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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-2 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OI et al. (“OI”, US 2022/0101498).
Regarding claim 1, OI discloses a video processing device that outputs a composite video, wherein the composite video is a video in which a plurality of media data are arranged, and the media data is composed of at least one of an image and a video, the video processing device comprising:
an input terminal in which the media data to be arranged in the composite video is inputted (OI: see fig. 21 and par. [0145], wherein an input terminal 11-1…11-4 in which the media data to be arranged in the composite video is inputted);
a substitution display memory that stores substitution display data for each one of the input terminal, wherein the substitution display data is composed of an image or a video corresponding to an input source of the media data to the input terminal (OI: see fig. 21 and par. [0148], in which a substitution display memory 123 that stores substitution display data for each of the inter terminal, wherein the substitution display data is a still image corresponding to an input source 11-3 of the media data to the input terminal); and
at least one processor (OI: a processor 100, see fig. 2 and par. [0074]), configured to:
determine whether the media data has been normally inputted in the input terminal (OI: see fig. 27 and pars. [0174], [0176], wherein determine whether the media data has been normally inputted in the input terminal 11-3 at step S132-S133), and
acquire the substitution display data corresponding to the input terminal from the substitution display memory and display, in the composite video, the substitution display data acquired corresponding to the input terminal in place of the media data from the input terminal, in a case of determining that the media data has not been normally inputted in the input terminal (OI: see fig. 27 and pars. [0150], [0174]-[0176], note that acquiring the substitution display data as still image corresponding to the input terminal 11-3 from the substitution display memory 123 and display, in the composite video as considering performing stitching in plurality of frames, the substitution display data acquired corresponding to the input terminal 11-3 in place of the media data from the input terminal 11-3, in a case of determining that the media data has not been normally inputted in the input terminal 11-3).
Regarding claim 2, OI discloses the video processing device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a display device that displays the composite video (OI: see pars. [0070], [0100], wherein a display device 20-1 to 20-M that displays the composite video); and
an external output device that outputs the composite video to outside (OI: see par. [0235], in which an external device that outputs the composite video to outside), wherein the
at least one processor (OI: a processor 100, see fig. 2 and par. [0074]) is configured to:
display, in the composite video, the substitution display data acquired corresponding to the input terminal in place of the media data from the input terminal, in a case of determining that the media data has not been normally inputted in the input terminal when displaying the composite video on the display device (OI: see fig. 27 and pars. [0150], [0174]-[0176], note that display, in the stitch video, the substitution display data acquired corresponding to the input terminal in place of the media data from the input terminal, in a case of determining that the media data has not been normally inputted in the input terminal 11-3 when displaying the composite video on the display device), and
prohibit the substitution display data from being displayed in the composite video, in a case of outputting the composite video to the external output device (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that prohibit the substitution display data from being displayed in the composite video, in a case of outputting the composite video to the external output device).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites the similar subject matter as previously discussed in claim 1. In addition, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium is found in par. [0357] of OI.
Regarding claims 14-16, claims 14-15 recites the similar subject matter as previously discussed in claims 1-2.
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 3-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OI et al. (“OI”, US 2022/0101498).
Regarding claim 3, OI discloses the video processing device according to claim 2,
OI does not explicitly disclose that the at least one processor is configured to display, in the composite video, a substitution display data different from the substitution display data displayed on the display device in place of the media data from the input terminal, in a case of determining that the media data has not been normally inputted in the input terminal when outputting the composite video to the external output device.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that the at least one processor is configured to display, in the composite video, a substitution display data different from the substitution display data displayed on the display device in place of the media data from the input terminal, in a case of determining that the media data has not been normally inputted in the input terminal when outputting the composite video to the external output device is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a processor into OI’s system to display substitution display data.
The rational to do so is to provide different substitution display data.
Regarding claim 4, OI discloses the video processing device according to claim 1.
OI does not explicitly disclose that the substitution display data stored in the substitution display memory are in forms different from each other.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that the substitution display data stored in the substitution display memory are in forms different from each other is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the substitution display data into OI’s system to store in different forms.
The rational to do so is to differentiate the substitution display data.
Regarding claim 5, OI discloses the video processing device according to claim 2.
OI does not explicitly disclose that the substitution display data stored in the substitution display memory are in forms different from each other.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that the substitution display data stored in the substitution display memory are in forms different from each other is well know in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the substitution display data into OI’s system to store in different forms.
The rational to do so is to differentiate the substitution display data.
Regarding claim 6, OI discloses the video processing device according to claim 3, wherein the substitution display data stored in the substitution display memory are in forms different from each other (One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the substitution display data stored in the substitution display memory are in forms different from each other).
Regarding claim 7, OI discloses the video processing device according to claim 4, further comprising a bank memory that stores, for each of a plurality of banks, a plurality of pieces of scene information for constructing the composite video from the media data, wherein
the composite video is created based on the scene information acquired from the bank memory and the media data inputted in the input terminal,
the at least one processor is configured to acquire a selected bank,
the substitution display data stored in the substitution display memory are in forms different from each other depending on the bank of the bank memory and the input terminal, and
the at least one processor is configured to acquire, from the substitution display memory, the substitution display data corresponding to both the acquired bank and the input terminal in which it has been determined that the media data has not been normally inputted (see the analysis of claim 1 and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987)).
Regarding claim 8, OI discloses the video processing device according to claim 5, further comprising a bank memory that stores, for each of a plurality of banks, a plurality of pieces of scene information for constructing the composite video from the media data, wherein
the composite video is created based on the scene information acquired from the bank memory and the media data inputted in the input terminal,
the at least one processor is configured to acquire a selected bank,
the substitution display data stored in the substitution display memory are in forms different from each other depending on the bank of the bank memory and the input terminal, and
the at least one processor is configured to acquire, from the substitution display memory, the substitution display data corresponding to both the acquired bank and the input terminal in which it has been determined that the media data has not been normally inputted (see the analysis of claim 1 and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987)).
Regarding claim 9, OI discloses the video processing device according to claim 6, further comprising a bank memory that stores, for each of a plurality of banks, a plurality of pieces of scene information for constructing the composite video from the media data, wherein
the composite video is created based on the scene information acquired from the bank memory and the media data inputted in the input terminal,
the at least one processor is configured to acquire a selected bank,
the substitution display data stored in the substitution display memory are in forms different from each other depending on the bank of the bank memory and the input terminal, and
the at least one processor is configured to acquire, from the substitution display memory, the substitution display data corresponding to both the acquired bank and the input terminal in which it has been determined that the media data has not been normally inputted (see the analysis of claim 1 and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987)).
Regarding claims 17-19, claims 17-19 recites the similar subject matter as previously discussed in claims 3-4, 7.
Claims 10-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OI et al. (“OI”, US 2022/0101498) in view of Oshima et al. (“Oshima”, US 2012/0200683).
Regarding claim 12, OI discloses the video processing device according to claim 3.
OI does not explicitly disclose that the substitution display data stored in the substitution display memory is in a form in which an end part of the substitution display data is emphasized.
However, Oshima teaches that the substitution display data stored in the substitution display memory is in a form in which an end part of the substitution display data is emphasized (Oshima: see par. [0710], wherein the black screen is output).
One would have been modified to include a substitution display data as taught by Oshima in the apparatus of OI to have diversity of substitution display data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Oshima with the OI’s system to include that the substitution display data stored in the substitution display memory is in a form in which an end part of the substitution display data is emphasized.
Regarding claim 10-11, 20, claims 10-11 and 20 recite the similar subject matter as previously discussed in claim 12.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAN T H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3452. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-4PM.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/CHAN T NGUYEN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights