CTNF 19/052,846 CTNF 80000 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. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copies of Japanese patent application number 2024-030642, filed on February 29, 2024, and Japanese patent application number 2024-104357, filed on June 27, 2024, have been received and made of record. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (lDS) submitted on February 13, 2025 and September 17, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered by the Examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “acquisition unit”, “first detection unit”, “second detection unit”, “determination unit”, “calculation unit”, “decision unit”, “third detection unit”, “image shooting unit”, and “control unit”, in claims 1-5, 8-10, 14, 16, and 19. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1)/(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Doi (US Pub. 2007/0223820) . In regard to claim 1 , note Doi discloses an image processing apparatus comprising at least one processor or circuit configured to function as an acquisition unit that acquires an image (paragraph 0028, and figure 1: 12), a first detection unit that detects a first area showing a subject included in the image (paragraphs 0034, 0040; the face regions are detected), a second detection unit that detects a second area having a predetermined first characteristic included in the image (paragraphs 0032, 0041; areas having skin color are detected), a determination unit that determines a state of the subject (paragraphs 0018, 0033, 0041-0045; a determination is made whether the subject is a true face), a calculation unit that calculates a photometric value using a luminance value of a first overlapping area in which the first area and the second area overlap in a case where the determination unit determines that the state of the subject satisfies a predetermined condition, and a decision unit that decides an exposure value based on the photometric value (paragraphs 0033, 0068; the overlapping area of the detected face area and skin area is used to perform exposure amount adjustment, i.e., detect the luminance levels, and adjust the exposure to obtain optimum exposure). In regard to claim 14 , note Doi discloses that the calculation unit calculates the photometric value based on a difference between the luminance value of the first overlapping area and a predetermined target luminance value (paragraphs 0033, 0068; the overlapping area of the detected face area and skin area is used to perform exposure amount adjustment, i.e., detect the luminance levels, and adjust the exposure to obtain optimum exposure, and wherein the calculation is considered to be based on the difference between the luminance value of the first overlapping area and a predetermined target luminance value in order to obtain the adjustment amount needed to reach the optimum exposure). In regard to claim 15 , note Doi discloses that the subject is a human face (paragraphs 0034, 0040; the face regions are detected), and the area having the first characteristic is skin (paragraphs 0032, 0041; areas having skin color are detected). In regard to claim 16 , note Doi discloses an electronic apparatus (figure 1) comprising an image processing apparatus comprising at least one processor or circuit configured to function as an acquisition unit that acquires an image (paragraph 0028, and figure 1: 12), a first detection unit that detects a first area showing a subject included in the image (paragraphs 0034, 0040; the face regions are detected), a second detection unit that detects a second area having a predetermined first characteristic included in the image (paragraphs 0032, 0041; areas having skin color are detected), a determination unit that determines a state of the subject (paragraphs 0018, 0033, 0041-0045; a determination is made whether the subject is a true face), a calculation unit that calculates a photometric value using a luminance value of a first overlapping area in which the first area and the second area overlap in a case where the determination unit determines that the state of the subject satisfies a predetermined condition, and a decision unit that decides an exposure value based on the photometric value (paragraphs 0033, 0068; the overlapping area of the detected face area and skin area is used to perform exposure amount adjustment, i.e., detect the luminance levels, and adjust the exposure to obtain optimum exposure), an image shooting unit that shoots and outputs an image (figure 1: 13), and at least one processor or circuit configured to function as a control unit that controls exposure based on the exposure value decided by the decision unit (figure 1: 14). In regard to claim 17 , this is a method claim, corresponding to the apparatus in claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect claim 1. In regard to claim 19 , this is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that is executable by the computer to control an operation corresponding to the image processing apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect claim 1 . 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi (US Pub. 2007/0223820), in view of Brunner (US Pub. 2011/0249961) . In regard to claim 2 , note the primary reference of Doi discloses the image processing apparatus according, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that in a case where the determination unit determines that the state does not satisfy the condition, the decision unit decides the exposure value using a photometric value most recently determined. In analogous art, Brunner discloses an image processing apparatus that determines a state of a subject, and that if in a case where the determination unit determines that the state does not satisfy the condition, the decision unit decides the exposure value using a photometric value most recently determined (paragraphs 0033-0034; if the subject state is determined to indicate that the subject is not present, the previous photometric date is used to maintain a uniform exposure between frames). Brunner teaches that using the most recently determined photometric value, in a case where the subject condition is not satisfied, is preferred in order to avoid any visually jarring lighting effects (paragraph 0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that in a case where the determination unit determines that the state does not satisfy the condition, the decision unit decides the exposure value using a photometric value most recently determined, in order to avoid any visually jarring lighting effects, as suggested by Brunner . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi (US Pub. 2007/0223820), in view of Kosaka (US Pub. 2016/0205307) . In regard to claim 12 , note Doi discloses that the subject is a human face (paragraphs 0034, 0040; the face regions are detected). Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that the state of the subject includes at least one of the face direction, the presence or absence and type of a worn item, and the presence or absence and color of beard and hair. In analogous art, Kosaka discloses an image processing device that detects subject/face areas for use in exposure control, and wherein a detected state of a subject/face is used to determine whether the area is used in the calculation of a photometric value for exposure control (paragraphs 0047, 0079-0080; the orientation state of the face is used to include/exclude the area for exposure control). Kosaka teaches that the detection of the state of the face direction of the subject area is preferred in order to prevent the exposure control from being influence by the color of hair due to the face turning sideways or backwards (paragraphs 0079-0080). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that the state of the subject includes at least one of the face direction, the presence or absence and type of a worn item, and the presence or absence and color of beard and hair, in order to prevent the exposure control from being influence by the color of hair due to the face turning sideways or backwards, as suggested by Kosaka. In regard to claim 13 , note Kosaka discloses that the condition is that a face direction is within a range of a predetermined angle from the front (paragraphs 0047, 0079-0080; the orientation state of the face is used to include/exclude the area for exposure control) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3-11 and 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISS S YODER III whose telephone number is (571)272-7323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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, Lin Ye can be reached at (571) 272-7372. 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. /CHRISS S YODER III/Examiner, Art Unit 2638 Application/Control Number: 19/052,846 Page 2 Art Unit: 2638 Application/Control Number: 19/052,846 Page 3 Art Unit: 2638 Application/Control Number: 19/052,846 Page 4 Art Unit: 2638 Application/Control Number: 19/052,846 Page 5 Art Unit: 2638 Application/Control Number: 19/052,846 Page 6 Art Unit: 2638 Application/Control Number: 19/052,846 Page 7 Art Unit: 2638 Application/Control Number: 19/052,846 Page 8 Art Unit: 2638 Application/Control Number: 19/052,846 Page 9 Art Unit: 2638 Application/Control Number: 19/052,846 Page 10 Art Unit: 2638 Application/Control Number: 19/052,846 Page 11 Art Unit: 2638
Prosecution Insights