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 .
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 copy of Japanese patent application number 2022-156821, filed on September 29, 2022, has been received and made of record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (lDS) submitted on Marcy 3, 2025 and April 14, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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: “imaging unit” and “notification unit”, in claims 1 and 13.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim recites, inter alia, “A computer-readable storage medium storing a program …”. However, after close inspection, the Examiner respectfully notes that Paragraph [0060] of the specification discloses that “[t]he computer-executable instructions may be provided to the computer, for example, from a network or the storage medium. The storage medium may include, for example, one or more of a hard disk, a random-access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), a storage of distributed computing systems, an optical disc (such as a compact disc (CD), digital versatile disc (DVD), or Blu-ray Disc (BD)ᵀM), a flash memory device, a memory card, and the like.” As such, this description is considered to be non-limiting since it merely discloses several examples of possible mediums that may be used, and also states that other types can be used.
An Examiner is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during examination. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal, per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, given the non-limiting description provided by the disclosure and the broadest reasonable interpretation, the computer readable storage medium of the claim may include transitory propagating signals. As a result, the claim pertains to non-statutory subject matter.
However, the Examiner respectfully submits a claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. For additional information, please see the Patents’ Official Gazette notice published February 23, 2010 (1351 OG 212).
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (JP 2013219626 A), in view of Ahiska (US Patent 9,602,700). The Examiner also notes, with respect to Kubota, that for purposes of examination, the Examiner will refer to the machine translation.
In regard to claim 1, note Kubota discloses an image pickup apparatus comprising an imaging unit configured to acquire a captured image (paragraph 0011, and figure 1: 101), and a processor configured to perform predetermined transformation processing for at least one partial area of the captured image to generate a transformed image (paragraphs 0013, 0016, 0018), perform focus peaking processing for at least one of the captured image and the transformed image to generate a focus-peaking image (paragraphs 0013, 0016, 0018), generate a combined image of the at least one of the captured image and the transformed image, and the focus-peaking image (paragraphs 0006, 0013, 0016, 0018), and control a display unit so as to display the combined image (paragraphs 0006, 0013, 0016, 0018), wherein in a case where the processor is set to perform the focus peaking processing for the transformed image to display the combined image, the processor causes the display unit to display the combined image of the transformed image and the focus-peaking image (paragraphs 0006, 0013, 0016, 0018; the image region selected is displayed with the peaking image superimposed), and wherein the partial area includes a peripheral part of the captured image (paragraph 0018, and figure 2: 201-202).
Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that the predetermined transformation processing is for correcting image distortion.
In analogous art, Ahiska discloses an image pickup apparatus that includes a processor that performs predetermined transformation processing for correcting image distortion (column 10, lines 30-55, column 12, line 57 – column 13, line 39 , and figure 6: 510-520, and figures 13-14). Ahiska teaches that performing predetermined transformation processing for correcting image distortion is preferred in order to execute movement and zoom operations through correction of distortion introduced by the lens and image sensor (column 10, lines 30-55). 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 predetermined transformation processing corrects image distortion, in order to execute movement and zoom operations through correction of distortion introduced by the lens and image sensor, as suggested by Ahiska.
In regard to claim 2, note Kubota discloses that the peripheral part includes an end portion of the captured image (figure 2: 201-202).
In regard to claim 3, note Kubota discloses that the processor is configured to cause the display unit to display the combined image of the transformed image and the focus-peaking image in initial display (paragraphs 0006, 0013, 0016, 0018; the image region selected is displayed with the peaking image superimposed).
In regard to claim 4, note Ahiska discloses that the processor is configured to cause the display unit to simultaneously display the captured image and the transformed image (column 12, lines 26-44, and figures 9-12; the original wide image is displayed along with the image of the region of interest).
In regard to claim 5, note Ahiska discloses that the processor is configured to cause the display unit to simultaneously display the captured image and the combined image(column 12, lines 26-44, and figures 9-12; the original wide image is displayed along with the image of the region of interest, wherein when combined with Kubota, the region of interest is displayed as the combined image).
In regard to claim 6, note Kubota discloses that the processor is configured to reduce an image, and wherein each of the captured image and the transformed image is an image reduced by the processor (paragraphs 0014-0015, 0018, and figure 1: 107; each of the image signals are enlarged or reduced in order to match the display device).
In regard to claim 7, note Kubota discloses that the processor is configured to perform the focus peaking processing for the captured image or the transformed image reduced by the processor (paragraphs 0006, 0013-0016, 0018; the scaled image of the selected area is used to perform peaking process).
In regard to claim 8, note Ahiska discloses that the partial area includes a first partial area and a second partial area, wherein the processor is configured to perform the predetermined transformation processing for the first partial area to generate a first transformed image (column 9, line 60 – column 10, line 55, and figure 5: 150/450), perform the predetermined transformation processing for the second partial area to generate a second transformed image (column 9, line 60 – column 10, line 55, and figure 5: 160/460), and cause the display unit to simultaneously display the first transformed image and the second transformed image (column 12, lines 26-44, and figure 12).
In regard to claim 9, note Ahiska discloses a user operation unit, wherein the processor is configured to change a position of the partial area that is a target of the predetermined transformation processing according to a signal from the user operation unit (column 3, lines 7-14).
In regard to claim 10, note Ahiska discloses that the predetermined transformation processing is perspective projection transformation processing (column 3, lines 21-41, column 4, lines 18-43; the wide angle image is considered to be processed to generate a desired view using a perspective projection transform).
In regard to claim 11, note the Kubota discloses the generation of a transformed image, and wherein this image is viewable on a display (paragraphs 0006, 0013, 0016, 0018; the image region selected is displayed), and as such, is considered to be viewable as VR content.
In regard to claim 12, note Kubota discloses that the focus-peaking image is an image that includes edge information in at least one of the captured image and the transformed image (paragraph 0018).
In regard to claim 13, note Kubota discloses a notification unit configured to notify a user of the partial area that is a target of the predetermined transformation processing (paragraphs 0016, 0018, and figure 2: 202; the display unit displays the transformed area).
In regard to claim 15, note Ahiska discloses that the captured image is a fisheye image acquired using a fisheye lens (column 4, lines 31-43, column 7, lines 15-17).
In regard to claim 16, this is a method claim, corresponding to the apparatus in claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect claim 1.
In regard to claim 17, this is directed to computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute the operation corresponding to the operation of the image pickup apparatus of claim 1, and the method of claim 16. Therefore, claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9,560,277: note the use of an image pickup apparatus that performs image transformation that corrects distortion on a selected area of the captured image.
US 5,185,667: note the use of an image pickup apparatus that performs image perspective projection transformation on a selected area of the image captured with a fisheye lens.
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
Prosecution Insights