where focus adjustment is performed in manual focus (MF), control is performed in the display control processing such that an image to be displayed is switched from the captured image to a second enlarged image obtained by enlarging any one of the plurality of image areas (figure 5 displaying Focus area 41a in image 41 selected and resized image (i.e. enlarged) as item 43 displayed; Note: paragraphs 0005 and 0058 - 0059, Manual Focus; also paragraphs 0059, 0072 – 0078, 0080, and 0088 - 0089; additionally, figure 6 item S10-S14).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 3, KODAMA in view of Katayama teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, KODAMA teaches wherein in a case where the focus adjustment is performed in the MF only on any one of the plurality of optical systems, the second enlarged image is an enlarged image obtained by enlarging an image area captured through the optical system on which the focus adjustment is performed (figure 5 displaying Focus area 41a in image 41 selected and resized image (i.e. enlarged) as item 43 displayed; Note: paragraphs 0005 and 0058 - 0059, Manual Focus; also paragraphs 0059, 0072 – 0078, 0080, and 0088 - 0089; additionally, figure 6 item S10-S14).
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, KODAMA in view of Katayama teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, KODAMA teaches wherein control is performed in the display control processing such that an image to be displayed is switched between a plurality of enlarged images corresponding to the plurality of image areas, respectively, in response to a user operation (figures 15 and 16C and paragraphs 0074 – 0075 and 0080; move resized image area to avoid overlapping with focus area).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, KODAMA in view of Katayama teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, KODAMA teaches wherein if an area to be displayed during focus is designated by a user adjustment, in a case where the focus adjustment is performed, control is performed in the display control processing such that an image to be displayed is switched from the captured image to a third enlarged image obtained by enlarging the area designated by the user (figure 5 displaying Focus area 41a in image 41 selected and resized image (i.e. enlarged) as item 43 displayed; Note: paragraphs 0005 and 0058 - 0059, Manual Focus; also paragraphs 0059, 0072 – 0078, 0080, and 0088 – 0089; additionally, figure 6 item S10-S14; third image being new area Focus area 41a selected to update item 43 display).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, KODAMA in view of Katayama teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, KODAMA teaches wherein control is performed in the display control processing such that the enlarged image is displayed at a magnification designated by a user (figures 5 and 15 – 16).
Regarding claim 11, KODAMA teaches a control method (paragraphs 0002, 0011, and 0090) of an electronic device (figure 1 item 10; stereo camera), comprising: acquiring a captured image having a plurality of image areas captured through a plurality of optical systems, respectively (figures 1 – 2 12L and 12R used to captures images 37 and 40 of figure 3); and performing control to display the captured image (figures 3 and 5), wherein, in a case where focus adjustment is performed in autofocus (AF), control is performed such that an image to be displayed is switched from the captured image to an enlarged image obtained by enlarging an area in which the AF is performable in any one of the plurality of image areas (figure 5 displaying AF area 41a in image 41 selected and resized image (i.e. enlarged) as item 43 displayed; Note: paragraphs 0035, 0040 – 0062, AF).
However, KODAMA fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of image areas has an area in which autofocus (AF) is performable and an area in which the AF is not performable, and wherein the AF is performed in a part of the area in which the AF is performable. Katayama, on the other hand teaches wherein each of the plurality of image areas has an area in which autofocus (AF) is performable and an area in which the AF is not performable, and wherein the AF is performed in a part of the area in which the AF is performable.
More specifically, Katayama teaches wherein each of the plurality of image areas has an area in which autofocus (AF) is performable and an area in which the AF is not performable (figures 2B, 3, 4, 5A, and 7 – 10; detected subject(s) area and non-subject area(s)), and wherein the AF is performed in a part of the area in which the AF is performable (figures 2B, 3, 4, 5A, and 7 – 10; detected subject(s) area able to be autofocus).
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 Katayama with the teachings of KODAMA to have a system with improved focus on subject of interest thereby improving KODAMA invention.
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 11, KODAMA in view of Katayama teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, KODAMA teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a program, wherein the program causes a computer to execute (figure 2 item 28 and/or item 27; also paragraphs 0035, 0045, 0054, and 0058; instructions of the CPU 28 executed) the control method according to claim 11 (please see claim 11 above).
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, KODAMA in view of Katayama teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Katayama teaches wherein the area in which the AF is performable is a distance measurable area (figures 2A – 2B, 7; paragraphs 0028, 0035 – 0038, and 0058 – 0068; distance).
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 Katayama with the teachings of KODAMA to have a system with improved focus on subject of interest thereby improving KODAMA invention.
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 3, KODAMA in view of Katayama teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, KODAMA teaches wherein the enlarged image in a case where the focus adjustment is performed in the AF is an image obtained by enlarging a narrower range in any one of the plurality of image areas (figure 5 item 43), compared with the second enlarged image in a case where the focus adjustment is performed in the MF (figure 5 displaying Focus area 41a in image 41 selected and resized image (i.e. enlarged) as item 43 displayed; Note: paragraphs 0005 and 0058 - 0059, Manual Focus; also paragraphs 0059, 0072 – 0078, 0080, and 0088 - 0089; additionally, figure 6 item S10-S14).
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 3, KODAMA in view of Katayama teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, KODAMA teaches wherein in a case where the focus adjustment is performed in the AF, the area in which the AF is performable in any one of the plurality of image areas is enlarged (figure 5 item 43), and in a case where the focus adjustment is performed in the MF, the image area captured through the optical system on which the focus adjustment is performed is enlarged (figure 5 displaying Focus area 41a in image 41 selected and resized image (i.e. enlarged) as item 43 displayed; Note: paragraphs 0005 and 0058 - 0059, Manual Focus; also paragraphs 0059, 0072 – 0078, 0080, and 0088 - 0089; additionally, figure 6 item S10-S14).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KODAMA (US PgPub No. 2014/0210957) in view of Katayama (US PgPub No. 2018/0332214) in view of Langlotz (US PgPub No. 2021/0044755).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, KODAMA in view of Katayama teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, KODAMA in view of Katayama fail to teach wherein in a case where focus adjustment is performed in the AF, in the display control processing, if a lens capable of the AF is mounted, control is performed such that an image to be displayed is switched from the captured image to the enlarged image obtained by enlarging an area in which the AF is performable, and if the lens capable of the AF is not mounted, control is performed such that an image to be displayed is switched from the captured image to an enlarged image obtained by enlarging any one of the plurality of image areas. Langlotz, on the other hand teaches wherein in a case where focus adjustment is performed in the AF, in the display control processing, if a lens capable of the AF is mounted, control is performed such that an image to be displayed is switched from the captured image to the enlarged image obtained by enlarging an area in which the AF is performable, and if the lens capable of the AF is not mounted, control is performed such that an image to be displayed is switched from the captured image to an enlarged image obtained by enlarging any one of the plurality of image areas.
More specifically, Langlotz teaches wherein in a case where focus adjustment is performed in the AF, in the display control processing, if a lens capable of the AF is mounted, control is performed such that an image to be displayed is switched from the captured image to the enlarged image obtained by enlarging an area in which the AF is performable, and if the lens capable of the AF is not mounted, control is performed such that an image to be displayed is switched from the captured image to an enlarged image obtained by enlarging any one of the plurality of image areas (paragraphs 0035, auto focus vs digital focus lens detected; more specifically paragraphs 0063 – 0116 discusses digital focus lens mounted and camera system associated zoom, whereas paragraphs 0117 – 0135 discusses manual focus lens mounted and camera system associated zoom).
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 Langlotz with the teachings of KODAMA in view of Katayama because in at least paragraph 0002 Langlotz notes that the invention will result in a system enhancing performance and capabilities with legacy and modern lenses, thereby improving system of KODAMA in view of Katayama.
Claims 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KODAMA (US PgPub No. 2014/0210957) in view of Katayama (US PgPub No. 2018/0332214) in view of PARK (US PgPub No. 2022/0060677).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, KODAMA in view of Katayama teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, KODAMA in view of Katayama fail to teach wherein each of the plurality of optical systems includes a fish-eye lens, and each of the plurality of image areas is an area of a circular fish-eye image. PARK, on the other hand teaches wherein each of the plurality of optical systems includes a fish-eye lens, and each of the plurality of image areas is an area of a circular fish-eye image.
More specifically, PARK teaches wherein each of the plurality of optical systems includes a fish-eye lens, and each of the plurality of image areas is an area of a circular fish-eye image (paragraphs 0007, 0056 – 0063, 0068 – 0071, and 0090 - 0093).
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 PARK with the teachings of KODAMA in view of Katayama because in at least abstract and paragraphs 0007 and 0063 PARK notes that the invention will result in a system with wider viewing angle, thereby improving system of KODAMA in view of Katayama.
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, KODAMA in view of Katayama teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
Additionally, KODAMA teaches an enlarged image (figure 5 displaying AF area 41a in image 41 selected and resized image (i.e. enlarged) as item 43 displayed; Note: paragraphs 0035, 0040 – 0062, AF).
However, KODAMA in view of Katayama fail to teach wherein the image is an equirectangular image. PARK, on the other hand teaches wherein the image is an equirectangular image.
More specifically, PARK teaches wherein the image is an equirectangular image (paragraphs 0056 – 0085 also figure 3; equirectangular image).
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 PARK with the teachings of KODAMA in view of Katayama because in at least abstract and paragraphs 0007 and 0063 PARK notes that the invention will result in a system with wider viewing angle, thereby improving system of KODAMA in view of Katayama.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tanaka (US PgPub No. 20140211045) teaches a camera system focusing and zooming based on distance and subjects.
Yokoyama (US PgPub No. 20140219576) teaches a camera system focusing and zooming based on distance and subjects.
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 extension fee 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 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 2637
07/22/2026
Prosecution Insights