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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the variables used to form the ratio. The claim requires that values have “a ratio of the specific area equal to or greater than a threshold value”. However, what variables are used to calculate the claimed ratio are not claimed, this results in a gap between the elements.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the variables used to form the ratio. The claim requires that values have “a ratio of the specific area is equal to or greater than a threshold value”. However, what variables are used to calculate the claimed ratio are not claimed, this results in a gap between the elements.
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 1-3, 5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishikawa et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0353423), hereinafter referenced as Nishikawa.
Regarding claim 1, Nishikawa discloses a control apparatus configured to control focusing, the control apparatus comprising: at least one processor that executes instructions (figure 1 exhibits camera MPU 125 which performs the required calculations and control as disclosed at paragraph 40) to: acquire a plurality of defocus amounts acquired in a plurality of focus detecting areas (figure 7 exhibits step S702 in which a plurality of defocus amounts are calculated as disclosed at paragraph 70), and information on a specific area detected from an object area in an imaging area (figure 7 exhibits step S708 in which information on a subject area is obtained as disclosed at paragraphs 76 and 93), and select a first defocus amount for controlling the focusing according to the plurality of defocus amounts and the information on the specific area (figure 7 exhibits step S712 in which a defocus amount for focusing is selected using the defocus amounts and the information on the subject area as disclosed at paragraph 81).
Regarding claim 2, Nishikawa discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Nishikawa discloses wherein the processor is configured to: create a histogram using the plurality of defocus amounts and the information on the specific area (figure 7 exhibits step S703 in which a histogram is generated as disclosed at paragraph 71), and select the first defocus amount using the histogram (the process of figure 7 shows that the class determined from the histogram is used for setting the first defocus amount in steps S706 and S708 as disclosed at paragraphs 75 and 76).
Regarding claim 3, Nishikawa discloses the control apparatus according to claim 2, in addition, Nishikawa discloses wherein the processor is configured to create the histogram using defocus amounts for the plurality of focus detecting areas (figure 7 exhibits step S703 in which a histogram is generated as disclosed at paragraph 71), each of which has valid information from among the information on the specific area (the defocus amounts used in the histogram calculation are interpreted as being valid when they are used in the histogram and invalid when they are not used, therefore the defocus amount used in the histogram each have valid information since the claim fails to claim what constitutes “valid information”).
Regarding claim 5, Nishikawa discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Nishikawa discloses wherein the processor is configured to associate the information on the specific area with the plurality of focus detecting areas based on the number of shift data in acquiring the plurality of defocus amounts (figure 7 exhibits step S708 in which the areas of the histogram which correspond to a class which are closest to the subject detected area are associated with the subject area, figure 16 shows that classes are based on histogram peaks which correspond to high numbers of corresponding shift data as disclosed at paragraphs 85 and 86).
Regarding claim 10, Nishikawa discloses an image pickup apparatus comprising: a control apparatus configured to control focusing (figure 1 exhibits camera MPU 125 which performs the required calculations and control of the camera as disclosed at paragraph 40); and an image sensor (figure 1 exhibits image sensor 122 as disclosed at paragraph 37), wherein the control apparatus includes: at least one processor that executes instructions (figure 1 exhibits camera MPU 125 which performs the required calculations and control as disclosed at paragraph 40) to: acquire a plurality of defocus amounts acquired in a plurality of focus detecting areas (figure 7 exhibits step S702 in which a plurality of defocus amounts are calculated as disclosed at paragraph 70), and information on a specific area detected from an object area in an imaging area (figure 7 exhibits step S708 in which information on a subject area is obtained as disclosed at paragraphs 76 and 93), and select a first defocus amount for controlling the focusing according to the plurality of defocus amounts and the information on the specific area (the process of figure 7 shows that the class determined from the histogram is used for setting the first defocus amount in steps S706 and S708 as disclosed at paragraphs 75 and 76).
Claim 11, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 1.
Claim 12, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 1 (figure 1 exhibits ROM 125a which stores operating programs as disclosed at paragraph 41).
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 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Matsumoto et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2007/0195995), hereinafter referenced as Matsumoto.
Regarding claim 4, Nishikawa discloses the control apparatus according to claim 2, in addition, Nishikawa discloses wherein the processor is configured to create the histogram using defocus amounts for the plurality of focus detecting areas (figure 7 exhibits step S703 in which a histogram is generated as disclosed at paragraph 71). However, Nishikawa fails to disclose each of which has a ratio of the specific area equal to or greater than a threshold value.
Matsumoto is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Matsumoto teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of avoiding selecting a subject which is in the image by chance would have prompted a predictable variation of Nishikawa by applying Matsumoto’s known principal of setting a subject area as an area which has a ratio of the specific area equal to or greater than a threshold (paragraph 62 teaches that an area is set as a subject area if the ratio of the size of the face area to the image is greater than a threshold).
In view of the motivations such as avoiding selecting a subject which is in the image by chance one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Nishikawa.
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 6, Nishikawa discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, however, Nishikawa fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to set at least one of positions of the plurality of focus detecting areas and the number of shift data in acquiring the plurality of defocus amounts so as to acquire a defocus amount for a focus detecting area in which a ratio of the specific area is equal to or greater than a threshold value.
Matsumoto is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Matsumoto teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of avoiding selecting a subject which is in the image by chance would have prompted a predictable variation of Nishikawa by applying Matsumoto’s known principal of setting a subject area as an area which has a ratio of the specific area equal to or greater than a threshold (paragraph 62 teaches that an area is set as a subject area if the ratio of the size of the face area to the image is greater than a threshold).
In view of the motivations such as avoiding selecting a subject which is in the image by chance one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Nishikawa.
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.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Nakamura et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0188846), hereinafter referenced as Nakamura.
Regarding claim 7, Nishikawa discloses the control apparatus according to claim 1, however, Nishikawa fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to determine which of a first direction included in the specific area and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction is to be used to acquire the plurality of defocus amounts, based on the information on the specific area.
Nakamura is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Nakamura teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of improving focusing accuracy would have prompted a predictable variation of Nishikawa by applying Nakamura’s known principal of determine which of a first direction included in the specific area and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction is to be used to acquire the plurality of defocus amounts, based on the information on the specific area (figure 9A exhibits steps in which after the object detector detects whether or not the subject is a caged subject, with the cage extending in either a horizontal or vertical direction, which is interpreted as additional specific area information, then the processor chooses either a horizontal or a vertical defocus amount based on this additional information as disclosed at paragraphs 111, 112, 106 and 113).
In view of the motivations such as improving focusing accuracy one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Nishikawa.
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, Nishikawa in view of Nakamura discloses the control apparatus according to claim 7, in addition, Nakamura discloses wherein the processor is configured to select the first defocus amount according to the plurality of defocus amounts and the information on the specific area acquired in one of the first direction and the second direction (figure 9A exhibits steps in which after the object detector detects whether or not the subject is a caged subject, with the cage extending in either a horizontal or vertical direction, which is interpreted as additional specific area information, then the processor chooses either a horizontal or a vertical defocus amount based on this additional information as disclosed at paragraphs 111, 112, 106 and 113).
Regarding claim 9, Nishikawa in view of Nakamura discloses the control apparatus according to claim 8, in addition, Nakamura discloses wherein the processor is configured not to use the plurality of defocus amounts acquired in another of the first direction and the second direction (figure 9 shows in steps S902 and S905 that only defocus amounts in either the x or y direction are used).
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inagaki (United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0351395) discloses a focusing method.
Kudo (United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0337756) discloses a focusing method.
Iwasaki et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0337129) discloses a focusing method.
Hoshino (United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0236291) discloses a focusing method.
Onuki (United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0162660) discloses a focusing method.
Aoyama (United States Patent 6,088,539) discloses a focusing method.
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