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 5/30/25 and 10/31/25 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.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC § 112(f)
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: “image capturing unit”, “specification unit”, “obtainment unit”, “setting unit”, “holding unit”, “acceptance unit”, and “providing unit” as respectively recited in claims 1-10.
As disclosed in Applicant’s US Publication Specification, Examiner will interpret the said:
“image capturing unit”, “specification unit”, “obtainment unit”, and “setting unit” as software/hardware components (respective elements 401-404) of either one of the shooting apparatus 101 & terminal apparatus 1201 (per Figures 2, 4, 7 & 15 in view of para [0029, 0039, 0041, 0075])
“holding unit”, “acceptance unit”, and “providing unit” as software/hardware components (respective elements 501-503) of the information processing apparatus 111 (per Figures 3, 5, 7 & 15 in view of para [0030, 0040, 0042, 0075])
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.
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 network image capturing devices and applying image capture settings based on a QR code.
McCAULEY (US 20210211604) – applied to 35 USC 102/103 rejection, see Abstract, Fig. 1-6, and para [0025-0085]. Fig. 4A-4B shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
778
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
796
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
OKUYAMA (US 20120211559) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, see Abstract, Fig. 1-4, and para [0033-0067].
OKUDA (JP 2006174043) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, (English translation attached), see Abstract, Fig. 1-4, and para [0007-0038].
NEWMAN (US 20200374424) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, see Abstract, Fig. 1-6, and para [0019-0055].
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 102/103 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 § 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.
Claims 10, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCAULEY (US 20210211604) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 10, McCAULEY teaches a terminal apparatus that provides a shooting apparatus including an image capturing unit (FIG. 1: system 10, presentation component 106); FIG. 4A: a presentation medium 400, optical code 402; para [0061]: “the machine-readable optical code 402 may be presented on a display of the system 10”); FIG. 3: image capture device 302, optical element 304, image sensor 306); para [0035]; FIG. 4B: image capture device 450; para [0062]) with information related to setting information used in setting of the image capturing unit (para [0062]: “The image capture device 450 capturing an image including the machine-readable optical code 402. The machine-readable optical code 402 may convey capture setting(s)”), the terminal apparatus comprising:
a specification unit configured to specify first information by reading a predetermined printed material including at least a predetermined image (FIG. 1: capture setting component 102; para [0028]: “The capture setting component may be configured to obtain capture setting information for visual content and/ or other information”), the first information being for obtaining predetermined setting information associated with a setting used by another shooting apparatus in shooting for obtaining the predetermined image (para [0062]: “The machine-readable optical code 402 may convey capture setting(s)”; See examples of the capture settings in [0043-0052] – it is implicit that a QR code has access information embedded / recorded therein, such as a URL);
an obtainment unit configured to, based on the first information, obtain second information for enabling the shooting apparatus to obtain the predetermined setting information (FIG. 1: optical code component 104; para [ 0053]: “The optical code component 104 may be configured to generate one or more machine-readable optical codes based on the capture setting information and/or other information”);
and a providing unit configured to provide the second information to the shooting apparatus (FIG. 1: presentation component 106; para [0070]: “The presentation component 106 may be configured to present one or more machine-readable optical codes on a graphical user interface”; para [0062-0063]).
Regarding the said “specification unit, obtainment unit, and providing unit”, McCAULEY discloses these as processing functions / capabilities performed by processor 11 (per system 10 in Fig. 1) and processor 310 (per image capture devices in Fig. 3-4). Furthermore, given the additional teachings in para [0041-42 and 0095-99], McCAULEY is also considered to anticipate that each of the said processing functions may be configured as separate processors, logic circuitry, hardware that may be configured in a single device or partitioned/distributed between multiple devices external to each other.
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 13, McCAULEY teaches “a control method executed by a terminal apparatus that provides a shooting apparatus including an image capturing unit with information related to setting information used in setting of the image capturing unit, the control method comprising:
specifying first information by reading a predetermined printed material including at least a predetermined image, the first information being for obtaining predetermined setting information associated with a setting used by another shooting apparatus in shooting for obtaining the predetermined image;
obtaining, based on the first information, second information for enabling the shooting apparatus to obtain the predetermined setting information;
and providing the second information to the shooting apparatus” (The “underlined limitations” for the method of claim 13 comprises similar / analogous limitations to apparatus of claim 10. Thus, for same reasons, the cited teachings over prior art discussed in claim 10 also applies to rejecting the “underlined limitations” in claim 13).
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 16, McCAULEY teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores a program for causing a computer (Fig. 1: processor 11 and storage 13 in view of para [0026-0028]) included in a terminal apparatus “that provides a shooting apparatus including an image capturing unit with information related to setting information used in setting of the image capturing unit to perform a method comprising:
specifying first information by reading a predetermined printed material including at least a predetermined image, the first information being for obtaining predetermined setting information associated with a setting used by another shooting apparatus in shooting for obtaining the predetermined image;
obtaining, based on the first information, second information for enabling the shooting apparatus to obtain the predetermined setting information;
and providing the second information to the shooting apparatus” (The “underlined limitations” for the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 16 comprises similar / analogous limitations to apparatus of claim 10. Thus, for same reasons, the cited teachings over prior art discussed in claim 10 also applies to rejecting the “underlined limitations” in claim 16).
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 1-7, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCAULEY (US 20210211604) in view of OKUDA KATSU (JP 2006174043) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1, McCAULEY teaches a shooting apparatus including an image capturing unit (FIG. 3: image capture device 302, optical element 304, image sensor 306); para [0035]; FIG. 4B: image capture device 450; para [0062]), the shooting apparatus comprising:
a specification unit configured to, based on reading of a predetermined printed material including at least a predetermined image obtained through shooting performed by another shooting apparatus (FIG. 4A: a presentation medium 400, optical code 402; para [0061]: “the presentation medium may be one or more printed surfaces”; para [0062]: “The image capture device 450 capturing an image including the machine-readable optical code 402. The machine-readable optical code 402 may convey capture setting(s)”), specify an access destination associated with an information processing apparatus to be accessed (see para [0028] how obtaining the capture setting involves accessing electronic storage of a device accessible via a network; para [0068]: “The mobile device may communicate with an image capture device to transmit information about the machine-readable optical code to the image capture device” – it is implicit that a QR code has access information embedded/recorded therein, such as a URL) to obtain predetermined setting information associated with a setting used by the other shooting apparatus in the shooting (para [0062]: “The machine-readable optical code 402 may convey capture setting(s)”; See examples of the capture settings in [0043-0052]);
an obtainment unit configured to obtain the predetermined setting information through communication with the information processing apparatus via the access destination (see para [0028] in view of para [0067-0069]);
and a setting unit configured to set the image capturing unit with use of the predetermined setting information (see Fig. 4A-4B in view of para [0063]: “The image capture device 450 ... may store the capture setting as a capture mode which may be used and/or selected to capture visual content ... may change its current setting(s) in accordance with the capture setting(s) conveyed by the machine-readable optical code 402”).
Regarding the said “specification unit, obtainment unit, and setting unit”, McCAULEY discloses these as processing functions / capabilities performed by processor 11 (per system 10 in Fig. 1) and processor 310 (per image capture devices in Fig. 3-4). Furthermore, given the additional teachings in para [0041-42 and 0095-99], McCAULEY is also considered to anticipate that each of the said processing functions may be configured as separate processors, logic circuitry, hardware that may be configured in a single device or partitioned/distributed between multiple devices external to each other.
For example, see prior art OKUDA, as noted in “Closest Prior Art” section, discloses a camera in Fig. 1 comprising a CPU 19 with an extraction unit 50, an identification code generating unit 52, and a shooting information setting unit 54 in view of para [0017-18, 0027-30].
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 OKUDA into suitable modification with the teachings of McCAULEY to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON of producing a network system device (i.e. digital camera) with each of the above discussed processing capabilities in the analogous art of a network digital camera.
As per CLAIM 2, McCAULEY in view of OKUDA teaches the shooting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein first information associated with information indicating the access destination is printed on the predetermined printed material separately from the predetermined image (These features are considered obvious over the prior art combination discussed in claim 1, and in further view over the teachings of McCAULEY, FIG. 4A: a presentation medium 400, optical code 402 – it is implicit that a QR code has access information embedded / recorded therein, such as a URL), the image capturing unit reads the first information printed on the printed material (McCAULEY, para [0062]: The image capture device 450 ... may decode the capture setting(s) conveyed by the machine-readable optical code 402), and the specification unit specifies the access destination with use of the first information read by the image capturing unit (These features are considered obvious over the prior art combination discussed in claim 1, and in further view over the teachings of McCAULEY, Fig. 4A, para [0028, 0061-62, 0068] – It is implicit that decoding the optical code results in an access destination information, such as the URL).
As per CLAIM 3, McCAULEY in view of OKUDA teaches the shooting apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the first information is a QR code (These features are considered obvious over the prior art combination discussed in claim 1, and in further view over the teachings of McCAULEY, para [0054]: “a two-dimensional machine-readable optical code e.g., QR code”).
As per CLAIM 4, McCAULEY in view of OKUDA teaches the shooting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein second information for obtaining the predetermined setting information from the information processing apparatus is embedded in the predetermined image on the predetermined printed material (These features are considered obvious over the prior art combination discussed in claim 1, and in further view over the teachings of McCAULEY, para [0062]: “The machine-readable optical code 402 may convey capture setting(s)”; para [0054-55] – it is implicit that a QR code has access information embedded / recorded therein, such as a URL), the image capturing unit reads the second information embedded in the predetermined image (These features are considered obvious over the prior art combination discussed in claim 1, and in further view over the teachings of McCAULEY, para [0062]: The image capture device 450 ... may decode the capture setting(s) conveyed by the machine-readable optical code 402), and the specification unit specifies the access destination with use of the second information read by the image capturing unit (These features are considered obvious over the prior art combination discussed in claim 1, and in further view over the teachings of McCAULEY, Fig. 4A, para [0028, 0061-62, 0068] – it is implicit that decoding the optical code results in an access destination information, such as the URL).
As per CLAIM 5, McCAULEY in view of OKUDA teaches the shooting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein second information for obtaining the predetermined setting information from the information processing apparatus is embedded in the predetermined image on the predetermined printed material, the second information is read by a predetermined terminal apparatus from the predetermined image on the predetermined printed material, and the specification unit specifies the access destination by obtaining information indicating the access destination specified based on the second information read by the predetermined terminal apparatus (These features are considered obvious over the prior art combination discussed in claim 1, and in further view over the teachings of McCAULEY similarly applied to a terminal apparatus, given the following teachings --- para [0062]: “The machine-readable optical code 402 may convey capture setting(s)”; para [0054-55] – it is implicit that a QR code has access information embedded / recorded therein, such as a URL; para [0062]: The image capture device 450 ... may decode the capture setting(s) conveyed by the machine-readable optical code 402; Fig. 4A, para [0028, 0061-62, 0068] – it is implicit that decoding the optical code results in an access destination information, such as the URL).
As per CLAIM 6, McCAULEY in view of OKUDA teaches the shooting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus holds pieces of the predetermined setting information that respectively correspond to models of one or more shooting apparatuses, (These features are considered obvious over the prior art combination discussed in claim 1, and in further view over the teachings of McCAULEY, para [0056]: “A machine-readable optical code may convey the capture setting(s) for particular types of image capture device (e.g., image capture devices of a particular brand, a particular model of image capture devices”).
Regarding the limitation: “and the obtainment unit notifies the information processing apparatus of information that specifies a model of the shooting apparatus, and obtains the predetermined setting information corresponding to the model from the information processing apparatus”, McCAULEY discloses capture settings that include
model of the image capture device. It is an obvious choice for the skilled person to acquire capture settings of a model that matches the model of the image capturing device to be configured by the acquired capture settings, for compatibility reasons.
Therefore, Official Notice (MPEP § 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of acquiring capture settings of a model that matches the model of the image capturing device to be configured by the acquired capture settings is well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to match model information to apply capture settings for the MOTIVATED REASON of achieving compatibility between camera devices in the analogous art of a network digital camera.
As per CLAIM 7, McCAULEY in view of OKUDA teaches the shooting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein one or more of the access destination are provided in correspondence with one or more images, respectively (These features are considered obvious over the prior art combination discussed in claim 1, and in further view over the teachings of McCAULEY, FIG. 6: gallery 600, image 602 with corresponding code 612, image 604 with corresponding code 614, video 606 with corresponding code 616); para [0082] – it is implicit that a QR code has information embedded/recorded therein, such as a URL), and the specification unit specifies the access destination corresponding to the predetermined image on a basis of reading of the predetermined printed material (These features are considered obvious over the prior art combination discussed in claim 1, and in further view over the teachings of McCAULEY, Fig. 4A, para [0028, 0061-62, 0068] – it is implicit that decoding the optical code results in an access destination information, such as the URL).
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 11, McCAULEY in view of OKUDA teaches “a control method executed by a shooting apparatus including an image capturing unit, the control method comprising:
specifying, based on reading of a predetermined printed material including at least a predetermined image obtained through shooting performed by another shooting apparatus, an access destination associated with an information processing apparatus to be accessed to obtain predetermined setting information associated with a setting used by the other shooting apparatus in the shooting;
obtaining the predetermined setting information through communication with the information processing apparatus via the access destination;
and setting the image capturing unit with use of the predetermined setting information” (The “underlined limitations” for the method of claim 11 comprises similar / analogous limitations to apparatus of claim 1. Thus, for same reasons, the cited teachings over prior art discussed in claim 1 also applies to rejecting the “underlined limitations” in claim 11).
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 14, McCAULEY in view of OKUDA teaches “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores a program for causing a computer included in a shooting apparatus to perform a method comprising:
specifying, based on reading of a predetermined printed material including at least a predetermined image obtained through shooting performed by another shooting apparatus, an access destination associated with an information processing apparatus to be accessed to obtain predetermined setting information associated with a setting used by the other shooting apparatus in the shooting;
obtaining the predetermined setting information through communication with the information processing apparatus via the access destination;
and setting the image capturing unit with use of the predetermined setting information” (The “underlined limitations” for the non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores a program of claim 14 comprises similar / analogous limitations to apparatus of claim 1. Thus, for same reasons, the cited teachings over prior art discussed in claim 1 also applies to rejecting the “underlined limitations” in claim 14).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCAULEY (US 20210211604) in view of OKUDA KATSU (JP 2006174043) in view of NEWMAN (US 20200374424) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per CLAIM 8, McCAULEY in view of OKUDA teaches the shooting apparatus according to claims 1, wherein the obtainment unit obtains the predetermined setting information corresponding to the predetermined image specified by specification information by notifying the information processing apparatus of the specification information for specifying the predetermined image (These features are considered obvious over the prior art combination discussed in claim 1, and in further view over the teachings of McCAULEY, see para [0028] how obtaining the capture setting may involve accessing electronic storage of a device accessible via a network; para [0068]: "The mobile device may communicate with an image capture device to transmit information about the machine-readable optical code to the image capture device"; para [0028, 0067-69] -- it is implicit that network communication would involve different types of messaging/requests).
To further show that it was previously known for a network communication to utilize different types of messaging/requests per said “obtainment unit notifying”, see prior art NEWMAN (Figures 1 & 2; para [0046-0064]).
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 NEWMAN into suitable modification with the teachings of McCAULEY in view of OKUDA to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON of producing a network system device (i.e. digital camera) with each of the above discussed processing communication capabilities in the analogous art of a network digital camera.
Claims 9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCAULEY (US 20210211604) in view of OKUYAMA (US 20120211559) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 9, McCAULEY teaches an information processing apparatus that provides a shooting apparatus including an image capturing unit (FIG. 3: image capture device 302, optical element 304, image sensor 306); para [0035]; FIG. 4B: image capture device 450; para [0062]) with setting information used in setting of the image capturing unit (see para [0028] how obtaining the capture setting may involve accessing electronic storage of a device accessible via a network; para [0068]: “The mobile device may communicate with an image capture device to transmit information about the machine-readable optical code to the image capture device”),
predetermined setting information associated with a setting used by another shooting apparatus in shooting for obtaining a predetermined image included in a predetermined printed material (FIG. 4A: presentation medium 400, machine-readable optical code 402; para [0061]: “the presentation medium may be one or more printed surfaces”; para [0062]: “The machine-readable optical code 402 may convey capture setting(s)”).
McCAULEY does not teach “the information processing apparatus comprising:
a holding unit configured to hold”, “an acceptance unit configured to accept, from the shooting apparatus, a request that demands provision of the predetermined setting information via a predetermined access destination specified based on reading of the predetermined printed material”, and “a providing unit configured to provide the predetermined setting information in response to the request”.
However, these additional features relate to common practices in the prior art for data communication/transfer between apparatuses upon reading an identification code (such as a QR code). For example, see prior art OKUYAMA, which discloses a communication apparatus having a means for reading setting information from a server corresponding to a URL using a setting information including a bar/QR code, and the communication apparatus comprises an image reading unit, a communication unit and a setting acquiring unit, and messaging between the communication apparatus and the server involves requests and responses thereto per Figures 1 & 2 and para [0030-67].
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 OKUYAMA into suitable modification with the teachings of McCAULEY to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON of producing a network system device (i.e. digital camera) with each of the above discussed processing capabilities in the analogous art of a network digital camera.
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 12, McCAULEY in view of OKUYAMA teaches “a control method executed by an information processing apparatus that provides a shooting apparatus including an image capturing unit with setting information used in setting of the image capturing unit, the control method comprising:
holding predetermined setting information associated with a setting used by another shooting apparatus in shooting for obtaining a predetermined image included in a predetermined printed material;
accepting, from the shooting apparatus, a request that demands provision of the predetermined setting information via a predetermined access destination specified based on reading of the predetermined printed material;
and providing the predetermined setting information in response to the request” (The “underlined limitations” for the method of claim 12 comprises similar / analogous limitations to apparatus of claim 9. Thus, for same reasons, the cited teachings over prior art discussed in claim 9 also applies to rejecting the “underlined limitations” in claim 12).
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 15, McCAULEY in view of OKUYAMA teaches “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores a program for causing a computer included in an information processing apparatus that provides a shooting apparatus including an image capturing unit with setting information used in setting of the image capturing unit to perform a method comprising:
holding predetermined setting information associated with a setting used by another shooting apparatus in shooting for obtaining a predetermined image included in a predetermined printed material;
accepting, from the shooting apparatus, a request that demands provision of the predetermined setting information via a predetermined access destination specified based on reading of the predetermined printed material;
and providing the predetermined setting information in response to the request” (The “underlined limitations” for the non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores a program of claim 15 comprises similar / analogous limitations to apparatus of claim 9. Thus, for same reasons, the cited teachings over prior art discussed in claim 9 also applies to rejecting the “underlined limitations” in claim 15).
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