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 § 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, 3-4, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0171858 to Inagaki (“Inagaki”).
Regarding claim 1, Inagaki teaches a focus control apparatus comprising:
one or more processors that execute a program stored in a memory, the one or more processors when executing the program cause the focus control apparatus to (see paragraph [0021] regarding memory containing instructions of programs that when executed by the CPU cause the CPU to perform operations corresponding to units or function):
perform focus detection (see paragraph [0004] regarding performing focus detection using a phase-difference detecting method);
control driving of a focus lens included in an optical system based on a focus detection result obtained by the focus detection (paragraph [0004] further teaches control a drive of a cous lens included in an optical system based on a focus detection result); and
set a movable range based on a search direction of the focus lens in response to a user's instruction and a position of the focus lens (for example in Figure 13D, a movable range 1303d is set in a search direction based on the object focused position and the target position of the focus lens 104, see paragraph [0102]),
wherein, in a case where an instruction regarding a first search direction is provided and thereafter an instruction regarding a second search direction that is different from the first search direction is provided, the movable range is set based on the second search direction and a first focus lens position when the instruction regarding the first search direction is provided (Figures 13A-13D show the search direction in one direction and is silent on change the direction to a different direction, however from Figure 14, changing the direction of the search direction would change the result of the flow chart so in the case that the user inputs a first search direction and then a second search direction that is different from the first search direction, the flow of Figure 14 would set the movable range based on the second search direction if that is the last one input by the user).
It 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 to modify the teaching of Inagaki to override the first search direction with the second search direction since it is the most updated input and to adjust the focus lens position based on the first focus lens position where it is currently set. This would allow for a user to make adjustments and for the system to respond accurately.
Regarding claim 3, Inagaki teaches the focus control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the movable range is set based on optical information regarding the optical system (see Claim 6 of Inagaki).
Regarding claim 4, Inagaki teaches an imaging apparatus comprising: the focus control apparatus according to claim 1; and an image pickup device configured to capture an image of a subject via the optical system (paragraph [0026] teaches capturing an object using the optical system).
Claims 7-8 are rejected similarly to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-6 are 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY R HSU whose telephone number is (571)270-3012. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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, 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.
AMY R. HSU
Examiner
Art Unit 2664
/AMY R HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights