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 with respect to claims 1-12 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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) 1-5, 7, 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kimishima et al. (“Kim”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0360146).
In regards to claim 1, Kim teaches an electronic apparatus comprising:
a memory storing instructions (See ¶0118, 0136-0141 and 0618); and
at least one processor executing the instructions (See ¶0477 and 0511) causing the electronic apparatus to:
track a tracking target included in an image (See ¶0011, 0380 in view of FIG. 6, 7, 12A-C and 17A-C);
start tracking from a tracking start position in the image (See ¶0384-0387 as an initial starting point for desired capture imaging based on AF control within the image, this may then be taken into two separate examples which carry out the process in different manners but may each teach the limitations as per currently claimed, as the first example see 0323-0326 and 0399-0404 in view of FIG. 12, then see ¶03590362 and 0407-0411 in view of FIG. 17 as a second example);
stop tracking (See ¶0384-0387 as an initial starting point for desired capture imaging based on AF control within the image, this may then be taken into two separate examples which carry out the process in different manners but may each teach the limitations as per currently claimed, as the first example see 0323-0326 and 0399-0404 in view of FIG. 12, then see ¶03590362 and 0407-0411 in view of FIG. 17 as a second example); and
set the tracking start position in the image 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 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 ¶0384-0387 as an initial starting point for desired capture imaging based on AF control within the image, this may then be taken into two separate examples which carry out the process in different manners but may each teach the limitations as per currently claimed, wherein the focus frame and tracking frame within the image may be adjusted in differing ways, as the first example see 0323-0326 and 0399-0404 in view of FIG. 12, then see ¶03590362 and 0407-0411 in view of FIG. 17 as a second example; it is noted by the examiner that the tracking start position [for focus frame and tracking frame] being “in the image” as seen in FIG. 12 and 17 by Kim is similar to that as per applicant’s specification with regards to FIG. 9B as an example).
In regards to claim 2, Kim 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. 17A-C); and
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 FIG. 12A-C in view of ¶0336).
In regards to claim 3, Kim 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 ¶0365).
In regards to claim 4, Kim teaches 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 ¶0411).
In regards to claim 5, Kim teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the stopping of the tracking is performed according to a user operation (See ¶0232, 0415-0417 and 0428).
In regards to claim 7, Kim 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 ¶0081 and 0093 in view of 0190).
In regards to claim 8, Kim 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 ¶0082-0083, 0188 and 0190 wherein tracking and autofocus may continue as per the case of continuous pressing).
In regards to claim 10, Kim teaches the electronic apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the electronic apparatus further comprises the image capturing unit (See FIG. 1-5).
In regards to claim 11, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Kim.
In regards to claim 12, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Kim, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and computer are taught as seen in ¶0107 and 0118-0120.
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) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimishima et al. (“Kim”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0360146) in view of Wada (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0221017).
In regards to claim 6, Kim fails to teach 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.
In a similar endeavor Wada teaches 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).
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 teaching of Wada into Kim because it allows for temporary ending to tracking when the target has moved out of a tracking range as seen in at least ¶0170, which may then be tracked again when in range.
In regards to claim 9, Kim fails to teach the electronic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the image is a live view image which is being captured by an image capturing unit.
In a similar endeavor Wada teaches wherein the image is a live view image which is being captured by an image capturing unit (See ¶0071-0073).
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 teaching of Wada into Kim because it allows for the display to be used as a monitor for reproducing captured images at the time of imaging, and thus a live view is displayed as necessary such that an image captured by an image sensor is displayed in real time as described in at least ¶0071.
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 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
Prosecution Insights