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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 5/21/2025 and 6/23/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“focusing unit” in claim(s) 6.
“image stabilizing unit” in claim(s) 7.
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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
A "storage medium" is defined in the specification to include "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)TM), a flash memory device, a memory card, and the like." (Specification: para. 0068). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. The claims, as defined in the specification, cover both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6 and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uchiyama (US 20130308933 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Uchiyama teaches An optical apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
at least one processor (120) that executes instructions to:
perform processing regarding imaging in a case where a wavelength filter configured to control a wavelength of imaging light incident on an image sensor configured to capture an object image formed by an optical system can be inserted or removed (para. 0026; “In a roulette type where the color filters the ND filters 104 having different concentrations are switched, an insertion state of each filter is detected, and a correction value that is different according to a refractive index and a thickness of each filter is previously stored in the memory 130. The correction value to the detected filter is read out of the memory 130 and used to correct the focus position”), and
acquire optical information on the optical system that is used for the processing, the optical information corresponding to the wavelength of the imaging light according to at least one of an insertion or removal state of the wavelength filter, the insertion or removal state defining whether the wavelength filter is inserted into or removed from an optical axis of the optical system, and a type of the wavelength filter (paras. 0024-0026; acquire correction value for correcting the focus position which is different based on insertion/ejection states and different color and ND filter types).
Regarding claim 2, Uchiyama teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
allow a user to select a specific wavelength according to at least one of the state and the type of the wavelength filter (paras. 0024-0026; the number of ND filters 104 is not limited, and another optical element, such as a color filter, may be made selectable), and
acquire the optical information corresponding to the specific wavelength (para. 0026).
Regarding claim 4, Uchiyama teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
set a specific wavelength according to a result of determining at least one of the state and the type of the wavelength filter (paras. 0024-0026; the number of ND filters 104 is not limited, and another optical element, such as a color filter, may be made selectable), and
acquire the optical information corresponding to the specific wavelength (para. 0026).
Regarding claim 5, Uchiyama teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
determine a dominant wavelength of the imaging light according to at least one of the state and the type of the wavelength filter from an output of the image sensor, and acquire the optical information corresponding to the dominant wavelength (paras. 0024-0026; the number of ND filters 104 is not limited, and another optical element, such as a color filter, may be made selectable).
Regarding claim 6, Uchiyama teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a focusing unit (focus lens 105) configured to adjust an imaging position of the optical system, wherein the optical information is used to control driving of the focusing unit (Fig. 1; paras. 0023, 0026).
Regarding claim 10, Uchiyama teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the wavelength filter is a bandpass filter (para. 0024; color band filter).
Regarding claim 11, Uchiyama teaches the optical information according to claim 1, wherein the optical information includes at least one of information on a focal length, information on an F-number, information on an imaging magnification, information on a position of a focus lens relative to an object distance, information on a change amount in an imaging position relative to a unit moving amount of the focus lens, information on a position of a floating lens configured to move along with movement of the focus lens, information on an image displacement amount on the image sensor relative to a unit moving amount of an image stabilizing lens, and information on a front principal-point position (para. 0026: The correction value to the detected filter is read out of the memory 130 and used to correct the focus position).
Regarding claim 12, Uchiyama teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the optical apparatus is an image pickup apparatus that includes the image sensor and is attachable to and detachable from a lens apparatus that includes the optical system (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Uchiyama teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the optical apparatus is a lens apparatus that includes the optical system and is attachable to and detachable from an image pickup apparatus that includes the image sensor (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Uchiyama teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to control the optical system as the processing (Fig. 1; para. 0026).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 16, Uchiyama teaches A storage medium (para. 0032) storing a program that causes a computer to execute the control method according to claim 15.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 15-16 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okada et al (US 20030161049 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Okada teaches An optical apparatus (Fig. 8) comprising:
at least one processor (21) that executes instructions to:
perform processing regarding imaging in a case where a wavelength filter configured to control a wavelength of imaging light incident on an image sensor configured to capture an object image formed by an optical system can be inserted or removed (Figs. 10, 13, 14; para. 0116: “the position of the focus lens is corrected in accordance with the information on the correction value (correction amount) of the position of a corresponding focus lens correspondingly to the insertion state of each ND filter”), and
acquire optical information on the optical system that is used for the processing, the optical information corresponding to the wavelength of the imaging light according to at least one of an insertion or removal state of the wavelength filter, the insertion or removal state defining whether the wavelength filter is inserted into or removed from an optical axis of the optical system, and a type of the wavelength filter (Figs. 10, 13, 14; paras. 0114-0120; acquire the information on the correction value (correction amount) of the position of a corresponding focus lens correspondingly to the insertion state of each ND filter among two different types of ND filters 302 and 321 with different densities and thicknesses).
Regarding claim 9, Okada teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the wavelength filter is an infrared cut filter (para. 0008: zoom position detecting means is included to drive a focus lens depending on whether an ND filter or infrared cut filter is present in an optical path and a focus lens is corrected by a correction amount conforming to a zoom position).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 16, Okada teaches A storage medium (Fig. 1) storing a program that causes a computer to execute the control method according to claim 15.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchiyama (US 20130308933 A1) in view of Okabe (US 20080297647 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Uchiyama teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 2, but fails to teach
wherein the processor is configured to display to the user a wavelength that the user can select as the specific wavelength according to at least one of the state and the type of the wavelength filter.
However, in the same field of endeavor Okabe
wherein the processor is configured to display to the user a wavelength that the user can select as the specific wavelength according to at least one of the state and the type of the wavelength filter (Fig. 8; paras. 0048-0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Okabe in Uchiyama to have wherein the processor is configured to display to the user a wavelength that the user can select as the specific wavelength according to at least one of the state and the type of the wavelength filter for displaying information of optical filter or opening portions so that photographer can readily confirm the current state of the image pickup device yielding a predicted result.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchiyama (US 20130308933 A1) in view of Imada (JP-2014206662-A).
Regarding claim 7, Uchiyama teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach
further comprising an image stabilizing unit configured to correct image blur caused by movement applied to the optical system, wherein the optical information is used to control driving of the image stabilizing unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor Imada teaches
further comprising an image stabilizing unit configured to correct image blur caused by movement applied to the optical system, wherein the optical information is used to control driving of the image stabilizing unit (Fig. 1; page 5, line 38 to page 6, line 5; “an optical filter (polarizing filter, ND filter, sharp cut filter, ultraviolet filter), or the like… the image blur correction limiting means sets the first range when the optical unit is inserted to be smaller than the first range when the optical unit is retracted, and the second range when the optical unit is inserted. This range may be set smaller than the second range when the optical unit is retracted”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Imada in Uchiyama to have further comprising an image stabilizing unit configured to correct image blur caused by movement applied to the optical system, wherein the optical information is used to control driving of the image stabilizing unit for utilizing an improved image blur correction also talking the use of the optical filter into consideration so that better image signal can be obtained yielding a predicted result.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchiyama (US 20130308933 A1) in view of Sugaya (US 20190238757 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Uchiyama teaches the optical apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an aperture stop (diaphragm 103) configured to adjust a light amount incident on the image sensor, wherein the optical information is used to control driving
wherein the optical information is used to control driving of the aperture stop.
However, in the same field of endeavor Sugaya teaches
wherein the optical information is used to control driving of the aperture stop (para. 0031: A diaphragm driving amount can be multiplied by 1/(1+α×ΔF), where ΔF is a difference between the current focus lens position and a focus lens position recorded in the focus lens position recording unit 111, and α is an optional value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Sugaya in Uchiyama to have wherein the optical information is used to control driving of the aperture stop for optimizing aperture value based on focus adjustment so that depth of field can be optimized yielding a predicted result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Quan Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-4438. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-7pm.
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.
/Quan Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights