N O N - F I N A L A C T I O N
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/12/25 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner notes that the current title “IMAGING APPARATUS” is a good starting point but recommends adding analogous language to “FOCUS OPERATION” and “WITH TRACKING A SUBJECT” into the current title. For example, Examiner recommends the following amended new title:
“IMAGING APPARATUS COMPRISING FOCUS OPERATION WITH TRACKING A SUBJECT”
Closest Prior Art
The prior art (cited on PTO-892) is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Among these, the following references are considered to be the closest, collectively disclosing the state of the art concerned with a digital camera comprising a GUI menu display for selecting an object/subject for a focus operation with tracking.
SAITO (US 20230300460 & US 12,470,818) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, see below.
ONODERA (US 20090167889) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, see below.
EBATA (US 20240320839) – see Abstract, Fig. 3, 5-6, and para [0037-38].
HUANG (US 20090231453) – see Abstract, Fig. 1, 4, 7-8, and 30, and para [X].
SUZUKI (US 20100066847) – see Abstract, Fig. 1-7, and para [X], wherein Fig. 3-4 discloses a GUI screen list for selecting specified objects for autofocus and tracking.
FUNATSU (US 20230291995) – see Abstract, Figures 3A-3E, 5B, 7.
HAMANAKA (US 20130329068) – see Fig. 27A-27C, discloses a GUI for selecting focus targets and non-focus targets from an updatable recognition list.
NOTE: Examiner welcomes INTERVIEW(s) to discuss the instant application’s claimed invention as it corresponds to the specification embodiments, as well as, discussing the similarities/differences taught/not taught by prior art. In the interest of compact prosecution, Applicant’s arguments/amendments should not only address the cited closest art applied/relied on in the 35 USC 103 rejection (below), but also address the other cited closest art not applied/relied on.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 of this title, 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 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO (US 20230300460) in view of ONODERA (US 20090167889) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1, SAITO teaches an imaging apparatus (Fig. 1: imaging apparatus 1) comprising:
an image sensor that captures a subject image formed via an optical system to generate image data (Fig. 1 & 2: image sensor 110 and optical system 10, para [0073-74]);
and a controller that controls focusing operation by the optical system (Fig. 1 & 2: CPU “controller” 120, focus operation 36/46, para [0068]. See Fig. 4 and para [0084]: CPU 120 comprises focus evaluation 120c, AF control 120i, tracking processing 120h and uses evaluation data to perform AF tracking), wherein
before a subject is detected in a first focusing area, the controller causes the optical system to perform the focusing operation, based on the first focusing area, the first focusing area being arranged in advance in a captured image indicated by the image data (SAITO discloses in para [0101] that the focus evaluation value calculation unit 120C calculates a focus evaluation value of the focus area set in advance based on the moving image data captured by the imaging unit 110),
and after the subject is detected in the first focusing area, the controller causes the optical system to perform the focusing operation with tracking the subject over a range away from the first focusing area (See Fig. 5 & 6 and para [0095-99]: an object 300 is detected in a focus area frame F1 and focusing operation with tracking the subject over a range away from the first focusing area shown by object 300 in frame F2).
Regarding underlined limitation: “before a subject is detected in a first focusing area… the first focusing area being arranged in advance” AND “after the subject is detected in the first focusing area” – to more robustly/further show this feature was known in the art in context to a subject entering a preset focus area to initiate focusing operation with tracking the subject over a range away from the first focusing area would have been obvious, Examiner evidences related prior art ONODERA (See FIG. 8: auto-shutter “focus area” frame 64/65 and para [0121-122, 0124-125, 0129, 0132]), discloses a user may set size/position of the auto-shutter area 64/65, wherein once the subject enters the auto-shutter area plural images may be captured of the subject, wherein para [0129] states it is also possible to set the position and size of the auto shutter area to automatically track the position and size of the subject moving within the angle of view (screen) by utilizing a subject tracking (following) function.
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to COMBINE the teachings of ONODERA into suitable modification with the teachings of SAITO to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON to capture in-focus images of a desired target in the analogous art of a digital camera configured with focus tracking.
