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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/12/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 17/800,301 filed on 08/17/2022.
• Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-30 are currently pending and have been examined
• This action is made Non-FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 12/12/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2022 and 12/06/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 14-15, 17-20, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKEYA (JP2014062805A) in view of Goetz (US20220139091A1), further in view of Milch (US8441344B2) and Sizov (US20140095135A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, 12, 18 and 22:
TAKEYA teaches:
A video providing system comprising: (TAKEYA, para [0001], “The present invention relates to a video information providing apparatus”)
a video collection server configured to: (TAKEYA, para [0002],” A video information providing device has been proposed that uses a video camera or still camera mounted on the vehicle to capture images of the outside of the vehicle while it is moving, stores the captured video information on a server”)
and send the synthesized video to the user apparatus… ( TAKEYA, para[0029], “transmits from the database unit 12 to the mobile terminal 3 a video frame Fm that is linked together over the shortest section corresponding to the route from the departure point to the destination.”)
send a request, to a video providing server,(TAKEYA, para [0057],” the mobile terminal 3 requests the video server 1 to transmit a video”)
TAKEYA does not explicitly teach, but Goetz teaches:
receive videos including a first video captured by a first vehicle traveling a first section and a second video captured by a second vehicle traveling a second section, and store the videos in a video database; a video providing server configured to: acquire, from the video database the first video captured by the first vehicle traveling the first section and the second video captured by the second vehicle traveling the second section; generate a synthesized video by comprising the first video and the second video, (Goetz, Fig.2A and 2B, para[0103], “the video sequences recorded during the entire journey by the vehicle 110 , 210 , 220 , 230 , 240 , 250 respectively behind the vehicle of interest are combined to form a video”, and para[0104], “The video is created by the computing unit 112 , 132 in the vehicle 110 , 210 , 220 , 230 , 240 , 250 or by the mobile terminal 140 or at the backend server 130”, and para[0087], “the video sequences of a plurality of vehicles 110 , which are assigned to a journey , may be collected , analyzed , marked and automatically assembled into a suitable video” )
PNG
media_image1.png
282
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the route including the first section and the second section. (Goetz, Fig.2A and 2B, para[0103], “the video sequences recorded during the entire journey by the vehicle 110 , 210 , 220 , 230 , 240 , 250 respectively behind the vehicle of interest are combined to form a video”, and para[0036], “video sequences of a common journey recorded by different vehicles may be combined automatically in time- synchronous fashion …in order to form a video” ) Examiner note: Goetz teaches the leading vehicle 201 records the video of the first section of the race track, and the following vehicle 202 records the video of the second section of the race trace simultaneously, and synthesizes a video corresponds to first section and second section of the race track.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for providing video information of TAKEYA to include these above teachings from Goetz in order to receive videos including a first video captured at a first time by a first vehicle traveling a first section and a second video captured at a second time different from the first time by a second vehicle traveling a second section, and store the videos in a video database; a video providing server configured to: acquire, from the video database the first video captured by the first vehicle traveling the first section and the second video captured by the second vehicle traveling the second section; generate a synthesized video comprising the first video and the second video and send the synthesized video to a user apparatus, wherein the synthesized video corresponds to a designated route including the first section and the second section. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to be capable to search, synthesize and distribute the video to the user apparatus.
TAKEYA does not explicitly teach, but Milch teaches:
receive, from a user apparatus, information of a vehicle type; (Milch, claim 21, “a mobile phone configured to communicate with the vehicle… a vehicle type, the information received when the vehicle communicates with the mobile phone”) Examiner note: Milch teaches that it was well known and routine to obtain vehicle-type information via communication between a vehicle system and a user device such as a mobile phone and using it in a vehicle-related system.
based on the vehicle type, (Milch, claim 1, “based on information associated with a vehicle type”)
…the vehicle type which is received from the user apparatus, (Milch, claim 21, “a vehicle type, the information received when the vehicle communicates with the mobile phone”)
…from which the information of the vehicle type is received. (Milch, claim 21, “a vehicle type, the information received when the vehicle communicates with the mobile phone”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for providing video information of TAKEYA to include these above teachings from Milch in order to receive, from a user apparatus, information of a vehicle type and response based on the vehicle type. Combining TAKEYA’s teaching of a user apparatus providing route-related information to a video server with Milch’s teaching of providing/receiving vehicle-type information in a vehicle/mobile phone communication would have rendered it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure TAKEYA’s system such that the user apparatus additionally provides vehicle-type information to the video providing server, for using in selecting appropriate video content based on the vehicle type.
TAKEYA does not explicitly teach, but Sizov teaches:
the synthesized video simulating a movement along a route by a vehicle that meets the vehicle type… (Sizov, para [22], “generate corresponding simulated view of the road”, and abstract, “permitting any vehicle to be used in the simulator, including the driver's own vehicle”, and claim 1, “simulating a video”) Examiner note: Sizov teaches a method of simulation a video of a movement along a route by a vehicle that meets the vehicle type, which the vehicle type is the drive’s own vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for providing video information of TAKEYA to include these above teachings from Sizov in order to simulates a movement along a route by a vehicle that meets the vehicle type. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to be capable to search, synthesize and distribute the video to the user apparatus.
egarding Claims 2, 10, 14, 19 and 23:
TAKEYA in view of Goetz, Milch, Sizov, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 9, 12, 18 and 22. TAKEYA teaches:
The video providing system according to Claim 1, wherein the video providing server is configured to: receive, from the user apparatus, a request for sending the synthesized video, the request including information related to the designated route; (TAKEYA, para [0018],” The portable terminal 3 …transmit a playback request including the departure latitude, departure longitude, destination latitude, and destination longitude to the video server 1”)
and send the synthesized video based on the request. ( TAKEYA, para[0029], “transmits from the database unit 12 to the mobile terminal 3 a video frame Fm that is linked together over the shortest section corresponding to the route from the departure point to the destination.”)
Regarding Claims 3, 15, 17, 20 and 24:
TAKEYA in view of Goetz, Milch, Sizov, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 2, 10, 14, 19 and 23. TAKEYA teaches:
The video providing system according to Claim 2, wherein the request includes the information of a starting point and a destination point of the route… (TAKEYA, para [0018],” a playback request including the departure latitude, departure longitude, destination latitude, and destination longitude to the video server 1”)
Regarding Claim 5:
TAKEYA in view of Goetz, Milch, Sizov, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. TAKEYA teaches:
The video providing system according to Claim 1, wherein the video providing server is configured to divide the route into a plurality of sections and acquire a video for each section from the video database. ( TAKEYA, para [0055] and Fig.12,” FIG. 12 shows the trajectory on a map of a vehicle (route bus) 50 equipped with a video camera 2 traveling from time T1 to time T7 including a circular route. FIG. 12 also shows a conceptual video file FL”, and para [0056], “The loop detection unit 14 sequentially compares all pairs of two switching points among the switching points P1 to P4”, and para [0058], “the images at switching points P2 and P4 are extremely similar, and the driving images from time T1 to switching point P2 and the driving images from switching point P4 to time T7 can be linked together”) Examiner note: TAKEYA teaches when a video distribution request is received from a user, a server searches the travel video database and select travel videos captured by vehicles that have traveled in each of one or more sections (sections defined by switching points such as P1, P2, P3 and P4) included in the route; the travel video of each section included in the route is combined (linked).
PNG
media_image2.png
464
401
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8:
TAKEYA in view of Goetz, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. TAKEYA does not explicitly teach, but Goetz teaches:
The video providing system according to Claim 1, wherein the video providing server is configured to perform image processing for changing a viewpoint of the first video, and generate the synthesized video comprising the first video having the changed viewpoint and the second video. (Goetz, Fig. 5 and para[0122]-[0125], “FIG . 5 shows an example illustration of a video 500 automatically created in time - synchronous fashion for a certain vehicle 110”, “The view or the window 501 shows a view of the vehicle 110 to the front”, “The view or the window 502 shows a view of the driver of the vehicle 110”, “The view or the window 503 shows a view of the vehicle 110 from the back , as was recorded at the current or displayed time t by the vehicle 110 - X situated behind the vehicle 110 ”)
PNG
media_image3.png
708
887
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for providing video information of TAKEYA to include these above teachings from Goetz in order to receive videos including wherein the video providing server is configured to perform image processing for changing a viewpoint of the first video, and generate the synthesized video comprising the first video having the changed viewpoint and the second video. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to be capable to search, synthesize and distribute the video to the user apparatus.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 16, 21, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKEYA (JP2014062805A) in view of Goetz (US20220139091A1), further in view of Milch (US8441344B2), Sizov (US20140095135A1) and Yamagaki (US20190364249A1).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 16, 21, 25:
TAKEYA in view of Goetz, Milch, Sizov as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 9, 12 and 18, 22. TAKEYA teaches:
…videos of the first section (TAKEYA, para[0004], “video information in a specified section”)
TAKEYA in view of Goetz, does not explicitly teach, but Yamagaki teaches:
The video providing system according to Claim1, wherein the first video is a latest video among a plurality of videos…( Yamagaki, para [0092], “on-camera area calculation part 203 acquires the latest video data from the storage medium”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for providing video information of TAKEYA in view of Goetz to include these above teachings from Yamagaki in order to include wherein the first video is a latest video among a plurality of videos of the first section. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to be capable to search, synthesize and distribute the video to the user apparatus.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKEYA (JP2014062805A) in view of Goetz (US20220139091A1), further in view of Milch (US8441344B2) and Sizov (US20140095135A1), Takahashi (US20180038709A1).
Regarding Claim 6:
TAKEYA in view of Goetz, Milch, Sizov as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 5. TAKEYA in view of Goetz, Milch, Sizov does not explicitly teach, but Takahashi teaches:
The video providing system according to Claim 5, wherein the video providing server is configured to divide the route into a plurality of sections at each branch point. .( Takahashi, para [0090],” the section is a range in which, for example, the route on the map is divided by the intersections or branch points”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for providing video information of TAKEYA in view of Goetz to include these above teachings from Takahashi in order to divide the route into a plurality of sections at each branch point. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to be capable to search, synthesize and distribute the video to the user apparatus.
Claim(s) 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKEYA (JP2014062805A) in view of Goetz (US20220139091A1), further in view of Milch (US8441344B2) and Sizov (US20140095135A1), Tompkins (US4686698A).
Regarding Claims 26-30:
TAKEYA in view of Goetz, Milch, Sizov as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 9, 12, 18 and 22. TAKEYA teaches:
The video providing system according to Claim 1, wherein the synthesized video is configured to output …( TAKEYA, para[0029], “transmits from the database unit 12 to the mobile terminal 3 a video frame Fm that is linked together.”)
TAKEYA in view of Goetz does not explicitly teach, but Tompkins teaches:
… output content related to the first video and content related to the second video in a sequential manner.( Tompkins, claim 28, “the video outputs in a sequential manner”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method for providing video information of TAKEYA in view of Goetz to include these above teachings from Tompkins in order to output content related to the first video and content related to the second video in a sequential manner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to be capable to search, synthesize and distribute the video to the user apparatus.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103. Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest at least the amended feature of claim 1 which the video providing server is configured to “"receiving, from a user apparatus, information of a vehicle type", "based on the vehicle type, generat[ing] a synthesized video comprising the first video and the second video, the synthesized video simulating a movement along a route by a vehicle that meets the vehicle type which is received from the user apparatus, the route including the first section and the second section" and "send[ing] the synthesized video to the user apparatus from which the information of the vehicle type is received."
In response of A). Examiner respectively disagrees. TAKEYA teaches a video providing system comprising a video collection server in para [02], ” A video information providing device has been proposed that uses a video camera or still camera mounted on the vehicle to capture images of the outside of the vehicle while it is moving, stores the captured video information on a server”. Milch teaches receiving, from a user apparatus, information of a vehicle type in claim 21, “a vehicle type, the information received when the vehicle communicates with the mobile phone”. Thus, Milch discloses that it was well known and routine to obtain vehicle-type information via communication between a vehicle system and a user device such as a mobile phone. Combining TAKEYA’s teaching of a user apparatus providing route-related information to a video server with Milch’s teaching of providing/receiving vehicle-type information in a vehicle/mobile phone communication would have rendered it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure TAKEYA’s system such that the user apparatus additionally provides vehicle-type information to the video providing server, for using in selecting appropriate video content based on the vehicle type.
Goetz teaches receiving videos from multiple vehicles, and assembling them into a video representing a journey including segments corresponds to first and second sections in Fig.2A and 2B, para[0103]. Therefore, Goetz teaches of combining multiple vehicle videos along a route into a single synthesized video. Sizov teaches a simulator that generates a virtual view of the road to provide a simulated driving experience, specifically that any vehicle, including the driver’s own vehicle, can be used to generate a simulated view of driving along a route by a vehicle in para [22]. Thus, Sizov discloses that it was know to simulate a movement along a route by a vehicle that meets a particular vehicle type such as the driver’s own vehicle. Combining TAKEYA’s teaching of a user apparatus providing route-related information to a video server with Goetz, Sizov and Milch would have rendered it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enhance TAKEYA’s system so that the synthesized video are simulating a movement along a route by a vehicle that meets the vehicle type and more closely matches the user’s actual driving experience by selecting the segments so that the viewpoint of video corresponds to the requested vehicle type.
TAKEYA further teaches sending the synthesized video to the user apparatus in para [29]. TAKEYA already teaches that the same mobile terminal that transmit the route request receiving the driving video from the server. Milch disclosed a well-known practice of obtaining vehicle-type information from a user apparatus and using it in a vehicle-related system. Hence, once vehicle type information is simply added to the request as an additional parameter, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to continue sending the resulting synthesized video to the same requesting device.
Accordingly, the amendments to claim 1 do not overcome the rejection under 35 USC § 103, and the rejection of claim 1 over TAKEYA in view of Goetz, Milch, Sizov, is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3667