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 .
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, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0236255), hereinafter referenced as Takahashi.
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses an imaging device comprising: a mount portion on which an interchangeable lens is mounted (figure 1A exhibits mount 80 as disclosed at paragraph 57); a liquid crystal dimming element that performs dimming of incident light incident through a lens system in an interchangeable lens when the interchangeable lens is mounted on the mount portion (figure 1B exhibits liquid crystal light control device 11 as disclosed at paragraph 79); an imaging element that photoelectrically converts the incident light through the liquid crystal dimming element to generate a captured image signal (figure 1B exhibits imaging device 12 as disclosed at paragraph 80); a signal processing unit that performs signal processing on the captured image signal output from the imaging element (figure 4 exhibits camera signal processing unit 13 as disclosed at paragraph 82); and a control unit that causes the signal processing unit to execute shading correction processing of correcting shading caused by the liquid crystal dimming element with a correction coefficient set on a basis of a characteristic of an inclination of a liquid crystal of the liquid crystal dimming element (paragraph 217 teaches that the angle of the liquid crystal molecules controls the transmittance of the filter and paragraph 218 teaches determining a correction value based on the transmittance).
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, in addition, Takahashi discloses wherein the liquid crystal dimming element is made retractable from an incident light path (paragraph 62 teaches that the light control device 11 is retractable), and the control unit controls the shading correction processing by the signal processing unit to OFF when the liquid crystal dimming element is in a retracted state (paragraph 182 teaches that when the light control device is retracted, correction related to the light control device 11 is not performed).
Claim 10, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 1.
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 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Nobutaka et al. (Japanese Patent Publication 2013-125045), hereinafter referenced as Nobutaka. Note that all text citations for Nobutaka refer to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit uses a value corresponding to a transmittance of the liquid crystal dimming element and a value of an exit pupil distance as a fixed value determined in advance, for determination of a correction coefficient to be indicated for the signal processing unit (paragraph 218 teaches that the shading correction coefficient is based on the transmittance and the exit pupil distance). However, Takahashi fails to disclose that the exit pupil distance is a fixed value.
Nobutaka is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Nobutaka teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of allowing for camera operations to occur even when lens data is not available from the lens would have prompted a predictable variation of Takahashi by applying Nobutaka’s known principal of using a fixed value for the exit pupil distance when the lens is unable to communicate with the camera (paragraph 72 teaches using a fixed exit pupil value when an exit pupil position cannot be obtained from the lens).
In view of the motivations such as allowing for camera operations to occur even when lens data is not available from the lens one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Takahashi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, further comprising a memory unit that stores a correction coefficient table (paragraph 102 teaches that flash memory is used to store a correction coefficient table) that stores a correction coefficient for each of pixel values of a captured image signal for each of a plurality of transmittances of the liquid crystal dimming element with respect to a value of an exit pupil distance, wherein the control unit refers to a correction coefficient table corresponding to a current transmittance and sets a correction coefficient for the shading correction processing (figure 9C shows a correction coefficient exit pupil table that stores coefficients for each pixel value as disclosed at paragraph 156). However, Takahashi fails to disclose that the exit pupil distance is a fixed value determined in advance.
Nobutaka is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Nobutaka teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of allowing for camera operations to occur even when lens data is not available from the lens would have prompted a predictable variation of Takahashi by applying Nobutaka’s known principal of using a fixed value for the exit pupil distance when the lens is unable to communicate with the camera (paragraph 72 teaches using a fixed exit pupil value when an exit pupil position cannot be obtained from the lens).
In view of the motivations such as allowing for camera operations to occur even when lens data is not available from the lens one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Takahashi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi discloses the imaging device according to claim 1, wherein, for determination of a correction coefficient to be indicated for the signal processing unit, the control unit second processing of determining the correction coefficient by using an exit pupil distance received from an interchangeable lens mounted on the mount portion and the value corresponding to the transmittance of the liquid crystal dimming element. However, Takahashi fails to disclose selectively performing selectively performs first processing of determining the correction coefficient by using an exit pupil distance as a fixed value determined in advance and a value corresponding to a transmittance of the liquid crystal dimming element, and the second processing.
Nobutaka is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Nobutaka teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of allowing for camera operations to occur even when lens data is not available from the lens would have prompted a predictable variation of Takahashi by applying Nobutaka’s known principal of using a fixed value for the exit pupil distance when the lens is unable to communicate with the camera and using an exit pupil distance received from an interchangeable lens when able (paragraph 72 teaches using a fixed exit pupil value when an exit pupil position cannot be obtained from the lens and paragraph 58 teaches receiving lens information from the lens when an exit pupil value can be received). When applying this known technique to Takahashi, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the exit pupil position received from the lens and the transmittance to calculate shading correction coefficients when the exit pupil data is available and to instead used the fixed exit pupil value taught by Nobutaka and the transmittance to calculate shading correction coefficients when the exit pupil data is not available from the lens so that shading correction can also be performed when the exit pupil data is not available from the lens.
In view of the motivations such as allowing for camera operations to occur even when lens data is not available from the lens one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Takahashi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi in view of Nobutaka discloses the imaging device according to claim 4, in addition, Takahashi discloses a memory unit that stores a correction coefficient table (paragraph 102 teaches that flash memory is used to store a correction coefficient table) that stores a correction coefficient for each of pixel values of a captured image signal for each of a plurality of transmittances of the liquid crystal dimming element with respect to a plurality of values of exit pupil distances including the fixed value (figure 9C shows a correction coefficient exit pupil table that stores coefficients for each pixel value as disclosed at paragraph 156), and the combination discloses wherein the control unit in the first processing, refers to a correction coefficient table corresponding to a value of the exit pupil distance set as the fixed value (it is apparent that if the fixed value is set as the exit pupil distance as taught by Nobutaka, then this value would be used for shading correction) and a current transmittance and sets a correction coefficient for the shading correction processing (Takahashi at paragraph 218 teaches that the shading correction coefficient is based on the transmittance and the exit pupil distance), and in the second processing, refers to a correction coefficient table corresponding to a value of the exit pupil distance received from the interchangeable lens (Takahashi at paragraph 108 discloses receiving the exit pupil value from the interchangeable lens) and the current transmittance and sets a correction coefficient for the shading correction processing (Takahashi at paragraph 218 teaches that the shading correction coefficient is based on the transmittance and the exit pupil distance).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi in view of Nobutaka discloses the imaging device according to claim 4, in addition, Nobutaka discloses wherein the control unit selects the first processing in a case where communication with the interchangeable lens mounted on the mount portion is not executable (paragraph 72 teaches using a fixed exit pupil value when the lens cannot perform communication).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi in view of Nobutaka discloses the imaging device according to claim 4, however, Takahashi fails to disclose wherein the control unit selects the first processing in a case where a value of the exit pupil distance is not included in information obtained by communication with the interchangeable lens mounted on the mount portion.
Nobutaka is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Nobutaka teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of allowing for camera operations to occur even when lens data is not available from the lens would have prompted a predictable variation of Takahashi by applying Nobutaka’s known principal of using a fixed value for the exit pupil distance when exit pupil information is not received from the lens (paragraph 72 teaches using a fixed exit pupil value when an exit pupil position cannot be obtained from the lens). When applying this known technique to Takahashi, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the fixed exit pupil value taught by Nobutaka and the transmittance to calculate shading correction coefficients when the exit pupil data is not received in lens information from the lens so that shading correction can also be performed when the exit pupil data is not available from the lens.
In view of the motivations such as allowing for camera operations to occur even when lens data is not available from the lens one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Takahashi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi in view of Nobutaka discloses the imaging device according to claim 4, in addition, Nobutaka discloses wherein the control unit selects the first processing in a case where an adapter for mounting the interchangeable lens is mounted to the mount portion (paragraph 72 teaches that a fixed exit pupil position is used when a lens is attached to an adapter which can be used with other optical equipment).
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto (United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0222807) discloses an imaging device.
Hasuda et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2013/0028590) discloses an imaging device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00.
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 571-272-7564. 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.
JASON A. FLOHRE
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/JASON A FLOHRE/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights