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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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 limitations are: “an adjustment unit”, “a blur correction adjustment unit”, “a blur correction amount generation unit”, “an exposure adjustment unit” and “a blur correction processing unit” in claims 1-18.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites “a program for causing a computer to implement an information processing method.” The claim defines a program embodying functional descriptive material. However, the claim does not define interrelated structure and function between a program and a storage medium (i.e., a memory or a non-transitory computer readable medium) that stores the program, and is thus non-statutory for that reason (i.e., “When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized” – Guidelines Annex IV). That is, the scope of the presently claimed “a program” can range from paper on which the program is written, to a program simply contemplated and memorized by a person.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 7, 8 and 11 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.
As to claim 7, this claim recites “the first speed” in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as claim 7 depends on claim 5.
As to claim 8, this claim recites the limitation "the first speed" and “the second speed” in lines 5-6 of the claim. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations as claim 8 depends on claim 5.
As to claim 11, this claim recites “a blur correction following speed” in line 4 of the claim. However, it is unclear or vague regarding “speed” which is NOT defined as speed of which. For example, speed of camera, speed of object(s) or speed of other element(s), etc. A scope of “speed” is not ascertained in this claim, and therefore, claim 11 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claims 1-6, 10-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noguchi (JP 2018072540A, hereinafter “Noguchi”).
Regarding claim 1, Noguchi discloses an information processing device (Figs. 1-9) comprising an adjustment unit (119 which also comprises 104 and 118 as described in par. [0052]: “The optical image blur correction control unit 104 and the electronic image blur correction control unit 118 may be a part of the camera system control unit 119”) that adjusts one of a value related to blur correction in an imaging device or a shutter speed, the imaging device including an electronic blur correction function that corrects a blur of image data and a control function for the shutter speed (see Fig. 1 and par. [0044]-[0045], [0052] and [0128]-[0133], wherein a value related to one or both of electronic blur correction and optical blur correction is adjusted by the system controller 119 based on a level of shaking or motion in accordance to a controlled shutter speed).
Regarding claim 2, Noguchi also discloses that the value related to blur correction includes a blur correction amount indicating an amount of movement of a cutout position of image data in electronic blur correction (see par. [0021] & [0073]).
Regarding claim 3, as also disclosed by Noguchi, the adjustment unit includes a blur correction amount adjustment unit that adjusts the blur correction amount on a basis of the shutter speed (par. [0128]-[0133]).
Regarding claim 4, Noguchi further discloses that a blur correction amount generation unit that generates a target amount of the blur correction amount, on a basis of a result of sensing of movement of the imaging device (par. [0043]-[0049], [0128]-[0133], wherein a target amount of the blur correction amount is based on the result of movement of the imaging device detected by a shake detection unit 117).
Regarding claim 5, Noguchi also discloses that the blur correction amount adjustment unit determines a minimum amount of the blur correction amount, on a basis of the target amount of the blur correction amount (see par. [0128]-[0143]. Note that when the shutter speed is equal or less than a predetermined amount, for example, 1/8 sec or longer exposure time, a minimum amount for electronic blur correction is determined. As a result, the electronic blur correction is reduced to the minimum amount).
Regarding claim 6, as also seen in Noguchi, in a case where the shutter speed is not lower than a first speed, the blur correction amount adjustment unit adjusts the blur correction amount to the target amount (see par. [0128]-[0143], wherein the shutter speed is NOT lower than 1/8 sec, the adjustment is set to the target amount which is the combination of reduced amount of optical blur correction and increased amount of electronic blur correction).
Regarding claim 10, Noguchi discloses that the value related to blur correction includes a blur correction setting value to be used in calculation of the blur correction amount (see par. [0128]-[0143]).
Regarding claim 11 (note that this claim is considered as best understanding in view of 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above), as discussed in claims 1 and 3, the blur correction setting value includes a blur correction following speed (i.e., shutter speed, motion speed, etc.).
Regarding claim 12, Noguchi further discloses that the blur correction setting value includes a cutoff frequency (see par. [0074], [0077]-[0078], wherein a cutoff frequency is encompassed by the limit set for low frequency).
Regarding claim 13, it is seen in Noguchi that the adjustment unit includes a blur correction setting value adjustment unit that adjusts the blur correction setting value on a basis of the shutter speed (see par. [0128]-[0143]).
Regarding claim 14, Noguchi discloses a blur correction amount generation unit (118) that generates a blur correction amount on a basis of the blur correction setting value (Figs. 1-9 and par. [0044]-[0049], [0128]-[0143]).
Regarding claim 15, as further disclosed by Noguchi, a blur correction processing unit that performs a blur correction process on the image data (by cutting out image data to perform blur correction. See par. [0021], [0073]).
Regarding claim 16, it is clear in Noguchi that an imaging unit (109) that generates the image data (par. [0037]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 17, Noguchi further discloses in a case where there is an abnormality in a result of sensing of movement of the imaging device, the blur correction processing unit performs a blur correction process by cutting out a predetermined range with reference to a center of the image data (see par. [0021], [0073]. It should be noted that “an abnormality in a result of sensing of movement of the imaging device” is considered as the imaging device movement or shaking exceeds a threshold that causes image blur, and thus a cut-out processing by the electronic blur correction unit is performed to correct the image blur).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the limitations of these claims are also met by the discussion in claim 1. Noguchi further discloses a program stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium to perform the process when executed by a computer (par. [0162]-[0164]).
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 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi in view of Kojima et al. (US 2011/0016069 A1, hereinafter “Kojima”).
Regarding claim 9, although Noguchi is silent as to the adjustment unit includes an exposure adjustment unit that adjusts the shutter speed on a basis of the blur correction amount, such feature is well known in the art as taught by Kojima in Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0043]-[0044] in which a shutter speed is adjusted based on a level of image blur correction amount.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the shutter on a basis of the blur correction amount in view of the teaching of Kojima for a complete compensation of image blur, thereby further improving image quality.
Regarding claim 18, the subject matter of this claim is also met by the combined teaching of Noguchi and Kojma. Note that a plurality of pieces of adjustment data may include optical blur correction data, electronic blur correction data discussed in claims 1-3, and the shutter speed adjustment data discussed in claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/NHAN T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights