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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/9/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Dependent claims 10-20, 25, 26 are rejected based on their dependency.
The specification states in page 17, “[t]he Inset Ratio is not the ratio of the number of pixels in the first video to the number of pixels in the second video in a single dimension during capture. The Inset Ratio is determined based on the way these videos are displayed after alignment.” Therefore, the amendment is new matter since it places the insert ratio as a pixel number (image resolution) calculation before image alignment.
The following claim 8 elements are new matter;
“combine the second video with the first video into a third video responsive to a zoom command, by performing:
determining an inset ratio of a number of pixels in the first video to a number of pixels in the second video; and
aligning a region of interest (ROI) of the second video with the first video to have the inset ratio; and
provide at least one display with at least a portion of the third video.”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 11,190,689) in view of Nash et al. (US 2017/0230585).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches a video player, comprising: at least one processor configured to: decode at least one of a first bitstream and a second bitstream into a first video and a second video, respectively, wherein the first video has a first field of view (FOV) and the second video has a second FOV smaller than the first FOV (see figure 1B, figure 4, col. 7 lines 62-65, col. 8 lines 53-67, Wang discusses camera with one field of view and a second camera with second field of view, both FOVs having different zoom levels, and generating the pixel data);
combine the second video with the first video into a third video responsive to a zoom command, and provide at least one display with at least a portion of the third video.(see figure 1B, figure 4, col. 23 lines 1-27, Wang discusses zooming command and combining video data).
Nash teaches combine the second video with the first video into a third video responsive to a zoom command (see figure 4, figure 6, figure 11, para. 0090, Nash discusses an image output based on zooming factor), by performing:
determining an inset ratio of a number of pixels in the first video to a number of pixels in the second video (see para. 0035, 0067, 0090, Nash discusses a scaling factor between a wide camera and telephoto camera); and
aligning a region of interest (ROI) of the second video with the first video to have the inset ratio (see figure 4, figure 6, para. 0011, 0039, 0067, 0071, Nash discusses aligning a first image data and a second image data according to scaling factor defined as the ratio of the focal lengths of the two cameras); and
provide at least one display with at least a portion of the third video. (see figure 3, 0005, 0090, Nash discusses displaying the aligned image).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang with Nash to derive at the invention of claim 8. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform zoomed video image alignment.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Wang in this manner in order to improve zoomed video image alignment by using alignment metrics to align image regions. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Wang, while the teaching of Nash continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating alignment metrics to properly combine video images with different field of views. The Wang and Nash systems perform image alignment, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches wherein the alignment metrics are fixed alignment metrics (see figure 5A-5C, figure 6, col. 23 lines 13-27, Wang discusses video frames aligned using an alignment function).
The same motivation of claim 8 is applied to claim 10. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang with Nash to derive at the invention of claim 10. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform zoomed video image alignment.
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches wherein the alignment metrics are configured to change with time (see col. 13 lines 44-52, Wang discusses various position measurements can be aligned in time. The claim element “aligning the videos alignment metrics that change with time” is very broad and may be interpreted as using timestamp data when performing video alignment).
The same motivation of claim 8 is applied to claim 11. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang with Nash to derive at the invention of claim 11. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform zoomed video image alignment.
Regarding claim 13, Wang teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured [[for ]]to calculate the alignment metrics using motion estimation and image matching (see col. 9 lines 56-64, Wang teaches image motion stabilization; and see col. 11 lines 37-52, col. 18 lines 38-41, Wang teaches aligning the change of motion between video frames).
The same motivation of claim 8 is applied to claim 13. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang with Nash to derive at the invention of claim 13. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform zoomed video image alignment.
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine portions of the first and second videos to be visible on the display using a magnification level (ML) associated with the zoom command (see col. 8 lines 40-59, Wang discusses magnification levels for displaying video frames).
The same motivation of claim 8 is applied to claim 14. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang with Nash to derive at the invention of claim 14. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform zoomed video image alignment.
Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to, responsive to the zoom command increase the ML, decrease a number of visible pixels of the first video, and increase a number of visible pixels of the second video (see figure 1B, col. 8 lines 24-59, Wang discusses adjusting the magnification levels for displaying video frames).
The same motivation of claim 8 is applied to claim 16. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang with Nash to derive at the invention of claim 16. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform zoomed video image alignment.
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches wherein the processor is configured to combine the first and second videos into the third video and render the third video (see figure 4, Nash discusses displaying a third video with the aligned wide-angel image and telephoto image), using a magnification level (ML) associated with the zoom command, the alignment metrics, and frame numbers of the first and second bitstreams associated with the first and second videos for synchronization (see figure 5A-5C, figure 6, col. 3 lines 26-30, col. 23 lines 13-27, Wang discusses aligning video frames from different cameras).
The same motivation of claim 8 is applied to claim 17. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang with Nash to derive at the invention of claim 17. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform zoomed video image alignment.
Regarding claim 25, Wang teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to, responsive to the zoom command decreasing ML, increase a number of visible pixels of first video and decrease a number of visible pixels of the second video (see figure 1B, Wang discusses the effect of increasing or decreasing the zoom amount; see figure 1B, col. 8 lines 24-59, Wang discusses adjusting magnification levels for displaying video frames).
The same motivation of claim 8 is applied to claim 25. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang with Nash to derive at the invention of claim 25. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform zoomed video image alignment.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 11,190,689) in view of Nash et al. (US 2017/0230585) in view of Ribeiro et al. (US 2019/0356885).
Regarding claim 12, Wang and Nash do not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the first bitstream or the second bitstream comprises the alignment metrics as metadata. However, Ribeiro teaches wherein at least one of the first bitstream or the second bitstream comprises the alignment metrics as metadata (see para. 0057, 0190, Ribeiro discusses metadata for each video data stream may include a time-and-date stamp, which permits the video processor to align the video frames of the video data streams).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang and Nash with Ribeiro to derive at the invention of claim 12. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform zoomed video image alignment.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Wang and Nash in this manner in order to improve video generation by providing alignment metrics to align multiple video streams. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Wang and Nash, while the teaching of Ribeiro continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of implementing alignment metrics to properly align videos streams. The Wang, Nash, and Ribeiro systems perform image generation, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 11,190,689) in view of Nash et al. (US 2017/0230585) in view of Ishii (US 2004/0174444).
Regarding claim 15, Wang and Nash do not expressly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to place upper and lower limits for the ML to avoid picture quality degradation.
However, Ishii teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to place upper and lower limits for the ML to avoid picture quality degradation (see figure 18, figure 21, para. 0012, 0072, Ishii discusses limiting the magnification of video data to prevent degradation).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang and Nash with Ishii to derive at the invention of claim 15. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform zoomed video image alignment.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Wang and Nash in this manner in order to improve video generation by providing magnification limitations to prevent noise when magnifying the image data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Wang and Nash, while the teaching of Ishii continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of implementing magnification thresholds to prevent video degradation when generation video data. The Wang, Nash, and Ishii systems perform image generation, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 11,190,689) in view of Nash et al. (US 2017/0230585) in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0098437).
Regarding claim 18, Wang and Nash do not expressly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to mask a boundary between the first and second videos using feathering the first and second videos. However, Li teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to mask a boundary between the first and second videos using feathering the first and second videos (see para. 0036, Li discusses image fusion attempts between any two of these different types of image sources during a digital zooming operation blending the images to mask the image seams (lines where two images are joined)).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang and Nash with Li to derive at the invention of claim 18. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform zoomed video image alignment.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Wang and Nash in this manner in order to improve video alignment by blending image boundaries to properly mask edges and align images. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Wang and Nash, while the teaching of Li continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of implementing image blending to remove image boundaries. The Wang, Nash, and Li systems perform image generation, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claims 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 11,190,689) in view of Nash et al. (US 2017/0230585) in view of Urano (US 2008/0107403).
Regarding claim 19, Wang and Nash do not expressly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to skip rendering of at least part of the second video when a magnification level (ML) associated with the zoom command is a first ML such that the part of the second video is not decoded and wherein the at least one processor comprises at least one decoder is in an inactive state.
However, Urano teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to skip rendering of at least part of the second video when a magnification level (ML) associated with the zoom command is a first ML such that the part of the second video is not decoded and wherein the at least one processor comprises at least one decoder is in an inactive state (see figure 1, claim 8, para. 0042, 0064, Urano discusses perform a skip process of skipping a decoding start position of the coded video data stream to a position indicated by the slice header corresponding to the zoom start position, and a stop instruction requesting temporary stop of video display is made during zoom playback).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang and Nash with Urano to derive at the invention of claim 19. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform zoomed video image alignment.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Wang and Nash in this manner in order to improve video alignment by zooming in on video regions. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Wang and Nash, while the teaching of Urano continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of implementing zoom process on videos streams to properly align images. The Wang, Nash, and Urano systems perform image generation, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 20, Urano teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to, responsive to a change in the ML, change the at least one decoder from an inactive state to an active state when a current frame to be decoded is a key frame (see figure 2, figure 3, Urano discusses determine whether the current frame is not a b-picture to activate the decoding process).
The same motivation of claim 19 is applied to claim 20. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang and Nash with Urano to derive at the invention of claim 20. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform zoomed video image alignment.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 11,190,689) in view of Nash et al. (US 2017/0230585) in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0183982).
Regarding claim 26, Wang and Nash do not expressly disclose wherein adjusting at least one of a resolution of the first video or a resolution of the second video is based, at least in part, on the inset ratio. However, Lee teaches wherein adjusting at least one of a resolution of the first video or a resolution of the second video is based, at least in part, on the inset ratio (see figure 5, para. 0032, 0038-0040, 0056, Lee discusses applying wide/tele alignment percentage based on a zoom factor that affects the resolution of wide image).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang and Nash with Lee to derive at the invention of claim 26. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform zoomed video image alignment.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Wang and Nash in this manner in order to improve zoomed video image alignment by using alignment metrics to align image regions. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Wang and Nash, while the teaching of Lee continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating alignment metrics to properly combine video images with different field of views. The Wang, Nash, and Lee systems perform image alignment, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Conclusion
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. 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.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights