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 .
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a “program” is not a statutory class. When amending note the OG notice below:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, is when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
For additional information, please see the Official Gazette notice published February 23, 2010 (1351 OG 212).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 13, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasegawa et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210168308).
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa discloses:
An information processing device comprising an image processing unit that calculates a pixel difference of a target frame with respect to a reference frame (motion of the subject is detected based on a difference in captured image data between frames adjacent in time, and pixels at different locations for each frame are read out and stored in the memory 96 and the motion of the subject is detected based on the image data stored in the memory 96, par. 129, 142, and 181) by selectively calculating a first pixel difference that is a difference between data of an image in a first format corresponding to the reference frame and data of an image in the first format corresponding to the target frame (in S116-124, motion of a subject between frames is detected using high resolution image data, where motion of the subject is detected based on a difference in captured image data between frames adjacent in time, and pixels at different locations for each frame are read out and stored in the memory 96 and the motion of the subject is detected based on the image data stored in the memory 96, par. 139-143 and 181), and a second pixel difference that is a difference between data of an image in a second format having a smaller amount of information than the image in the first format corresponding to the reference frame and data of an image in the second format corresponding to the target frame (in S102-S110 motion of a subject between frames is detected using low resolution image data, where motion of the subject is detected based on a difference in captured image data between frames adjacent in time, and pixels at different locations for each frame are read out and stored in the memory 96 and the motion of the subject is detected based on the image data stored in the memory 96, par. 125-134 and 181).
Regarding claim 8, Hasegawa further discloses:
image processing unit determines whether to calculate the first pixel difference or the second pixel difference on a basis of a predetermined condition (the pixel difference is calculated in the current reading method which depends on the state of motion that is used to change reading methods, par. 129, 134, 137, 143, 143, 146, and 181).
Regarding claim 9, Hasegawa further discloses:
image processing unit determines whether to calculate the first pixel difference or the second pixel difference on a basis of whether or not a moving object determination difficult region is included in the target frame as the predetermined condition (motion cannot be detected in high resolution image data so low resolution image data is used to detect motion, par. 131-132).
Regarding claim 13, Hasegawa further discloses:
image processing unit determines whether to calculate the first pixel difference or the second pixel difference on a basis of whether or not an area of a moving object determination difficult region in the target frame is equal to or larger than a threshold as the predetermined condition (the pixel difference is calculated in the current reading method which depends on the state of motion that is used to change reading methods, where motion of the subject is detected based on a difference in captured image data between frames adjacent in time and where the difference is greater than a threshold value, the subject in motion is detected and where the difference is less than or equal to the threshold value, the subject not in motion is detected, par. 129, 134, 137, 143, 143, 146, and 181).
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claim 1 and note that the limitations of claim 19 were shown.
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection of claim 1 and note that the limitation of claim 20 were shown and that as seen in par. 194 in Hasegawa a program for causing a computer incorporated in an imaging element 20 executes the reading method switching processing.
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) 2, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210168308).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Hasegawa is silent with regards to display control unit that displays alert information indicating a moving object region that is a region in which a moving object appears on a basis of a pixel difference of the target frame by superimposing the alert information on an LV image that is an image in the second format corresponding to the target frame. Official Notice is taken that it was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include displaying indicators (alert information), such as boxes, around moving objects within reduced resolution preview images on a display based on pixels differences between a previous reference frame and a current target frame. This is advantageous in that a user’s attention can be directed to moving objects within images on a display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include display control unit that displays alert information indicating a moving object region that is a region in which a moving object appears on a basis of a pixel difference of the target frame by superimposing the alert information on an LV image that is an image in the second format corresponding to the target frame.
Regarding claim 6, Hasegawa is silent with regards to a control unit that sets a limit of a range for each region calculating a pixel difference. Official Notice is taken that it was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include using a processor/circuit to determine a region/range in images to detect motion. This is advantageous in that a processor/circuit can automate detection of an object for image stabilization purposes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a control unit that sets a limit of a range for each region calculating a pixel difference. Note that Hasegawa was shown to disclose calculates the first pixel difference and calculating the second pixel difference based on a region of a moving subject (par. 129, 142, and 181).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, 10-12, and 14-18 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.
Regarding claim 4, no prior art could be located that teaches or fairly suggests alert information based on the first pixel difference and the alert information based on the second pixel difference to be displayed in different modes, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and limitations of the parent claims.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4 and therefore is objected to.
Regarding claim 7, no prior art could be located that teaches or fairly suggests wherein the image processing unit calculates a pixel difference of the target frame by mixing a region that calculates the first pixel difference and a region that calculates the second pixel difference, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and limitations of the parent claims.
Regarding claim 10, no prior art could be located that teaches or fairly suggests the moving object determination difficult region is a region including a pixel including at least one of a high-frequency component, a strong edge component, or a high luminance component, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and limitations of the parent claims.
Regarding claim 11, no prior art could be located that teaches or fairly suggests in a case where the moving object determination difficult region is included in the target frame, the image processing unit calculates the pixel difference of the target frame by calculating the first pixel difference, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and limitations of the parent claims.
Regarding claim 12, no prior art could be located that teaches or fairly suggests image processing unit calculates the first pixel difference as a pixel difference of the moving object determination difficult region among pixel differences of the target frame, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and limitations of the parent claims.
Regarding claim 14, no prior art could be located that teaches or fairly suggests in a case where the area of the moving object determination difficult region is equal to or larger than the threshold, the image processing unit calculates the first pixel difference in a region having an area within the threshold in the moving object determination difficult region, and calculates the second pixel difference in other regions, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and limitations of the parent claims.
Regarding claim 15, no prior art could be located that teaches or fairly suggests image processing unit calculates a pixel difference of the target frame by using only the first pixel difference in a case where the area of the moving object determination difficult region is equal to or larger than the threshold, and calculates the pixel difference of the target frame by using only the second pixel difference in a case where the area is equal to or less than the threshold, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and limitations of the parent claims.
Regarding claim 16, no prior art could be located that teaches or fairly suggests the image processing unit determines whether to calculate the first pixel difference or the second pixel difference on a basis of, as the predetermined condition, whether or not a region as a calculation target of a pixel difference of the target frame includes a region in a designated region that is a region designated by a user, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and limitations of the parent claims.
Claim 17 depends on claim 16 and therefore is objected to.
Regarding claim 18, no prior art could be located that teaches or fairly suggests image processing unit determines whether to calculate the first pixel difference or the second pixel difference on a basis of, as the predetermined condition, whether or not a moving object determination difficult region is included in the target frame and whether or not the moving object determination difficult region is included in a designated region, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and limitations of the parent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS G GILES whose telephone number is (571)272-2824. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45AM-3:15PM EST (HOTELING).
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/NICHOLAS G GILES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights