Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/476,011

TECHNIQUES FOR ELIMINATING VIEW ANGLE LOSS IN IMAGE STABILIZED VIDEO

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 27, 2023
Examiner
DANG, HUNG Q
Art Unit
2484
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
1257 granted / 1841 resolved
+10.3% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
95 currently pending
Career history
1936
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
§103
54.1%
+14.1% vs TC avg
§102
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
§112
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1841 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/26/2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 7-8, Applicant argues that, “As amended, claims 1, 10, and 19 recite "wherein each central portion contains common image elements selected according to an image stabilization operation." Support for these amendments can be found at least at paragraph [0016] of the specification. Pulli does not teach or suggest these features. In particular, in Pulli, an object (e.g., car) is shown at different locations in a field of view. (See, e.g., Figures 12-15, showing object 1516 moving). Importantly, however, Pulli does not disclose a central portion of source frames that have common subject matter. In particular, Figures 12-15 illustrate the object 1516 overlapping different camera areas (e.g., areas A-F). However, claims 1, 10, and 19 recite that the central portions of the source frames from the narrow-angle camera contain common image elements. In other words, claims 1, 10, and 19 recite common image elements in the central portion of a narrow-angle camera. By contrast, the portions that contain common elements in Pulli are not central portions - rather, these portions run up to one or more edges of middle fields of view (e.g., 1618). These common portions in Pulli therefore cannot be considered "central" portions. In other words, Pulli does not teach that "each central portion contains common image elements selected according to an image stabilization operation." For this reason, Pulli cannot teach the above features recited in claims 1, 10, and 19. In view of the foregoing, Applicant submits that the cited references do not teach each and every feature of claims 1, 10 and 19. Therefore, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1, 10 and 19 and all claims dependent thereon. …” (original emphases) In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Pulli teaches, at least in paragraph [0179] and Fig. 12, a narrow-angle camera comprising camera modules A, B, C, D, and E and a wide-angle camera comprising camera module G. Thus, during the first and the second image capture time period (see paragraph [0153] of Pulli), there are two central portions and two peripheral portions of a plurality of source frames based on image stabilization are identified: For a first frame captured during first image capture time period, central portion 1516 of Fig. 14 is identified, For a second frame captured during second image capture time period, central portion 1516 within FOV 1618 shown in Fig. 15 is identified For the second frame captured during second image capture time period peripheral portions MP1 and MP2 are identified. Examiner respectfully submits that each of the central portion 1516 of Fig. 14 for the first frame and the central portion 1516 within FOV 1618 of Fig. 15 contains common image elements, which are the majority parts (except for a front portions) of the car. Finally, all these portions are combined to generate an output video, i.e. the first frame comprising the whole central portion 1516 of Fig. 14, then the second frame that follows the first frame would have the central portion of the second frame mentioned above together with the parts MP1 and MP2. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. 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)(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 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pulli et al. (US 2017/0099439 A1 – hereinafter Pulli). Regarding claim 1, Pulli discloses a method for generating video, the method comprising: obtaining a plurality of source frames with a wide-angle camera and a narrow-angle camera (Fig. 12; [0179] – obtaining images from a camera module G having a wider field of view and an image from a camera having a narrow field of view comprising camera modules A, B, C, D, and E); identifying a plurality of central portions and a plurality of peripheral portions of the plurality of source frames based on image stabilization ([0183]-[0184]; [0190]; Figs. 14-16 – identifying central regions of the first image captured during first image capture time period and the second image captured during second image capture time period, the central portion in the first image corresponds to portion 1516 of Fig. 14, the central portion in the second image corresponds to the portion 1516 within FOV 1618 of Fig. 15, and at least two peripheral portions MP1 and MP2 as shown in Fig. 16 – also see “Response to Arguments” above), wherein each central portion comprises a sub-portion of a source frame from the narrow-angle camera and each peripheral portion includes image content for an area within a field of view of the narrow angle camera ([0182]-[0184]; Figs. 14-16 – each central portion comprises a central portion of the frames captured by the narrow-angle camera and each peripheral portion includes image content for an area within a field of view of the narrow angle camera A); and combining the plurality of central portions and the plurality of peripheral portions to generate a plurality of resulting frames of an output video ([0064]; [0190] – combining the portions from each image, wherein the portions comprise the central portions of frames captured by the narrow-angle camera during in the first and second image capture time periods and peripheral portions MP1 and MP2 to generate an output video). Regarding claim 2, Pulli also discloses the plurality of source frames comprise frames taken a consecutive, periodic time points ([0014]-[0015]). Regarding claim 3, Pulli also discloses identifying the plurality of central portions based on image stabilization comprises identifying portions of the source frames to minimize apparent motion of content ([0184] – identifying the portions to minimize the effect of the motion of the camera modules). Regarding claim 4, Pulli also discloses the identifying the plurality of central portions based on the image stabilization comprises minimizing a loss function ([0011]; [0187]-[0189] – minimizing a loss function defined as an amount of information loss in portions interested by the user). Regarding claim 5, Pulli also discloses the central portions are taken from the narrow-angle camera and the peripheral portions are taken from the wide-angle camera ([0206]; Figs. 19-21 – the peripheral portions 2208 are taken from a camera module F or a camera module G having a wider field of view and the central portions are taken a camera having a narrow field of view, one of camera module A). Regarding claim 6, Pulli also discloses identifying the plurality of peripheral portions comprises identifying areas around the central portions in a plurality of wide- angle views taken with the wide-angle camera (Fig. 6 – identifying areas MP1 and MP 2 captured by camera module G as shown in the table). Regarding claim 7, Pulli also discloses combining the plurality of central portions and the plurality of peripheral portions comprises surrounding the plurality of central ([0190]; Fig. 16). Regarding claim 9, Pulli also discloses performing one or more of encoding, storing, and transmitting the output video ([0064] – performing storing and transmitting, i.e. transmitting the output video to another device for further processing and/or sent for storage, e.g., in external memory, an external device or in a network). Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 in view of Pulli also disclosing a system for generating video (Fig. 1), the system comprising: a wide-angle camera and a narrow-angle camera (Fig. 1; [0179] – a narrow-angle camera comprising camera modules A-E and a wide-angle camera comprising camera module G); and a processor ([0075]; Fig. 1 – processor 110) configured to perform the recited steps ([0075] – also see discussion of claim 1). Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 2 above. Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 3 above. Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 4 above. Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 5 above. Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 6 above. Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 7 above. Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 9 above. Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above in view of Pulli also disclosing a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the recited operations ([0075]; Fig. 1 – memory 108 storing software modules and/or routines which include instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to control the camera device 100 to implement one, more or all of the methods described herein). Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 2 above. 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 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pulli as applied to claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0098437 A1 – hereinafter Li). Regarding claim 8, see the teachings of Pulli as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Pulli does not disclose combining the plurality of central portions and the plurality of peripheral portions comprises upscaling the plurality of peripheral portions. Li discloses combining a plurality of central portions and a plurality of peripheral portions comprises upscaling the plurality of peripheral portions (Fig. 3; [0050]-[0051]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Li into the method taught by Pulli to provide data consistency before processing, facilitating the combining process. Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 8 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT. 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, Thai Q Tran can be reached on 571-272-7382. 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. /HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 27, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
May 20, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 01, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jul 28, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 26, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594460
MANAGING BLOBS FOR TRACKING OF SPORTS PROJECTILES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588818
DETECTION OF A MOVABLE OBJECT WHEN 3D SCANNING A RIGID OBJECT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592258
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INTERACTIVE VIDEO EDITING PLATFORM TO CREATE OVERLAY VIDEOS TO ENHANCE ENTERTAINMENT VIDEO GAMES WITH EDUCATIONAL CONTENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587693
ARTIFICIALLY INTELLIGENT AD-BREAK PREDICTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12574649
ENCODING AND DECODING METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
68%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+18.3%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1841 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month