CTNF 19/096,893 CTNF 101776 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. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Claim(s) 1-18 do not use “means for “(or “step for”) language, or generic placeholders for “means” coupled with functional language without recitation of sufficient structure for carrying out the claimed functions and therefore do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. [Claims 4-13] Claim 4 is a dependent of claim 1, and describes wherein the predetermined condition is that an evaluation value regarding reliability of the focus detection amount falls within a predetermined range. However, claim 1 recites that a range that satisfies a predetermined condition that enables focus detection. Claim 4 teaches that an evaluation value regarding the reliability of focus detection amount falling within a predetermined range as the predetermined condition. The specification describes in paragraph 0109 that the condition that enables a focus detection is that an evaluation value regarding the reliability of the focus detection amount (AF reliability). The specification further describes evaluating the AF reliability for various focus setting values and comparing the AF reliability with a threshold value (e.g. Paragraphs 0091-0110). However, the specification does not appear to describe determining whether the range itself which the objects fall within (i.e. a plurality of objects or a plurality of parts fall within a predetermined depth within a range” where the “range satisfies a predetermined condition” see claim 1) satisfies the AF reliability condition. Instead, the specification describes a system by which an aperture is set and it is determined whether the settings result in an AF reliability which meets a predetermined range different from the range of claim 1. Therefore, the limitations of claim 4 appear to be inconsistent with the specification and as such are considered indefinite. See MPEP 2173.03: “A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971)”. Claims 5-13 are similarly rejected due to their dependency on claim 4. [Claim 14] Claim 14 is a dependent of claim 1, describes wherein the processor is configured to: estimate the aperture value that satisfies the predetermined condition before controlling the aperture stop. Claim 1 describes a range that satisfies a predetermined condition to enable focus detection. Claim 14 recites estimate the aperture value that satisfies the predetermined condition before controlling the aperture stop. The specification further discloses the control unit 201 estimates an aperture value that satisfies a predetermined condition before controlling the aperture stop 122. (e.g. Paragraphs 0109). However, the specification does not appear to describe determining whether the range itself which the objects fall within(i.e. a plurality of objects or a plurality of parts fall within a predetermined depth within a range” where the “range satisfies a predetermined condition” see claim 1) satisfies the estimated aperture value. Instead, the specification describes a system by which the control unit 201 estimates an aperture is set and it is determined whether the settings result meets a predetermined range different from the range of claim 1. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 appear to be inconsistent with the specification and as such are considered indefinite. See MPEP 2173.03: “A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971)”. [Claim 15] Claim 15 which is a dependent of claim 1, describes wherein the processor is configured to: wherein the processor is configured to: change a range of accumulation time according to an image-plane moving speed of each object, and determine the aperture value that satisfies the predetermined condition within the range of the accumulation time. However, claim 1 recites that a range that satisfies a predetermined condition that enables focus detection. The specification in paragraph 0120 The specification further discloses the control unit 201 changes the range of the accumulation time according to the image-plane moving speed of the object, and determines an aperture value that satisfies the predetermined condition within the range of the accumulation time. (e.g. Paragraph 0120). However, the specification does not appear to describe determining whether the range itself which the objects fall within(i.e. a plurality of objects or a plurality of parts fall within a predetermined depth within a range” where the “range satisfies a predetermined condition” see claim 1) satisfies the predetermined condition within the range of the accumulation time. Instead, the specification describes a system by which the control unit 201 determines an aperture value that satisfies the predetermined condition within the range of the accumulation time different from the range of claim 1. Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 appear to be inconsistent with the specification and as such are considered indefinite. See MPEP 2173.03: “A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971)”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1, 3, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata (US 2012/0328277 A1) in view of Lee, Jae-myung et al (US 2012/0057067 A1) . [Claim 1] Nakata teaches an image pickup apparatus (Nakata, Figure 1, camera body 100), comprising: an image sensor (Nakata, Figure 1, an image sensor 103); and a processor (Nakata, Figure 1, a central processing unit CPU 121) configured to: acquire a focus detection amount based on a signal acquired from the image sensor (Nakata, teaches an automatic focus detection that is carried out using a so-called climbing method where peak value of AF evaluation value, that has been obtained by extracting a high-frequency component from a contrast signal of image data, is detected while driving the focusing lens 203 (scanning). With this modified example 2, focusing is carried out by detecting phase difference between image data that has been output from a pair of image sensors, using so-called phase difference AF, paragraph 0246), determine an aperture value (Nakata, an aperture drive circuit 227 is configured including an actuator, such as a stepping motor, and a motor driver, and carries out opening operation control of the aperture 205 in accordance with an aperture value from the lens CPU 221, paragraph 0071) Nakata further discloses a range which satisfies a predetermined condition that enables focus detection ( Nakata, where distance scale 24a displays numerical values of distance from the minimum in focus distance to infinity, paragraph 0083). However, Nakata does not explicitly teach determining an aperture value such that a plurality of objects or a plurality of parts fall within a predetermined depth within a range that satisfies a predetermined condition that enables focus detection, Lee teaches a similar image pickup apparatus, (Lee, Figure 1, a digital photographing apparatus, i.e. a digital camera 100) control an aperture stop based on the focus detection amount, (Lee, teaches that the digital camera compares a depth based on a currently-set aperture value and a depth based on each distance difference to determine whether the digital camera may focus on all faces existing in an input image and capture the input image. If it is impossible to perform depth expression, the digital camera changes to an appropriate aperture value and captures the input image, (Lee, paragraph 0091). Lee further teaches determine an aperture value such that a plurality of objects (Lee, in Figure 6, shows a plurality of faces have been detected in operation S604, paragraph 0079) or a plurality of parts fall within a predetermined depth within a range that satisfies a predetermined condition(Lee, in Figure 6, and in step S608 select focus region from among faces, and in S610 acquire (i.e. determine) aperture setting (Lee teaches determining an aperture value such that plurality of objects fall within a predetermined depth of focus based on the table shown in Figure 5). Lee also teaches calculating distances to subjects corresponding to the detected face regions; determining whether to enable depth expression of the input image based on the calculated distances, paragraph 0008. Lee also teaches in the table described in Figure 5, the minimum in focus distance in order to have an aperture value to allow for focus. FIG. 5 is an exemplary diagram for describing a method which determines whether to enable depth expression with a distance to a subject, according to an embodiment, Lee paragraph 0069. Nakata teaches a range that is between a minimum in focus detection to infinity to enable focus detection for an image (Nakata, as shown in FIG. 4, the distance scale 24a showing the distance at which the focal length lens 203 is focused (in-focus distance) is shown on the outer peripheral surface of the distance display ring 24. The distance scale 24a has numerical values arrayed along a circumferential direction, representing distance from the minimum in-focus distance to infinity, paragraph 0082). Lee teaches satisfying the predetermined condition that distance of the plurality of objects is greater than minimum in focus distance based on the table described in Figure 5. Lee further teaches detecting two or more face regions from an input image; calculating distances to subjects corresponding to the detected face regions; determining whether to enable depth expression of the input image based on the calculated distances; and controlling capturing of the input image according to the determined result (Lee, paragraph 0008). Lee further teaches AF value for an entire input image, measures a distance to a subject, and determines whether to change an aperture value. However, the digital camera 100 may optionally measure a distance with the size of a detected face and determine whether to change an aperture value (Lee, paragraph 0073). The table described in Figure 5, describes aperture value for minimum distances. Lee teaches when there is a plurality of persons in photographing of a subject, the digital camera detects the faces of the subject, automatically calculates an aperture value for focusing on all the faces, automatically changes to the calculated aperture value, and photographs the subject in order for all the faces to be focused (Lee, paragraph 0085). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakata with Lee to with the motivation being able to automatically changes the aperture setting value and photograph the subject in order for all the faces to be focused (Lee paragraph 0085). [Claim 3] Regarding claim 3, Nakata in view of Lee, teach all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to control exposure by setting the aperture stop to the aperture value in acquiring the signal, (Lee, additionally teaches a control unit 210 determines whether to enable the depth expression of an input image by using a distance to a subject. The control unit 210 controls photographing of the input image according to the determined result. Herein, enabling or disabling depth expression denotes whether an entire input image may be focused with a current aperture value, i.e., the amount of received light. An aperture value is a value for controlling the amount of received light (i.e. controlling exposure). As an aperture is increasingly opened, the aperture value allows much light to be transmitted. As the aperture is increasingly closed, the aperture value allows little light to be transmitted. That is, as the aperture is increasingly opened, a depth becomes shallower, and thus an out-focusing effect can be obtained. On the other hand, as the aperture is increasingly closed, a completely-focused photo can be obtained. Also, as a subject is closely photographed or a distance between backgrounds increases, a depth is shallow. The control unit 210 determines whether a range enables depth expression or not through a distance between a currently-set f-number and a subject, and controls photographing of an input image, (Nakata, paragraph 0067). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakata with Lee, to allow for controlling exposure via a setting an aperture value for controlling the amount of received light. [Claim 17] Claim 17 is directed to a method corresponding to apparatus claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1. [Claim 18] Regarding claim 18, Nakata in view of Lee teach all the limitations of claim 17. Nakata does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute the control method defined in claim 17, However, Lee teaches computer readable code executable by the processor on a non-transitory computer-readable media such as read-only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM), CD-ROMs, DVDs, magnetic tapes, hard disks, floppy disks, and optical data storage devices. The computer readable recording media may also be distributed over network coupled computer systems so that the computer readable code is stored and executed in a distributed fashion. This media may be read by the computer, stored in the memory, and executed by the processor, paragraph 0097. Lee teaches storing codes in a computer-readable media so that it can be executed by the processor to carry out variety of functions under the control of one or more processors (Lee, paragraph 0099). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakata with Lee, with the motivation to use such computer-readable medium for storing a program that is executable by a processor allows for the system to be implemented using off-the-shelf programmable hardware without the need to custom specific designed circuits, and further allows for the flexibility of the system to be easily upgraded or modified by rewriting the stored program without the need for changing the underlying hardware of the system . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata (US 2012/0328277 A1) in view of Lee, Jae-myung et al (US 2012/0057067 A1), further in view of Keith et al (US 6760545 B1) . [Claim 2] Regarding claim 2, Nakata in view of Lee, teach all the limitations of claim 1, Nakata in view of Lee, does not explicitly teach, wherein the processor is configured to change the aperture value according to whether the predetermined condition that distance > MFD is satisfied, However, Keith teaches a similar image capture system that includes a ranging system adapted to determine whether an object to be photographed is located at less than a nominal minimum focus distance of the camera or whether an object to be photographed is located within one of a plurality of ranges less than the nominal minimum focus distance, column 1, lines 66-67, and column 2, lines 1-3. Keith teaches measuring the object distance and comparing with the minimum focus distance of the camera to determined their relative position (i.e. satisfying predetermined condition). Keith further teaches initiating image capture through a variable aperture at a first aperture size, collecting a predetermined amount of ambient scene light during image capture, initiating closing of the variable aperture, and illuminating a flash unit during closing of the variable aperture at a predetermined restricted second aperture size corresponding to the close up operational mode. The step of selecting may include determining whether an object to be photographed is located at less than a nominal minimum focus distance of the camera and also whether an object to be photographed is located within one of a plurality of ranges less than the nominal minimum focus distance. column 1, lines 28-40. Keith teaches arrangement of imaging optics 16 in camera 10 typically causes camera 10 to have a nominal minimum focus distance 26, which typically must be exceeded during image capture to avoid blurring of the resulting image, column 3, lines 3-7. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakata and Lee with Keith with the motivation being able to change the aperture value and avoid blurring of resulting image . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata (US 2012/0328277 A1) in view of Lee, Jae-myung et al (US 2012/0057067 A1), further in view of Sambongi et al (US 2022/0116532 A1) . [Claim 16] Regarding claim 16, Nakata in view of Lee, teach all the limitations of claim 1, Nakata in view of Lee, do not teach wherein the image sensor has a plurality of focus detecting pixels configured to receive light beams that each pass through different partial pupil regions of an imaging optical system that includes the aperture stop, and wherein the signal is a pair of signals acquired from the plurality of focus detecting pixels. Sambongi teaches a similar imaging apparatus with an image sensor (Sambongi, Figure 1, image sensor 22) has a plurality of pixels each having a photoelectric conversion unit. The image sensor 22 performs photoelectric conversion of the received light by the photoelectric conversion unit to generate a signal, (Paragraph 0035). Furthermore, the focus detection unit 215 calculates an image shift amount by performing correlation calculation with a first signal Sig 1 generated by capturing an image formed of a first light flux passed through a first pupil region of the exit pupil of the photographing optical system 31 and a second signal Sig 2 generated by capturing an image formed of a second light flux passed through a second pupil region of the exit pupil of the photographing optical system 31 , paragraph 0051. Sambongi describes the image signal is formed of a pair of signals acquired from a plurality of focus detecting pixels which is common in Phase Difference Automatic Focusing PDAF process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakata in view of Lee with Sambongi to allow capturing light from different pupil regions in order to gather more comprehensive defocus information . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-01 AIA Claim s 4-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Prior art does not teach or suggest wherein the predetermined condition is that an evaluation value regarding reliability of the focus detection amount falls within a predetermined range. Inomata et al. (US 2023/0276126 A1) teaches an imaging device in a case where it is determined that the distance between the focus position after the user operation and the position of the specified subject is equal to or more than the predetermined threshold, the camera control unit 16 specifies the closest subject among the subjects located ahead of the end time focus position in the moving direction of the focus position in step S 211 . However, the prior art fails to teach satisfying predetermined condition that is an evaluation value regarding reliability of the focus detection amount falls within a predetermined range. Therefore, while the prior art teaches similar systems, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the specific requirements of the claim. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The following show additional prior art systems/methods for imaging apparatus: Inomata et al. US-20230276126-A1 Wong et al. US 2010/0080482 A1 Endo, Hiroshi US 2007/0280662 A1 Kamimura; Masayuki US-8878974-B2 NOMURA; Naoki US-20240179408-A1 KITA; Yuki US-20210377438-A1 SUZUKI; Ryuta US-20210105413-A1 SHINGU; Yasuhiro US-20240107161-A1 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHEDI NMN HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7173. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm. 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. /MEHEDI NMN HASSAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2637 /SINH TRAN/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/096,893 Page 2 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/096,893 Page 3 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/096,893 Page 4 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/096,893 Page 5 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/096,893 Page 6 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/096,893 Page 7 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/096,893 Page 8 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/096,893 Page 9 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/096,893 Page 10 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/096,893 Page 11 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/096,893 Page 12 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/096,893 Page 13 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/096,893 Page 14 Art Unit: 2637
Prosecution Insights