CTNF 19/103,509 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) 1-20 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 § 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 (s) 1, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US 2024/0098366 A1), in view of Haynold, Oliver Markus (US -10419658-B1) , [Claim 1] Regarding claim 1, Matsui, teaches a non-transitory, machine-readable storage medium storing instructions (Matsui, in Figure 1, teaches a ROM 210 stores a program for the camera control unit 212 to execute various processing and various data necessary for the processing, paragraph 0034); and at least one processor coupled to the non-transitory, machine- readable storage medium, the at least one processor being configured to execute the instructions to (Matsui, Figure 1, describes the Embodiment(s) of the disclosure can also be realized by a computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer-executable instructions (e.g., one or more programs) recorded on a storage medium (which may also be referred to more fully as a ‘non-transitory computer-readable storage medium’) to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s) and/or that includes one or more circuits (e.g., application specific integrated circuit (ASIC)) for performing the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s), and by a method performed by the computer of the system or apparatus by, for example, reading out and executing the computer- executable instructions from the storage medium to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s) and/or controlling the one or more circuits to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiment(s). The computer may comprise one or more processors (e.g., central processing unit ( CPU ), micro processing unit (MPU)) and may include a network of separate computers or separate processors to read out and execute the computer-executable instructions. The 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)™), a flash memory device, a memory card, and the like, paragraph 0111). receive lens autofocus data characterizing an adjustment of a lens of the apparatus, (Matsui, in Figure 3, performs AF based on image data as described in S302, a camera control unit 212 causes the AF signal processing unit 204 to perform focus detection processing, which calculates defocus amount as shown in Figure 4, S406 and transmits to the camera control unit 212, which may execute a program stored in a ROM as described in paragraphs 0034, 0111). Matsui also teaches in Figure 1, receive a motion data characterizing a motion of an object within the image (Matsui, moving object determining unit 2122, in the camera control unit 212, calculates an image plane position (position where an object image is formed) from the defocus amounts at a plurality of times stored in a memory circuit 215 by a memory 2123 to determine motion , paragraph 0036). However, Matsui does not teach receive rotation data characterizing a rotation of the apparatus; Haynold teaches a camera 200, that is adapted to use data reported by the rotation sensor simultaneously with data from the autofocus sensor. A Kalman filter or similar state space filter may be chosen to calculate an expected change in focus observation based on the camera's rotation, taking into account measurement errors both of the focus sensors and of the rotation sensors. This filter then generates an estimate, based upon both changes from the autofocus sensor and from the rotation sensor, of the appropriate change in focus, column 7, lines 61-65. Haynold teaches generating an estimate/predict based upon both changes from the autofocus sensor and of the rotation sensors and thereby changing focus observation appropriately and immediately based upon rotation being sensed, even if the focus sensor may take longer time to generate useful output, (Column 8, lines 1-6). 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 Matsui with Haynold to implement a change in focus observation based on sensing rotation sensor data of camera, thus, focus will change appropriately immediately upon rotation being sensed, even if the focus sensor may take a longer time to generate useful output, column 8, lines 1-6. The combination of Matsui and Haynold provides determining a target position for the lens based on the lens autofocus data, (Matsui, performs AF based on image data as described in S302, a camera control unit 212 causes the AF signal processing unit 204 to perform focus detection processing, which calculates defocus amount as shown in Figure 4, S406 and transmits to the camera control unit 212, which may execute a program stored in a ROM as described in paragraphs 0034, 0111), the motion data, (Matsui, the AF control unit 2121 causes the prediction unit 2124 to predict future image plane position, calculates a driving amount of the focus lens 103 necessary to coincide with the predictive image, paragraph 0036), the rotation data, (Haynold teaching adjusting the focusing of the lens based on rotation data to further improve autofocusing speed; column 8, lines 10-13), adjust the lens of the imaging device based on the target position, (actually moving the lens according to the determined position in the above-mentioned steps). [Claim 11] Claim 11 Is directed to a method corresponding to apparatus claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1. [Claim 20] Regarding claim 20, Matsui in view of Haynold teach a non-transitory, machine-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform the recited operations (see the rejection of claim 1 above) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US 2024/0098366 A1), in view of Haynold, Oliver Markus (US -10419658-B1), further in view of Kawarada, Masahiro (US 20120237193 A1) . [Claim 7] Regarding claim 7, Matsui, in view of Haynold teach all the limitations of claim 1, Matsui, in view of Haynold teaches, determine the target position for the lens of the apparatus based on the lens autofocus data, the motion data, and the rotation data as described in claim 1. However, Matsui, in view of Haynold do not teach wherein the motion data comprises a motion value, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instruction to: compare the motion value to a first threshold; and based on the comparison However, Kawarada in Figure 1, teaches a system controller 230, that uses a CPU or an MPU and controls the operation of each circuit. Furthermore, Kawarada teaches during focus driving, the system controller 230 communicates commands associated with the lens driving direction, driving amount, and driving speed with the lens controller 108. When the lens controller 108 receives a lens driving command from the system controller 230 (i.e. an executable instruction), it controls, via a lens driving control unit 104, a lens driving mechanism 103 which drives the focus lens 101 in the optical axis direction to perform focus control, (Paragraph 0034). Kawarada further teaches in Figure 6, a similar system to Matsui which performs autofocus based on movement and teaches comparison of an amount of movement to a threshold (S604) to determine how an autofocus prediction is to be performed (S605 or S606-S607) and performs autofocusing to determine a les target position based on the comparison (S608) to prevent degradation in prediction accuracy (Paragraph 0060). Kawarada further teaches when the amount of movement of the object (i.e. motion data), which is output from the tracking unit 209, exceeds a predetermined threshold (i.e. first threshold) (to be referred to as an image sensing plane movement threshold hereinafter), the method of predicting movement of the object on the image plane is changed as a characteristic operation according to this embodiment, (Paragraph 0059). Kawarada further teaches in Figure 6, in step S604, the prediction calculation circuit 237 compares the input amount of movement of the object with a predetermined image sensing plane movement threshold. In step S606, the focus detection region of interest recognized by the prediction calculation circuit 237 is changed based on the amount of movement of the object on the image sensing plane. In step S5608, the lens driving control unit 104 drives the focus lens 101 via the lens driving mechanism 103 based on the lens driving target position calculated in step s605 or S607. After driving, the process advances to step S609. In step S609, the prediction calculation circuit 237 stores the lens driving target position for the next prediction calculation operation. After the storage, the process advances to step S610, paragraphs 0069-0073. Kawarada teaches appropriately adjust the focus on a main object even if the motion characteristics of the main object change rapidly in an image capture apparatus having an autofocus function, paragraph 0008. 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 Matsui, in view of Haynold with Kawarada to appropriately adjust the focus on a main object even if the motion characteristics of the main object change rapidly in an image capture apparatus having an autofocus function, paragraph 0008. [Claim 17] Claim 17 Is directed to a method corresponding to apparatus claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 7 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui (US 2024/0098366 A1), in view of Haynold, Oliver Markus (US -10419658-B1), in view of Kawarada, Masahiro (US 20120237193 A1), further in view of Cui et al. (US 2021/0337128 A1) . [Claim 8] Regarding claim 8, Matsui in view of Haynold and further in view of Kawarada teach all the limitations of claim 7. Matsui, in view of Haynold and further in view of Kawarada teach, determine the target position for the lens of the apparatus based on the lens autofocus data, the motion data, and the rotation data as described in claim 1. However, Matsui, in view of Haynold and further in view of Kawarada do not teach wherein the lens autofocus data comprises a confidence value, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instruction to: compare the confidence value to a second threshold; Cui teaches a similar phase detection auto focus (PDAF) system in Figure 13, where the disclosed technique set a first (or default) focus orientation for the focus pixels within the image sensor that are associated with a region of interest. Disclosed techniques perform a PD analysis on image data generated by the image sensor while the focus pixels are set in the first focus orientation. If a confidence level output by the PD analysis does not satisfy a confidence threshold, disclosed techniques may then set a second focus orientation for the focus pixels associated with