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 .
TITLE
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. See MPEP 606.
35 USC § 112 Remarks
Although claim 12 uses language that would typically be considered to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), such as “a [tracking] unit configured to”, the claim language comprises a computer to function as each of these units, thus giving proper physical structure and as such does not meet the three-prong test as per MPEP 2187. Accordingly, the claim will not be interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wada (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0221017).
In regards to claim 1, Wada teaches an electronic apparatus comprising:
a memory storing instructions (See FIG. 3 in view of ¶0231-0234); and
at least one processor executing the instructions (See ¶0231-0234) causing the electronic apparatus to:
track a tracking target included in an image (See ¶0007-0010 wherein an image sensor movement controller controls the movement of the image sensor to track the subject);
start tracking from a tracking start position (See for example ¶0166-0172 in view of FIG. 12-13 wherein the tracking start position may be at reference position R0);
stop tracking (See for example ¶0166-0172 in view of FIG. 12-13 wherein tracking is ended [stopped] when the tracking target has moved past the movable range of the system); and
set the tracking start position such that, when the tracking is stopped, the tracking start position in a case of a state in which an image capturing preparation instruction for starting image capturing preparation has been issued (See FIG. 12 wherein the tracking start position may be taught as reference position R0) and the tracking start position in a case of a state in which the image capturing preparation instruction for starting image capturing preparation has not been issued are different from each other (See ¶0166-0172 in view of FIG. 12 wherein when tracking is stopped the new position is set at the end of the movable range W, this is taken in view of 0158 which describes that when the camera is turned off [thus image capturing preparation has not been issued], the system may treat this as if tracking has stopped with regards to the focusing of the image sensor and thus this starting position would be different; it is noted by the examiner that image capturing preparation is taught as autofocusing function and may thus the current claim language may be interpreted in various ways under Wada, for example --- the image capturing preparation not being issued may be interpreted as autofocus being turned off due to tracking being stopped when the imaging unit has past range W as seen in FIG. 12).
In regards to claim 5, Wada teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the stopping of the tracking is performed according to a user operation (See ¶0195 and 0198 wherein the user may turn off automatic tracking mode).
In regards to claim 6, Wada teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the stopping of the tracking is automatically performed in a case where the tracking target has been lost, in a case where a reliability of tracking has become less than a predetermined value, or in a case where the tracking target has been switched to another tracking target (See ¶0145-0151 and 0166-0172).
In regards to claim 7, Wada teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the state in which an image capturing preparation instruction has been issued is a state in which a shutter button has been half-pressed (See ¶0075).
In regards to claim 8, Wada teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor executing the instructions causes the electronic apparatus to perform continuous autofocus with respect to a subject targeted for tracking when the electronic apparatus is in a state in which the image capturing preparation instruction is being kept (See ¶0075 in view of 0166-0182).
In regards to claim 9, Wada teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image is a live view image which is being captured by an image capturing unit (See ¶0071-0073).
In regards to claim 10, Wada teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the electronic apparatus further comprises the image capturing unit (See FIG. 1-3).
In regards to claim 11, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Wada.
In regards to claim 12, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Wada, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and computer are taught as seen in ¶0231-0234 in view of 0133-0135.
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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0221017).
In regards to claim 2, Wada teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the tracking start position in the case of the state in which the image capturing preparation instruction for starting the image capturing preparation has been issued when the tracking is stopped is set based on a position where the tracking target was being tracked immediately before the stopping of the tracking (See FIG. 12 and 13).
Wada, however, fails to teach, within the same embodiment, wherein the tracking start position in the case of the state in which the image capturing preparation instruction for starting the image capturing preparation has not been issued when the tracking is stopped is set at a position that has been determined in advance.
In a similar embodiment and endeavor Wada teaches wherein the tracking start position in the case of the state in which the image capturing preparation instruction for starting the image capturing preparation has not been issued when the tracking is stopped is set at a position that has been determined in advance (See ¶0159-0163 wherein depending on how tracking is preferred, the system may return to the default reference position R0).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the Wada’s own teaching because it allows for giving users the option between how the image sensor is to be placed, as both of these have their pros and cons as seen in ¶0145-0151 and 0166-0172.
In regards to claim 3, Wada teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the position that has been determined in advance is a position before starting previous tracking (See FIG. 10 in view of ¶0145-0151).
In regards to claim 4, Wada fails to teach the electronic apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the position that has been determined in advance is updated in a case where a movement operation is performed by a user (See ¶0204-0206 wherein the reference position may be variable and set by the user).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 PM.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483