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 filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9, Applicant argues that,
Claim 1 generally relates to a method of video recording, and recites a combination comprising, inter alia:
…, placing a video frame image collected by a camera into a first video track frame by frame, and displaying the video frame image in the first video track frame by frame, the first video track being configured to record real-time images collected by the camera, wherein the first video track comprises a software layer for processing the video frame image collected by the camera;
… placing a video frame image of the second video into a second video track frame by frame, and …, wherein the second video track comprises a software layer for processing the video frame image of the second video;
synthesizing the video frame image in the first video track with the video frame image in the second video track to obtain a video frame image of a recorded video,
wherein the synthesizing comprises:
transmitting, by the second video track, the video frame image in the second video track to the first video track; and
synthesizing, by the first video track, the video frame image in the first video track and the received video frame image transmitted from the second video track to obtain the video frame image of the recorded video.
The Office Action asserts that Chen at paragraphs [0089]-[0093], [0097], [0101], [0128], [0147]-[0151], [0168] and [0225] and Figs. 1 and 4 discloses most features of the combination recited in Claim 1, except for "the synthesizing comprises: transmitting, by the second video track, the video frame image in the second video track to the first video track; and synthesizing, by the first video track, the video frame image in the first video track and the received video frame image transmitted from the second video track to obtain the video frame image of the recorded video." (hereinafter "distinguishing feature (1)"). However, the Office Action also asserts that this distinguishing feature has been disclosed by Iwase at paragraph [0410] and Fig. 35.
Applicant respectfully disagrees with this assertion and respectfully submits that Iwase also fails to disclose or suggest the above distinguishing feature (1) as recited in Claim 1 […].
(original emphasis)
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reason as discussed in the Office Actions dated 05/16/2025 and 02/11/2026. Specifically, Examiner submits that a video track can be reasonably interpreted as a processing path comprising various connecting and/or processing components. As such, Iwase teaches a first video track comprising: buffer 52, video decoders 72-1, 72-2, and video plane generator 92 and a second video track comprising at least the buffer 53. The second track transmits a video frame image to one of the first and the second video decoders of the first track via PID filter 56 (see at least [0302]), the video plane generator 92 of the first track then synthesizes the received video frame image from the second track with the video frame image of the first track from the other one of the video decoders into a combined video.
On pages 9-10, Applicant argues that,
[…] Nevertheless, in the interest of advancing prosecution, Claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended to explicitly recite, inter alia: "placing a video frame image collected by a camera into a first video track frame by frame, and displaying the video frame image in the first video track frame by frame … wherein the first video track comprises a software layer for processing the video frame image collected by the camera" (hereinafter "distinguishing feature (2)") and "placing a video frame image of the second video into a second video track frame by frame, and displaying the video frame image in the second video track frame by frame, wherein the second video track comprises a software layer for processing the video frame image of the second video" (hereinafter "distinguishing feature (3)").
As indicated in Chen, e.g., specification paras. [0092] and [0093],
"Step S120, superimposing a video capture window on the video playing interface, in response to the video capture trigger operation.
In actual applications, the video capture window may be superimposed (superimposedly displayed) on or laid over a preset position in the video playing interface, and the preset position may be a display position pre-configured based on the size of display interface of the terminal device of user, for example, an upper left of the video playing interface. …. "
In Chen, the video capture window can be superimposed and displayed on the video playing interface in response to the user's video capture trigger operation. In other words, the video capture window is an interface element in the video playing interface, rather than a software layer for processing the video. Such video capture window is used for displaying and capturing the user video, rather than processing the user video. The video capture window is not analogous to the "video track" as recited in amended Claim 1. Moreover, nowhere in Chen mentions a video track including a software layer.
Thus, Chen fails to disclose or suggest the above distinguishing feature (2) recited in amended Claim 1.
Further, as indicated in Chen, e.g., specification para. [0091],
In actual applications, the operation can be triggered by an associated trigger identifier of the client, such as a specified trigger button or an input box on a client interface, or a user's voice. In one or more embodiments of present disclosure, it can be a "compose" virtual button displayed on an application interface of client. The operation of the user clicking the button is the video capture trigger operation from the user. In actual applications, the original video can be a video that has not been combined, or a video that has been obtained after combining.
In Chen, the original video is played on the video playing interface, rather than in a display window. There is no window for displaying the original video; even if there were, such a window would not be considered a video track. Moreover, the video playing interface is only used to trigger video capturing and cannot be used for video processing.
In other words, a display area of the original video in Chen should not be considered as a "second video track" recited in amended Claim 1. Thus, Chen fails to disclose or suggest the above distinguishing feature (3) recited in amended Claim 1.
(original emphasis)
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Chen discloses the first track and the second track as follows:
Capturing of user video by the camera → (1a) processing the captured video frames for display, (1b) processing for adding special effects to the user video frames → displaying the user video in main window (see Fig. 4; [0151] – image b),
Input of original video → (2) processing the original video frames for display → displaying the original video in PinP window (see Fig. 4; [0151] – image a),
As such:
1a) and 1b) corresponds to processing performed by the first track comprising: processing frames captured by the camera and placed in the first track for display and processing the frames for added special effects as further described at least in [0134]-[0135].
2) corresponds to processing performed by the second track.
Further, as described in the Office Action, the flowchart shown in Fig. 1 implements the processing capability of the first and the second tracks. Specifically, flowchart of Fig. 1: (i) processes original video frames for display via a video display interface, and (ii) processes captured user video for displaying via the video display interface in response to user’s input. In addition, the frames of the user video are processed for added special effects before they are displayed. In [0222]-[0223], Chen teaches the processor 801 of the device 800 shown in Fig. 8 executes a software program to perform the such processing of the flowchart shown in Fig. 1. The corresponding piece of software implementing the corresponding process of (i) and (ii) constitutes a software layer in the first and the second track respectively.
Therefore, Chen clearly teaches the limitations of “the first video track comprises a software layer for processing the video frame image collected by the camera" and " the second video track comprises a software layer for processing the video frame image of the second video.”
On pages 10-11, Applicant further argues that,
Iwase focuses on metadata for picture-in-picture display (such as position coordinates) and playback control data structures. Although it mentions the "first video decoder," "second video decoder" and "video-plane generator," these descriptions lean more towards hardware decoding and plane composition levels, and do not explicitly disclose the specific architecture where a "video track comprises a software layer for processing video frames."
Thus, Iwase fails to disclose or suggest at least the above distinguishing features (2) and (3) recited in amended Claim 1.
Furthermore, as indicated above, Iwase obviously provides a different and more complex video synthesizing strategy than that recited in amended Claim 1.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that both Chen and Iwase alone or in combination with one another fail to disclose or suggest at least the above distinguishing features (2) and (3), i.e., "placing a video frame image collected by a camera into a first video track frame by frame, and displaying the video frame image in the first video track frame by frame … wherein the first video track comprises a software layer for processing the video frame image collected by the camera" and "placing a video frame image of the second video into a second video track frame by frame, and displaying the video frame image in the second video track frame by frame, wherein the second video track comprises a software layer for processing the video frame image of the second video" as recited in amended Claim 1.
(original emphasis)
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that, without acquiescing to any of characterizations of Iwase’s teachings by Applicant, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive at least for the reasons discussed with respect to Chen’s teachings above.
Further, Applicant’s arguments with respect to other references on page 11 are moot in view of the discussion of Chen’s teachings above.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments, as a whole, are not persuasive.
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 1, 5-6, 8-9, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0014431 A1 – hereinafter Chen) and Iwase et al. (US 2008/0267588 A1 – hereinafter Iwase).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method of video recording, comprising: in response to a shooting initiation instruction, placing a video frame image collected by a camera into a first video track frame by frame, and displaying the video frame image in the first video track frame by frame (Fig. 1 – steps S110-S140; [0089]-[0093] – in response to receiving a video capture trigger operation, placing a video frame image into at least a video playing interface, which is implemented as a software layer as described at least in [0225] to at least abstract the frame image, for displaying the video frame image onto a video capture window within the video playing interface), the first video track being configured to record real-time images collected by the camera ([0095]; [0100]; [0147]; [0206] – the first video track recording real-time images of the viewer reacting to the original video when the original video is being played), wherein the first video track comprises a software layer for processing the video frame image collected by the camera (Fig. 1; [0134]-[0135]; [0222]-[0223] – also see “Response to Arguments” above); in response to a playing instruction for a second video, placing a video frame image of the second video into a second video track frame by frame ([0093] – upon playing the original video, placing a video frame image of the second video into an abstraction of the frame image as an image of a certain video frame being retained as described at least in [0097] and [0128] at a software layer as described at least in [0225]), and displaying the video frame image in the second video track frame by frame (Fig. 4; [0151] – displaying the video frame image of the original video into region “image a”), wherein the second video track comprises a software layer for processing the video frame image of the second video (Fig. 1; [0222]-[0223] – also see “Response to Arguments” above); in response to a pausing playing instruction for the second video, pausing placing the video frame image of the second video into the second video track, so that the video frame image placed before pausing play of the second video is retained in the second video track ([0097]; [0128] – in response to a pausing playing instruction issued either automatically or by the user, pausing placing the video frame image so that an image of a certain video frame is retained); and in response to a recording instruction, synthesizing the video frame image in the first video track with the video frame image in the second video track to obtain a video frame image of a recorded video ([0147]; [0149]-[0150] – in response to a capture trigger operation as described at least in [0101], synthesizing the video frame images in the first and second video tracks to obtain a video frame image of a recorded video as described at least at [0168]). Chen also discloses the synthesizing the video frame image in the first video track with the video frame image in the second video track to obtain a video frame image of a recorded video, comprising: synthesizing the video frame image in the first video track as a main track and a video frame image from the second video track as a PIP track to obtain the video frame image of the recorded video ([0147]; [0149]-[0150] – the first video track is in the main video part b of the screen and the second video track is in a PIP video part a of the screen).
Chen does not disclose the synthesizing comprises: transmitting, by the second video track, the video frame image in the second video track to the first video track; and synthesizing, by the first video track, the video frame image in the first video track and a received video frame image transmitted from the second video track to obtain the video frame image of the recorded video.
Iwase discloses a video synthesizing process comprises: transmitting, by a second video track, a video frame image in the second video track to a first video track; and synthesizing, by the first video track, the video frame image in the first video track and a received video frame image transmitted from the second video track to obtain the video frame image of a combined video (Fig. 35; [0310] – a second track as a PIP video track comprising buffer 53 transmitting the video images to be synthesized as PIP video frames to a first track, which comprises buffer 52, video decoders 72-1, 72-2, and video plane generator 92, the video plane generator 92 of the first track synthesizes the video images in the first track and the second track into a combined video).
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 Iwase into synthesizing the first main video tracks and the second PiP video track in the method of Chen in order to make the input video streams steady and smooth, thus minimizing interruptions for the synthesizing process.
Regarding claim 5, Chen also discloses the synthesizing, by the first video track, the video frame image in the first video track and the received video frame image transmitted from the second video track to obtain the video frame image of the recorded video, comprising: arranging, by the first video track, the video frame image in the first video track at a first position in a preset picture, and arranging, by the first video track, the video frame image received from the second video track at a second position in the preset picture, to obtain the video frame image of the recorded video ([0150] – synthesizing the first and the second video frames sequentially according to a positional order).
Regarding claim 6, Chen also discloses obtaining recorded audio ([0164] – obtaining audio in respective audio information for combining); and writing the video frame image of the recorded video and the recorded audio into a synthesized video file ([0168] – writing the combined video information and the combined audio information into a combined video file for storage).
Regarding claim 8, Chen also discloses before responding to the shooting initiation instruction, the method further comprising: in response to a co-shooting instruction for the second video, displaying a co-shooting interface ([0089] – in response to an instruction, displaying a video playing interface for an original video).
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above in view of Chen also disclosing an electronic device ([0070] – an electronic device) comprising: at least one processor ([0070] – the electronic device including a processor) and a memory ([0070] – the electronic device including a memory) configured to store computer executable instructions ([0071] – the memory configured to store computer operation instructions), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute computer executable instructions stored in the memory to cause the at least one processor to perform the recited acts ([0072] - the processor is configured to execute the method by invoking the computer operation instruction).
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 5 above.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 6 above.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 8 above.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above in view of Chen also disclosing a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium stores computer executable instructions ([0071] – a memory configured to store computer operation instructions), when a processor executes the computer executable instructions, the computer executable instruction implement the recited acts ([0072] - a processor is configured to execute the method by invoking the computer operation instruction).
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Iwase as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 13-14, and 16-17 above, and further in view of Hicks et al. (US 2017/0332089 A1 – hereinafter Hicks).
Regarding claim 2, see the teachings of Chen and Iwase as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Chen and Iwase do not disclose the placing a video frame image collected by a camera into a first video track, comprising: transmitting image data collected by the camera to the first video track, so that the first video track encodes the image data to obtain the video frame image collected by the camera.
Hicks discloses placing a video frame image collected by a camera into a first video track, comprising: transmitting image data collected by the camera to the first video track, so that the first video track encodes the image data to obtain the video frame image collected by the camera ([0078] – video frames captured by a camera are transmitted to an encoder that encodes the frames for display, the encoder and the display are interpreted together as a first video track).
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 Hicks into the method taught by Chen and Iwase in order to prepare the video frame image for display correctly.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 2 above.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 2 above.
Claims 4, 7, 12, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Iwase as applied to claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 13-14, and 16-17 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0227506 A1 – hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 4, see the teachings of Chen and Iwase as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Chen and Iwase do not disclose in response to an instruction for pausing recording, stopping synthesizing the video frame image in the first video track with the video frame image in the second video track.
Lee discloses in response to an instruction for pausing recording, stopping synthesizing a video frame image in a first video track with a video frame image in a second video track ([0096];[0098]; [0100]; [0136] – in response to a photographing termination instruction to terminate recording of a combined video image, capturing of a video frame image into a first video track is stopped thus stopping synthesizing of the video frame image in the first video track onto the combined video frame image).
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 Lee into the method taught by Chen and Iwase to allow the user to pause or stop the recording process if needed thus enhancing the user interface of the method.
Regarding claim 7, see the teachings of Chen and Iwase as discussed in claim 6 above. However, Chen and Iwase do not explicitly disclose the writing the video frame image of the recorded video and the recorded audio into a synthesized video file, comprising: encoding the recorded audio and the video frame image of the recorded video to obtain encoded data, and writing the encoded data into the synthesized video file.
Lee discloses writing a video frame image of a recorded video and a recorded audio into a synthesized video file, comprising: encoding the recorded audio and the video frame image of the recorded video to obtain encoded data, and writing the encoded data into the synthesized video file ([0098]; [0100] – the combined video file comprising the audio information and video information which are arranged in the file according to a certain format for storage, e.g. mpeg, mpg, mp4, avi, mov, and mkv).
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 Lee into the method taught by Chen and Iwase to make the synthesized video file compatible with existing encoding standard so that it can be played back on any compatible player.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 4 above.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 7 above.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 4 above.
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 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
Prosecution Insights