CTNF 19/052,587 CTNF 79985 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. 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 AIA Claim s 1 and 8-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-10 and 12-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,256,140 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-10 and 12-17 of Patent No. 12,256,140 contains every element of claims 1, 8-22 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claim(s) of the instant application. Claims 1, 8-22 of the instant application therefore is/are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such is/are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim . Regarding claim 1 , Instant Application Is met by U.S. Patent 12,256,140 claim 1 An electronic apparatus comprising: An electronic apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a program which, when executed by the processor, a processor; and a memory storing a program which, when executed by the processor, causes the electronic apparatus to obtain a live view image including a first area corresponding to a first optical image inputted via a first optical system, causes the electronic apparatus to obtain a first live view image corresponding to a first optical image inputted via a first optical system, and a second area corresponding to a second optical image inputted via a second optical system having a predetermined parallax with respect to the first optical system, and a second live view image corresponding to a second optical image inputted via a second optical system having a predetermined parallax with respect to the first optical system, and perform control to display the first live view image and the second live view image side by side and perform control to superimpose an indicator indicating a position corresponding to a part to be displayed on a screen of an external display device first on at least one of the first area and the second area. and superimpose an indicator indicating a position corresponding to a part to be displayed on a screen of an external display device first on each of the first live view image and the second live view image . 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) 1-6, 8-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motohiro (JP 2017017446) in view of Yamamoto (US PGPUB 20190104921) . [Claim 1] Motohiro teaches an electronic apparatus comprising: a processor and a memory storing a program which, when executed by the processor (Paragraph 23, fig. 2, The CPU 311 executes a program stored in the program ROM In the ROM 313 and a program such as an OS (Operating System) or an application loaded from the hard disk 320 to the RAM 312), causes the electronic apparatus to obtain a live view image including a first area corresponding to a first optical image inputted via a first optical system (Paragraph 28, figs. 3 and 4, In the camera devices 2, the circular omnidirectional image 510 is a live moving image captured by the fisheye lens 201 and compressed without being dewarped), and perform control to superimpose an indicator indicating a position corresponding to a part to be displayed on a screen of an external display device first on at least one of the first area and the second area (Paragraph 27, fig. 4, A preview frame 511 (indicator) and a mouse cursor 520 are displayed on the omnidirectional image 510, and the mouse cursor 520 moves when the user operates the mouse, and the preview frame 511 can be moved or resized accordingly. The main images 400 is an image corresponding to the preview frame 511.). Motohiro fails to teach a second area corresponding to a second optical image inputted via a second optical system having a predetermined parallax with respect to the first optical system. However Yamamoto teaches that if the cursor 51 is established in the vicinity of the object “B,” then since the measured distance from the image measurement processor 44 is larger than the threshold value Th, the proper image determiner 45 determines that the image acquired from the right optical system 32 is in better focus. Based on the determined result from the proper image determiner 45 , the image signal processor 41 displays the image illustrated in FIG. 5B acquired from the right optical system 32 on the display 5 (Paragraph 61, fig. 5b). Each of the first optical system and the second optical system includes a parallax with respect to one another (Paragraph 12). Therefore taking the combined teachings of Matahiro and Yamamoto, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to have a second area corresponding to a second optical image inputted via a second optical system having a predetermined parallax with respect to the first optical system in order to displaying better-focused images without causing an increase in the burden on the processor. [Claim 2] Yamamoto teaches wherein the first optical image and the second optical image are formed on one image pickup device (fig. 4, image sensor 35) in order to make the system less bulky. [Claim 3] Motohiro teaches wherein the first optical image and the second optical image are formed on two different image pickup devices (image pick up unit 101 and 202, fig. 1). [Claim 4] Motohiro teaches wherein when the program is executed by the processor, the program further causes the electronic apparatus to perform control to display one of the first area and the second area on a display (Paragraph 28, figs. 3 and 4, In the camera devices 2, the circular omnidirectional image 510 is a live moving image captured by the fisheye lens 201 and compressed without being dewarped). [Claim 5] Yamamoto teaches wherein when the program is executed by the processor, the program further causes the electronic apparatus to perform control to display both the first area and the second area on a display (figs. 5a and 5b) in order for the user to easily see which image is focused and blurred. [Claim 6] Yamamoto teaches wherein the indicator is superimposed on one of the first area and the second area (fig. 5b) in order for the user to measure a distance of the object from the device. [Claim 8] Motohiro teaches wherein the live view image is obtained by image-shooting (Paragraph 28, the circular omnidirectional image 810 Is a live moving Image captured by the fisheye lens 201 and compressed without being de-warped) and control is performed to superimpose display the indicator in an image-shooting standby state or during image-shooting (Paragraph 27, fig. 4, A preview frame 511 (indicator) and a mouse cursor 520 are displayed on the omnidirectional image 510, and the mouse cursor 520 moves when the user operates the mouse, and the preview frame 511 can be moved or resized accordingly). [Claim 9] Motohiro teaches wherein control is performed to superimpose the indicator in a specific display mode, and the control for superimposing the indicator is not performed in a display mode different from the specific display mode (Paragraph 39, in $101, the viewer terminal 3 detects whether or not the mouse is down. If the mouse is not down (NO in $101), this processing flow is terminated. When the mouse is down (YES in S101}, In the viewer terminal 3, the position where the mouse is down is outside the frame of the currently displayed preview frame 511, and it is determined whether or not the mouse is on the omnidirectional image 510. If the above conditions are not satisfied (NO in S102), this processing flow is terminated. If the above conditions are satisfied (YES in S102), in S103, the viewer terminal 3 displays another preview frame 512 with the mouse down position as the reference point.) [Claim 10] Motohiro teaches wherein the first optical system is a fish-eye lens, and the first area is a circular fish-eye image area (Paragraph 28). [Claim 11] Motohiro teaches wherein the first optical image is a circular fisheye image and the first area is a circular fish-eye image (Paragraph 28). [Claim 13] Motohiro teaches wherein in a case where the first area is the equidistant cylindrical image, control is performed to superimpose the indicator that has been subjected to the transformation (Paragraph 59). [Claim 14] Motohiro teaches wherein in a case where the first area is enlarged and displayed, control for superimposing displaying the indicator is not performed (Paragraph 54, When the drag is performed (YES in S304), In S308, the viewer terminal 3 enlarges or reduces the preview frame 512 according to the movement of the mouse cursor 520. Fig. 12a does not show the superimposed indicator). [Claim 15] Yamamoto teaches wherein the electronic apparatus is an imaging apparatus for capturing the first optical image (fig. 4) in order to make the device less bulky. [Claim 16] Yamamoto teaches wherein the first area is displayed on a display of the electronic device and the indicator is superimposed on a fixed position on the display (fig. 5b) in order to measure the distance easily. [Claim 17] Motohiro teaches wherein the electronic apparatus is an information processing apparatus connectable to an imaging apparatus for capturing the first optical image (Paragraph 9). [Claim 18] Yamamoto teaches wherein the first area is displayed on a display of another electronic apparatus connected to the electronic device and the indicator is superimposed on a position based on information related to the first optical system on the display (Paragraph 60, When the user establishes a cursor 51 as a measuring point on the display 5 using the manipulator 12 , the image measurement processor 44 measures the distance up to an object on which the cursor 51 is established. The proper image determiner 45 determines a better-focused one of the left and right images by determining whether the measured distance from the image measurement processor 44 is larger than the threshold value Th. Paragraph 56, The threshold value Th is established at an object distance intermediate between the best-focused position of the left optical system 31 and the best-focused position of the right optical system 32 . Display device 5 is separate from the rest of the device (fig. 1)) in order to measure the distance easily. [Claim 19] Motohiro teaches wherein the first optical image is a circular fisheye image and a part of the first optical image is converted into a perspective projection format and the converted part of the first optical image is displayed on the screen of the external display device (Paragraph 2, Further, mounting the fisheye lens, there is also visible the network camera by cutting a part in terms of converting the coordinate system. Paragraph 19, the dewarp processing unit 204 performs dewarp processing (coordinate system conversion and cutting processing) for reducing distortion of the omnidirectional Image acquired from the imaging unit 202 according to the acquired image cutting parameter). [Claim 20] Motohiro fails to teach wherein control is performed to superimpose the indicator when the first optical system is a fisheye lens unit and control is not performed to superimpose the indicator when the first optical system is not a fisheye lens unit. However it would be a matter of design choice so as to perform superimposition depending upon type of the lens unit in order with the designer’s needs. [Claims 21 and 22] These are method and computer-readable claims corresponding to apparatus claim 1 and are analyzed and rejected based upon apparatus claim 1. Allowable Subject Matter 07-43 Claims 7 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. The prior art fails to teach or suggest, Claim 7 “wherein the indicator is superimposed on both the first area and the second area.” Claim 12, “where the first area is an area of the equidistant cylindrical image, the first live view image is a lower resolution than a case where the first live view image is the circular fish-eye image”. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH K AGGARWAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6. 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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 5712727564. 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. /YOGESH K AGGARWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/052,587 Page 2 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/052,587 Page 3 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/052,587 Page 4 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/052,587 Page 5 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/052,587 Page 6 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/052,587 Page 7 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/052,587 Page 8 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/052,587 Page 9 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/052,587 Page 10 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/052,587 Page 11 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/052,587 Page 12 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/052,587 Page 13 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/052,587 Page 14 Art Unit: 2637
Prosecution Insights