CTNF 18/999,834 CTNF 80016 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Claim(s) 1-15 do not use “means for” (or “step for”) language, or generic placeholders for "means” coupled with functional language without recitation of sufficient structure for carrying out the claimed functions and therefore do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 8 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hada (US 2010/0289937 A1). [claim 1] Regarding claim 1, Hada discloses an imaging apparatus comprising a processor (e.g. Figure 2, SYSTEM CONTROL CIRCUIT 50; Paragraphs 0035, 0088) configured to: extract a plurality of subjects from moving image data obtained by imaging (Figure 6B; IN-FOCUS FRAMES); display a first image including a specific subject among the subjects (Figure 6B; display a first image at a first time including subject in one of the in-focus frames); and in a case where a change has occurred in one of the subjects in the moving image data, control a displaying mode of a second image including a subject among the subjects other than the specific subject (Figure 6B; Paragraphs 0084-0087; display a second image at a second time including first and second subjects without enlargement or first and second subject enlarged and displayed smaller than when the movement is not detected). [claim 2] Regarding claim 2, Hada discloses wherein the processor is configured to, in the case where the change has occurred in the one of the subjects in the moving image data, display the second image instead of the first image (Figure 6B; Paragraphs 0084-0087; note that the image is changed from the first image to the second image in a case where the change has occurred, thus the second image is displayed “instead of” the first image, i.e. the first image is no longer displayed and the second image is displayed in its place). [claim 3] Regarding claim 2, Hada discloses wherein the processor is configured to, in the case where the change has occurred in the one of the subjects in the moving image data, display the second image in addition to the first image (Figure 6B; Paragraphs 0084-0087; display of both subjects without enlargement or with reduced enlargement). [claim 7] Regarding claim 7, Hada discloses wherein the processor is configured to, in a case where an instruction to select any of the subjects is not given within a first time after the second image is displayed, display the first image (e.g. Figures 3 and 5; note that the process is repeated while SW1 is pressed; thus when the movement of the face is no longer present then display will return to the display of the first image). Additionally note that no selection of a subject is present in the system, thus the operation of the system occurs “in a case where an instruction to select any of the subjects is not given within a first time after the second image is displayed”). Since the claim as written does not require any active determination of a selection of the subject or present any conditions which occur in a case where a subject is selected, Hada appears to read on the claims as written. [claim 8] Regarding claim 8, Hada discloses wherein the second image includes at least the one of the subjects in which the change has occurred (Figure 6B; display of subject in which the change occurs along with the second subject without enlargement or with reduced enlargement). [claim 13] Regarding claim 13, Hada discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine whether or not the change has occurred in the one of the subjects according to a change in at least one item of a position, a size, or a subject distance (Paragraphs 0049, 0062, 0084-0087; movement of the object would include at least one of a change in position or distance). [claim 14] Claim 14 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1. Therefore, claim 14 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1. [claim 15] Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1 above and note that Hada discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable tangible recording medium, which records thereon the a program for causing, when read by a computer, the computer to execute the process (Paragraphs 0035, 0088; non-volatile memory 56 storing the program) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hada (US 2010/0289937 A1) in view of Official Notice. [claims 4-6] Regarding claims 4-6, Hada discloses displaying an image (Figure 6B) as well as storing a moving image (Paragraph 0032), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second image is a moving image. However, Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to capture and display moving images using an imaging apparatus to allow a user to view changes in the captured images by providing a live view display. Therefore, it would have been obvious to display a second image which is a moving image so that the user may be provided with a live view of the objects being captured in the scene and to view changes in the captured images . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hada (US 2010/0289937 A1) in view of Gagnon et al. (US 2018/0041736 A1). [claim 9] Regarding claim 9, Hada discloses detecting motion of a subject in the scene (e.g. Paragraphs 0049, 0062, 0084-0087) but does not disclose wherein the processor is configured to receive a setting of a condition for determining whether or not the change has occurred in the one of the subjects. Gagnon discloses a camera system which detects motion of a subject in a scene and further discloses the use of a movement detection threshold or movement time threshold which may be pre-set according to user preference so as to minimize the occurrence of false detection of subject movement (Paragraph 0058). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include a user set movement detection threshold or movement time threshold which is received by the processor and to perform subject motion detection according to the set thresholds so that false detection of movement may be minimized. [claim 10] Regarding claim 10, Gagnon discloses wherein the condition includes at least one of an item used for determination or a threshold value used for determination (Paragraph 0058; movement detection threshold or movement time threshold which may be pre-set according to user preference) . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9 and 11-15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 5, 6, 14, 20 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,241 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. [claim 1] 1 (present application. An imaging apparatus comprising a processor configured to: extract a plurality of subjects from moving image data obtained by imaging; display a first image including a specific subject among the subjects; and in a case where a change has occurred in one of the subjects in the moving image data, control a displaying mode of a second image including a subject among the subjects other than the specific subject. 1 (‘241). An imaging apparatus comprising: a processor, wherein, in a mode in which focus adjustment is performed, the processor performs processing of extracting a plurality of subjects from moving image data obtained by imaging, outputs first moving image data in which a region including a specific subject among the plurality of subjects is magnified to a display destination, and outputs, in a case in which a change has occurred in any of the plurality of subjects in the moving image data, second moving image data in which a region of each of the plurality of subjects is magnified to the display destination instead of the first moving image data, and then outputs, in a case in which an instruction to select the subject is given, third moving image data in which a region including the selected subject is magnified to the display destination instead of the second moving image data. Claim 1 of ‘241 anticipates claim 1 of the present application. Therefore, the claims are not patentably distinct. [claims 2, 7-9 and 11-15] Regarding claims 2, 7-19 and 1-13, see claims 1-4, 5, 6, 14, 20 and 21 of ‘241 respectively. [claims 4-5] Regarding claims 4 and 5, see claim 1 of ‘241. 08-36 AIA Claim 10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,241 B2 in view of Gagnon et al. (US 2018/0041736 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. [claim 10] Regarding claim 10, while ‘241 does not claim receiving a setting condition including a threshold, Gagnon discloses a camera system which detects motion of a subject in a scene and further discloses the use of a movement detection threshold or movement time threshold which may be pre-set according to user preference so as to minimize the occurrence of false detection of subject movement (Paragraph 0058). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include a user set movement detection threshold or movement time threshold which is received by the processor and to perform subject motion detection according to the set thresholds so that false detection of movement may be minimized. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11 and 12 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 and the above double patenting rejections were overcome. [claims 11 and 12] Regarding claims 11 and 12, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to correct a condition for determining whether or not the change has occurred in the one of the subjects according to a history of an instruction to select the one of the subjects. While Gagnon discloses setting conditions for detecting movement/change of a subject (see rejection of claims 10 and 11 above), Gagnon and the other cited references do not correct a condition according to a history of an instruction to select the one of the subjects as required in claims 11 and 12. However, the above double patenting rejections must be overcome before the claims can be considered allowable. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J HENN whose telephone number is (571)272-7310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday ~10-6. 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. /Timothy J Henn/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/999,834 Page 2 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/999,834 Page 3 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/999,834 Page 4 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/999,834 Page 5 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/999,834 Page 6 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/999,834 Page 7 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/999,834 Page 8 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/999,834 Page 9 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/999,834 Page 10 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/999,834 Page 11 Art Unit: 2639
Prosecution Insights