the region of interest, where the second focus orientation is different than the first focus orientation. For example, disclosed techniques may change the focus orientation of focus pixels associated with an identified region from a left-right focus orientation to an up-down focus orientation. However, if the confidence level satisfies the confidence threshold, disclosed techniques may then maintain the first focus orientation of the focus pixels. It should be appreciated that in some examples, the focus pixels associated with different regions of interests may be associated with different respective focus orientations, paragraph 0041. Cui teaches a phase detection auto focus technique to adjust the focus orientation for the focus pixels based on an analysis of a scene. For example, disclosed techniques may set a configurable pixel to operate as an imaging pixel for a first frame of a scene and may set the configurable pixel to operate as a focus pixel for a subsequent frame of the scene, paragraph 0037. 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 Matsui, Haynold and Kawarada with Cui, the motivation is for adjusting the focus orientation for the focus pixels of an image sensor based on an analysis of a scene, paragraph 0037. [Claim 18] Claim 18 Is directed to a method corresponding to apparatus claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 8. Subject Matter Not Taught by the Prior Art Claims 2-6, 9-10, 12-16, and 19 contain subject matter not taught by the prior art, but cannot be considered allowable due to above 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections. [Claim 2-6 and 12-16] Regarding claims 2-6 and 12-16, While Matsui in view of Haynold teach an apparatus and a method which determines an autofocus position using autofocus data, motion data and rotation data, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest determining the target position for the lens based on first, second and third coefficients as recited in claims 2-6 and 12-16. [Claim 9 and 19] Regarding claims 9 and 19, while Matsui in view of Haynold, in view of Kawarada teach an apparatus and a method wherein the motion data comprises a motion value, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instruction to: compare the motion value to a first threshold; and based on the comparison, determine the target position for the lens of the apparatus based on the lens autofocus data, the motion data, and the rotation data, but do not teach or suggest wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instruction to: receive additional motion data characterizing a motion of an object within an additional image, the additional motion data comprising a second motion value; compare the second motion value to the first threshold; based on the comparison, apply a time-of-flight autofocus process to the additional image to determine a time-of-flight lens position; and adjust the lens of the imaging device based on the time-of-flight lens position. [Claim 10] Regarding claim 10, while Matsui in view of Haynold and further in view of Kawarada teach an apparatus and a method wherein the motion data comprises a motion value, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instruction to: compare the motion value to a first threshold; and based on the comparison, determine the target position for the lens of the apparatus based on the lens autofocus data, the motion data, and the rotation data, but do not teach or suggest wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instruction to: receive additional motion data characterizing a motion of an object within an additional image, the additional motion data comprising a second motion value; compare the second motion value to the first threshold; based on the comparison, apply a time-of-flight autofocus process to the additional image to determine a time-of-flight lens position and a time-of-flight confidence value; compare the time-of-flight confidence value to a second threshold; based on the comparison, apply a contrast autofocus process to the additional image to determine a contrast lens position; and adjust the lens of the imaging device based on the contrast lens position . 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: Tsairi et al. US 2022/0286611 A1 Hoshino et al. US 2020/0236291 A1 Misawa, Atsushi US 2015/0130955 A1 Jansson et al. US 2023/0199295 A1 Tanaka et al. US 2023/0016323 A1 Sugimoto, Masahiko US 2009/0135291 A1 Terauchi, Masakazu US 2013/0342754 A1 Ogura et al. US 2023/0247290 A1 Nakamura, Shun US-2024/0267618-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: 19/103,509 Page 2 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/103,509 Page 3 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/103,509 Page 4 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/103,509 Page 5 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/103,509 Page 6 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/103,509 Page 7 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/103,509 Page 8 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/103,509 Page 9 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/103,509 Page 10 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/103,509 Page 11 Art Unit: 2637 Application/Control Number: 19/103,509 Page 12 Art Unit: 2637
Prosecution Insights