As per CLAIM 2, SAITO in view of ONODERA teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an image recognizer that recognizes a subject area, based on the image data, the subject area being an area where the subject is located in the captured image, wherein based on a recognition result of the image recognizer, the controller: does not detect the subject in a case that the subject area is not within a predetermined range from the first focusing area; and detects the subject in a case that the subject area is within the predetermined range from the first focusing area (This feature is considered obvious over the combined teachings of SAITO in view of ONODERA discussed in claim 1. See SAITO’s Fig. 11 and para [0154-160]: imaging unit 110, focus units 120c, 120d, image recognition unit 140, and tracking unit 120h).
As per CLAIM 3, SAITO in view of ONODERA teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the controller causes: a display to display the first focusing area arranged in advance in the captured image, the display displaying the captured image indicated by the image data; the optical system to perform focusing operation, based on the first focusing area, before the subject is detected in the first focusing area; and the display to display a second focusing area after the subject is detected in the first focusing area, the second focusing area tracking the subject over the range away from the first focusing area (This feature is considered obvious over the combined teachings of SAITO in view of ONODERA discussed in claim 1. See SAITO’s Fig. 5 & 6 and para [0095-99]: displayed object 300 is detected in a focus area frame F1 and focusing operation with tracking the subject over a range away from the first focusing area shown by object 300 in frame F2 --taken in combination with-- ONODERA’s Fig. 8A-8C: display 4 with subject 71 entering user set focus area 64/65 in view of para [0121-122, 0124-125, 0129, 0132]).
As per CLAIM 5, SAITO in view of ONODERA teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the controller has a plurality of operation modes for controlling the focusing operation respectively, and in a case that a specific operation mode among the plurality of operation modes is set, the controller displays the first focusing area, and displays the second focusing area after the subject is detected in the first focusing area (This feature is considered obvious over the combined teachings of SAITO in view of ONODERA discussed in claim 1. See SAITO’s Fig. 5 & 6 and para [0095-99]: displayed object 300 is detected in a focus area frame F1 and focusing operation with tracking the subject over a range away from the first focusing area shown by object 300 in frame F2, wherein user may set focus mode operation from plural modes, para [0082] --taken in combination with-- ONODERA’s Fig. 8A-8C: display 4 with subject 71 entering user set focus area 64/65 in view of para [0129, 0132-133] according to a selection from different operation modes).
As per CLAIM 6, SAITO in view of ONODERA teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising an input interface that inputs a user instruction, wherein the controller changes the subject tracked by the second focusing area according to the user instruction on the input interface (This feature is considered obvious over the combined teachings of SAITO in view of ONODERA discussed in claim 1. SAITO’s para [0082] and display screen 112 per Fig. 1).
As per CLAIM 7, SAITO in view of ONODERA teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 3, further comprising the display that displays the captured image indicated by the image data and each focusing area (This feature is considered obvious over the combined teachings of SAITO in view of ONODERA discussed in claim 1. See SAITO’s Fig. 5 & 6 and para [0095-99]: displayed object 300 is detected in a focus area frame F1 and focusing operation with tracking the subject over a range away from the first focusing area shown by object 300 in frame F2).
As per CLAIM 8, SAITO in view of ONODERA teaches the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a setting interface that sets at least one of arrangement of the first focusing area in the captured image, or a subject as a target of the detection, according to a user operation (This feature is considered obvious over the combined teachings of SAITO in view of ONODERA discussed in claim 1. SAITO’s para [0082] and display screen 112 per Fig. 1 and ONODERA’s Fig. 8A-8C: display 4 with subject 71 entering user set focus area 64/65 in view of para [0129, 0132-133] according to a selection from different operation modes).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the EXAMINER should be directed to AKSHAY TREHAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-5252. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 10am – 6pm during the weekdays Monday – Friday.
Interviews with the examiner are available via telephone AND video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may contact the examiner via telephone OR use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR), which can be found at: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TWYLER HASKINS can be reached on (571) 272-7406. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AKSHAY TREHAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights