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
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 19/275,281 filed 07/21/2025. Claims 1-31 are pending and have been examined.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/21/2025 and 12/30/2025 were considered 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 1, 6, 10, 11, 27, 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choe et al. (US 2019/0268533), herein Choe.
Consider claim 1, Choe clearly teaches an imaging apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a first monitor portion; (Fig. 3: Display screen 302, [0043]) and
a first processor, (Fig. 14: Processing system 1404, [0076]) wherein the first processor is configured to, in a case where a first imaging mode in which image formats are restricted is selected, output user interface information related to imaging to the first monitor portion and restrict output of a live view to the first monitor portion. (Figs. 8, 11: In the selected scenario the current view is not displayed on screen 602, 1002; user interface elements 802, 804, 1102, 1104 are displayed; and the imaging formats are restricted, [0028]-[0032], [0056], [0059].)
Consider claim 6, Choe clearly teaches in the first imaging mode, the first processor is configured to restrict output of image data after the imaging to the first monitor portion. (Figs. 8, 11: In the selected scenario the current view is not displayed on screen 602, 1002, [0056], [0059].)
Consider claim 10, Choe clearly teaches the first processor is configured to, in a case where the first imaging mode is finished, transition to a second imaging mode in which the restriction of the output to the first monitor portion is released. (Figs. 6, 7, 9, 10: In the selected scenarios the current view is displayed on screen 602, 1002, [0054], [0055], [0057], [0058].)
Consider claim 11, Choe clearly teaches the first processor is configured to restrict video formats among the image formats in the first imaging mode. (Figs. 8, 11: In the selected scenario the imaging formats are restricted, [0028]-[0032], [0056], [0059].)
Consider claim 27, Choe clearly teaches an imaging method using an imaging apparatus (Fig. 12) including a first monitor portion (Fig. 3: Display screen 302, [0043]) and a first processor, (Fig. 14: Processing system 1404, [0076]) the method comprising:
via the first processor, a step of outputting, in a case where a first imaging mode in which image formats are restricted is selected, user interface information related to imaging to the first monitor portion and restricting output of a live view to the first monitor portion. (Figs. 8, 11: In the selected scenario the current view is not displayed on screen 602, 1002; user interface elements 802, 804, 1102, 1104 are displayed; and the imaging formats are restricted, [0028]-[0032], [0056], [0059].)
Consider claim 29, Choe clearly teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium for storing an imaging program (Fig. 14: Computer-readable media 1406, [0077]) using an imaging apparatus including a first monitor portion (Fig. 3: Display screen 302, [0043]) and a first processor, (Fig. 14: Processing system 1404, [0076]) the program causing the first processor to execute
a function of outputting, in a case where a first imaging mode in which image formats are restricted is selected, user interface information related to imaging to the first monitor portion and restricting output of a live view to the first monitor portion. (Figs. 8, 11: In the selected scenario the current view is not displayed on screen 602, 1002; user interface elements 802, 804, 1102, 1104 are displayed; and the imaging formats are restricted, [0028]-[0032], [0056], [0059].)
Consider claim 31, Choe clearly teaches an imaging apparatus comprising:
a first monitor portion; (Fig. 3: Display screen 302, [0043]) and
a first processor, (Fig. 14: Processing system 1404, [0076])
wherein the imaging apparatus has a first imaging mode in which restriction on a digital function is imposed, and in a case where the first imaging mode is selected, the first processor is configured to perform, as the restriction on the digital function, at least two of the following: (a) restriction of image formats; (b) restriction of output of a live view to the first monitor portion; (c) restriction of storage of a series of image data obtained by imaging in the first imaging mode in a format other than a single unit format; (d) restriction of a number of captured images; and (e) restriction of a second imaging operation following a first imaging operation. (Figs. 8, 11: In the selected scenario the current view is not displayed on screen 602, 1002; user interface elements 802, 804, 1102, 1104 are displayed; and the imaging formats are restricted, [0028]-[0032], [0056], [0059].)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choe et al. (US 2019/0268533) in view of Nishimoto (US 2023/0412910).
Consider claim 2, Choe clearly teaches the first processor.
However, Choe does not explicitly teach set a lock on an imaging operation of a first member in the first imaging mode; and unlock the lock in response to an operation of a second member.
In an analogous art, Nishimoto, which discloses an imaging apparatus, clearly teaches set a lock on an imaging operation of a first member in the first imaging mode; and unlock the lock in response to an operation of a second member. (Fig. 3: The user can operate a lock setting member to lock/unlock operation of function buttons, [0061]-[0064].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Choe by set a lock on an imaging operation of a first member in the first imaging mode; and unlock the lock in response to an operation of a second member, as taught by Nishimoto, for the benefit of preventing the user from operating a button in error ([0064] Nishimoto).
Consider claim 3, Choe combined with Nishimoto clearly teaches the first processor is configured to, in a case where the lock is unlocked, output information indicating that the imaging operation of the first member is valid, as the user interface information. (Figs. 3, 5B: In step S308 information about the lock setting/release is displayed, [0077]-[0080] Nishimoto.)
Consider claim 4, Choe combined with Nishimoto clearly teaches the first processor is configured to, in a case where the imaging operation is performed while the lock is set on the imaging operation, output information indicating that the imaging operation is invalid. (Fig. 7: If a button, e.g. shutter button 61, is pressed in the locked state a message is displayed that the button is locked, [0047], [0092]-[0095] Nishimoto.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choe et al. (US 2019/0268533) in view of Ramirez et al. (US 6,504,575), herein Ramirez.
Consider claim 5, Choe clearly teaches the first processor is configured to, in a case where an imaging operation of a first member is performed. ([0047])
However, Choe does not explicitly teach in a case where an imaging operation of a first member is performed, output information indicating the number of captured images as the user interface information.
In an analogous art, Ramirez, which discloses an imaging apparatus, clearly teaches in a case where an imaging operation of a first member is performed, output information indicating the number of captured images as the user interface information. (Fig. 7B: Overlay bar 430 displays the image number, col. 7 lines 44-46.)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Choe by in a case where an imaging operation of a first member is performed, output information indicating the number of captured images as the user interface information, as taught by Ramirez, for the benefit of displaying image information to the user.
Claims 7, 13-16, 18-22, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choe et al. (US 2019/0268533) in view of Osuka et al. (US 2022/0141391), herein Osuka.
Consider claim 7, Choe clearly teaches in a case where a selection to finish the first imaging mode is made, (Fig. 13: The user may change the selected profiles, [0067].) the first processor is configured to store a series of image data obtained by the imaging in a recording medium. (Fig. 1: Output module 104 stores images in a storage device, [0023].)
However, Choe does not explicitly teach store a series of image data obtained by the imaging in a recording medium in a single unit format.
In an analogous art, Osuka, which discloses an imaging apparatus, clearly teaches store a series of image data obtained by the imaging in a recording medium in a single unit format. (Fig. 3A: The captured images are stored in a DCF folder, [0055]-[0059].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Choe by store a series of image data obtained by the imaging in a recording medium in a single unit format, as taught by Osuka, for the benefit of utilizing a well-known storage standard ([0052] Osuka).
Consider claim 13, Choe combined with Osuka clearly teaches the first processor is configured to: in the first imaging mode, store a series of image data obtained by the imaging in a recording medium in a single unit format (Fig. 3A: The captured images are stored in a DCF folder, [0055]-[0059] Osuka.) on which display restriction on the first monitor portion is imposed; (Figs. 8, 11: In the selected scenario the current view is not displayed on screen 602, 1002, [0056], [0059] Choe.) and in a case where a selection to finish the first imaging mode is made, release the display restriction. (Fig. 13: The user may change the selected profiles, [0067] Choe.)
Consider claim 14, Choe combined with Osuka clearly teaches the first processor is configured to, in the first imaging mode, store a series of image data obtained by the imaging in a second storage region of a recording medium in which a first storage region conforming to a DCF standard (Fig. 3A: Images are stored on memory card 142 in a DCF standard, [0052] Osuka.) and the second storage region not conforming to the DCF standard are generated. (Fig. 3B: Images are stored on memory card 142 in a non-DCF standard, [0053] Osuka.)
Consider claim 15, Choe combined with Osuka clearly teaches the first processor is configured to, in the first imaging mode, store the series of the image data obtained by the imaging under a second directory that is generated in the second storage region and that does not conform to the DCF standard. (Fig. 3B: Images are stored on memory card 142 in a non-DCF standard, [0053] Osuka.)
Consider claim 16, Choe combined with Osuka clearly teaches the first processor is configured to store image data obtained in a second imaging mode in which the image formats are not restricted, (Fig. 13: The user may change the selected profiles, [0067] Choe.) under a first directory of the first storage region. (Fig. 3B: The captured images are stored in a Private folder, [0055]-[0059] Osuka.)
Consider claim 18, Choe combined with Osuka clearly teaches the first processor is configured to generate a management file in which information related to the image data is recorded, under the second directory. (Fig. 6C: Information about the images is stored in the cinema system folder, [0079] Osuka.)
Consider claim 19, Choe combined with Osuka clearly teaches the first directory of the first storage region and the second directory are distinguishable from each other. (Figs. 3A, 3B, [0050]-[0054] Osuka)
Consider claim 20, Choe combined with Osuka clearly teaches the first directory and the second directory are organized in a hierarchy according to a common rule. (Figs. 3A, 3B, [0050]-[0054] Osuka)
Consider claim 21, Choe combined with Osuka clearly teaches the first processor is configured to, in a case where a first instruction is acquired, enable display of the image data stored in the second storage region on the first monitor portion based on the first instruction. (Fig. 13: The stored image file is displayed, [0120] Osuka.)
Consider claim 22, Choe combined with Osuka clearly teaches the first processor is configured to output an image of list data in which thumbnail images of the image data are listed, to the first monitor portion. (Figs. 12A-12C, [0111] Osuka)
Consider claim 28, Choe combined with Osuka clearly teaches via the first processor, a step of storing, in the first imaging mode, a series of image data obtained by the imaging in a second storage region of a recording medium in which a first storage region conforming to a DCF standard (Fig. 3A: Images are stored on memory card 142 in a DCF standard, [0052] Osuka.) and the second storage region not conforming to the DCF standard are generated. (Fig. 3B: Images are stored on memory card 142 in a non-DCF standard, [0053] Osuka.)
Consider claim 30, Choe combined with Osuka clearly teaches the imaging program further causes the first processor to execute a function of storing, in the first imaging mode, a series of image data obtained by the imaging in a second storage region of a recording medium in which a first storage region conforming to a DCF standard (Fig. 3A: Images are stored on memory card 142 in a DCF standard, [0052] Osuka.) and the second storage region not conforming to the DCF standard are generated. (Fig. 3B: Images are stored on memory card 142 in a non-DCF standard, [0053] Osuka.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 12, 17 and 23-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights