`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMlVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`15/366,430
`
`12/01/2016
`
`TSUTOMU MUKAI
`
`PANDP0171USB
`
`6113
`
`10mm” —MARK D. SARALINO (PAN) m
`
`7590
`51921
`
`
`V ‘AUX’ GARY C
`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`19TH FLOOR
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44115
`
`2662
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`10/13/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`ipdocket @rennerott0.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 15/366,430 MUKAI ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`2662GARY c. VIEAUX $233
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions 0137 CFR 1.136(a).
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`-
`-
`
`Status
`
`1)IXI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 9/7/2017.
`[I A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:| This action is non-final.
`2a)IZ| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under EX parte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PT0_413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`—
`4) I:I Other'
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/Osb)
`
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date .
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20171004
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)|XI Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6 III Claim s) _ is/are allowed.
`s M is/are rejected.
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`) )
`
`_
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)|:l Claim(s
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`htt
`://www.usoto. ov/ atentS/init events"
`h/index.‘s
`
`
`
`
`
`, or send an inquiry to PRI-Ifeedback{<‘buspto.qov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|Z| The drawing(s) filed on 12/1/2016 is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)lZl objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)IZI Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`b)I:I Some” c)I:I None of the:
`a)le All
`1.IZI Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.I:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/366,430
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2662
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Amendment
`
`The Amendment, filed September 7, 2017, has been received and made of
`
`record.
`
`In response to the Non-Final Office Action dated Jun 15, 2017, the title and
`
`claims 1 and 4 have been amended.
`
`1O
`
`15
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Regarding the objection to the drawings, Applicant states that figure 1 has been
`
`amended to correctly identify the “card slot”, element 190. However, an amended
`
`figure has not been found to have been submitted with the amendment. Therefore, the
`
`outstanding objection to the drawings will be maintained.
`
`Regarding the objection to the title, Applicant has amended the title to be more
`
`clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Therefore, the
`
`outstanding objection to the title is withdrawn.
`
`Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection to claims 1-4, Applicant has amended the
`
`claims to address the indefinite language. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112
`
`20
`
`rejection of claims 1-4 are withdrawn.
`
`Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 objection to claims 1-4, Applicant's arguments have
`
`been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/366,430
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2662
`
`Drawings
`
`The drawings are objected to because figure 1, element 190 incorrectly labels
`
`card slot as “caed slot”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d)
`
`are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any
`
`amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the
`
`immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The
`
`figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If
`
`a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the
`
`replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered
`
`1O
`
`and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the
`
`drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the
`
`renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date
`
`of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or
`
`“New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`If the changes are not accepted by the
`
`15
`
`examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in
`
`the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: please change
`
`20
`
`“each of which generates the video data” in line 11 to language akin to “each of which
`
`can generate the video data” or "each of which is able to generate the video data", as
`
`the disclosure does not support both modes simultaneously generating "the video data”
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/366,430
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2662
`
`(Le, 2 sets of video data generated or video data generated by the functionality of both
`
`modes in concert) but instead is found to teach that each, separately when selected,
`
`generate video data (see publication at [0087-88]). Appropriate correction is required.
`
`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.
`
`(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.
`
`Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being
`
`anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0015774 to Sugie.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Sugie teaches an imaging device comprising an imaging unit
`
`(fig. 1, element 105) that generates image data from the optical information input
`
`through an optical system unit (fig. 1, element 101), an image processor that performs a
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`predetermined process to the image data generated by the imaging unit (fig. 1, element
`
`25
`
`121 ), a controller (fig. 1, element 131) that controls ([0043]) at least one of the optical
`
`system unit, the imaging unit ([0033]), and the image processor based on a video
`
`capture setting relating to video capturing so as to generate video data ([0027-36]), a
`
`display unit (fig. 1, element 153; [0044]), wherein the controller has at least a first video
`
`mode and a second video mode, each of which generates the video data ([0054],
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/366,430
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2662
`
`normal video mode or HDR video mode, respectively), whereby, in the first video mode
`
`(e.g., fig. 3, S102, normal video mode), video is captured in accordance with a first
`
`video capture setting (fig. 3, step 8103), in the second video mode (e.g., fig. 3, S112,
`
`HDR video mode), video is captured in accordance with a second video capture setting
`
`(fig. 3, steps S119 and S120), and the second video capture setting being more
`
`suitable for recording a still image than the first video capture setting (High Dynamic
`
`Range is more suitable than without due to the wider dynamic range provided), and
`
`wherein the controller in the second video mode automatically sets the video capture
`
`setting to the second video capture setting so that image quality of a still image
`
`1O
`
`generated from a captured video taken during video capture in the second video mode
`
`is greater than image quality of a still image generated from a captured video taken
`
`during video capture in the first video mode (fig. 3, step S112, HDR exposure program
`
`provides greater image quality) and causes the display unit to display an indication of
`
`the second video mode at least one of during setting to the second video mode ([0050],
`
`15
`
`[0054], [0056] and [0090], video mode selected and set via GUI, which would inherently
`
`require some visual cue regarding the selection and setting of the mode), during
`
`recording in the second video mode, and during displaying a video recorded in the
`
`second video mode.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Sugie teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35
`
`20
`
`U.S.C. 102 rejection to claim 1, w) including teaching wherein the recording in the
`
`second video mode is performed from start to end of a video recording (‘774 — fig. 3,
`
`e.g. 8100, START, 8114-8123 loop, S124 END).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/366,430
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2662
`
`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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`1O
`
`Sugie in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0231735 to Burian et al (hereinafter
`
`“Burian”).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Sugie teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 (see the 35
`
`15
`
`U.S.C. 102 rejection to claim 1, w) except for being found by the Examiner to
`
`expressly disclose wherein the controller displays a display indicating the second video
`
`mode using a message on the display unit during setting to the second video mode.
`
`Nevertheless, Burian is found to teach providing an indication relating to setting
`
`of a mode relating to still image capture concurrent with video recording ([0039]-[0042]),
`
`20
`
`such as via selection of a setting option embedded in an options menu (fig. 2a; [0042]),
`
`as well as found to teach providing messages when an error arises ([0039]-[0042]).
`
`In
`
`light of these teaching of Burian, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have employed a message
`
`as an indication relating to the setting of a mode as a way to express functionality being
`
`25
`
`chosen by way of language instead of a potentially confusing or unfamiliar icon.
`
`"A
`
`person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
`
`technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/366,430
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2662
`
`innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. TelefleX
`
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
`
`Regarding claim 4, Sugie teach all the limitations of claim 4 (see the 35 U.S.C.
`
`102 rejection of claim 1, w) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly
`
`disclose wherein the controller displays a display indicating the second video mode
`
`using an icon on the display unit during recording in the second video mode or during
`
`reproducing a video recorded in the second video mode.
`
`Nevertheless, Burian teaches a controller that displays a display indicating a
`
`video mode using an icon on the display unit during recording in the video mode
`
`1O
`
`([0039]-[0040]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of Burian with the
`
`imaging device as taught by Sugie, resulting in a display of an indication of a video
`
`mode, so that a user can easily verify that the desired video setting is in fact the setting
`
`of the current video capture session.
`
`"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to
`
`15
`
`pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the
`
`anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385
`
`(2007)
`
`20
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
`
`this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/366,430
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2662
`
`§ 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37
`
`CFR1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the event a first reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`10
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
`
`Contact
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to GARY C. VIEAUX whose telephone number is
`
`15
`
`(571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached on IFW.
`
`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.
`
`20
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Roberto Velez can be reached on 571 -272—8597. The fax phone number for
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/366,430
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2662
`
`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.
`
`5
`
`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—1 000.
`
`10
`
`/GARY C VIEAUX/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
`
`