Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/693,425

RECORDING METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Mar 19, 2024
Examiner
SPINKS, ANTOINETTE T
Art Unit
2639
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Honor Device Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
654 granted / 913 resolved
+9.6% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
952
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.8%
-37.2% vs TC avg
§103
49.0%
+9.0% vs TC avg
§102
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§112
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 913 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 Amendment The amendment filed on December 8, 2025 in response to the previous Office Action (09/26/2025) is acknowledged and has been entered. Claims 1 – 15 and 18 – 22 are currently pending. Claims 16 – 17 and 23 are cancelled. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the following objections/rejections in the last Office Action: Objection to Specification Objection to Claims Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed December 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant submits there was an error regarding pending claims and the claims in preliminary amendment of March 19, 2024 should have been the pending claims (see Remarks, p.12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Office examine the most recently filed claims in the file, which was confirmed by SPE Twyler Haskins prior to the first action. In this case, the more recently filed claims were file on January 23, 2025. Regardless, this argument is moot considering the amendment to the claims. Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 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 § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 18 – 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first tracking identifier" in line4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 19 – 20 rejected as being dependent on claim 18. 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. Claim(s) 1 – 3, 6 – 8 and 21 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honor (EP 3937480) in view of Vivo (WO 2021/098603). Regarding claim 1, Honor discloses a recording method, applied to a terminal device (fig. 1) comprising a first camera (193), and the method comprising: displaying, by the terminal device, a first interface of a camera application (figs. 15-16), wherein the first interface comprises a first window (610) and a second window (620) (fig. 6A); the first window displays a first picture collected by the first camera (camera preview), and the second window displays a second picture (¶140: a panoramic image is in an area 610 and a close-up image is in area 620); and the second picture is a part of the first picture (fig. 6A: close-up image in 620 is part of panoramic image 610); at a first moment, when the terminal device detects that a first position of the first picture comprises a first object, comprising the first object in the second picture (fig. 15b; ¶140-141, 175: close-up mode…after the mobile phone detects an operation of tapping a location on a panoramic image by the user, a photographed object corresponding to the location is a close-up object. Referring to FIG. 15 (b), a close-up image is a zoomed-in image picture of the location); and at a second moment, when the terminal device detects that a second position of the first picture comprises the first object, comprising the first object in the second picture, wherein the second moment is later than the first moment, and the first position id different from the second position (this step is identical to the previous step and is disclosed by mere looping inherent in video recording). Honor fails to explicitly disclose when the terminal device detects that the first picture does not comprise the first object, skipping comprising the first object in the second picture, and adding a mask for the second window. In a similar field of endeavor, Vivo teaches a preview picture display wherein a preview window may be superimposed and displayed in the first preview picture with a preset transparency, high brightness or low brightness (¶60). In light of the teaching of Vivo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use Vivo’s teaching in Honor’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in the display being able to help direct focus of the user to important display data. Regarding claim 2, Honor in view of Vivo discloses the limitations of claim 1. Honor also teaches wherein the first object is displayed in the center in the second picture (figs. 6A). Regarding claim 3, Honor in view of Vivo discloses the limitations of claim 1. Honor also teaches wherein the second window is floated on an upper layer of the first window, and the second window is smaller than the first window (¶129: the picture-in-picture style means that images acquired by different camera lenses are partially superimposed for display, or an image acquired by one camera lens may be displayed in a floating manner on an image acquired by another camera lens, and a size of the image displayed above in the floating manner is less than a size of the image below). Regarding claim 6, Honor in view of Vivo discloses the limitations of claim 1. Honor also teaches wherein the first interface further displays a second object, the first window further displays a second tracking identifier associated with the second object, and the method further comprises: detecting, by the terminal device, a trigger operation of a user on the second tracking identifier; stopping, by the terminal device in response to the trigger operation of the user on the second tracking identifier, displaying the second picture in the second window, and displaying a third picture, wherein the third picture is a part of the first picture; and wherein the third picture comprises the second object; at a third moment, when the terminal device detects that a third position of the first picture comprises the second object, comprising the second object in the third picture; and at a fourth moment, when the terminal device detects that a fourth position of the first picture comprises the second object, comprising the second object in the third picture (figs 2c; ¶185). Regarding claim 7, Honor in view of Vivo discloses the limitations of claim 1. Honor also teaches wherein the method further comprises: when the first window is in a horizontal screen display state and the second window is in a horizontal screen display state, if it is detected that the terminal device switches from a horizontal screen state to a vertical screen state, switching, by the terminal device, the first window and the second window from the horizontal screen display state to a vertical screen display state; or when the first window is in a horizontal screen display state and the second window is in a vertical screen display state, if it is detected that the terminal device switches from a horizontal screen state to a vertical screen state, switching, by the terminal device, the first window from the horizontal screen display state to a vertical screen display state, and switching the second window from the vertical screen display state to a horizontal screen display state (figs 20b). Regarding claim 8, Honor in view of Vivo discloses the limitations of claim 1. Honor also teaches wherein before the displaying, by the terminal device, a first interface of a camera application, the method comprises: displaying, by the terminal device, a third interface of the camera application, wherein the third interface comprises the first window and the second window, the first window displays a fourth picture collected by the first camera and a first button (640), and the second window displays a part of the fourth picture; and detecting, by the terminal device, a trigger operation of [[the]] a user on the first button; and the displaying, by the terminal device, a first interface of a camera application comprises: displaying the first interface by the terminal device in response to the trigger operation of the user on the first button (figs. 6; ¶140-141). Claims 21 and 22 rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Claim(s) 4 – 5 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honor (EP 3937480) in view of Vivo (WO 2021/098603) in view of Li (CN 112261218A). Regarding claim 4, Honor in view of Vivo discloses the limitations of claim 1. Honor also teaches wherein before the displaying, by the terminal device, a first interface of a camera application, the method further comprises: displaying, by the terminal device, a second interface of the camera application, wherein the second interface comprises the first window (figs. 15-16). The combination fails to explicitly disclose displaying, when the terminal device detects that the first picture comprises the first object, a first tracking identifier associated with the first object in the first window; and the displaying, by the terminal device, a first interface of a camera application comprises: displaying the first interface by the terminal device in response to a trigger operation of a user on the first tracking identifier. In a similar field of endeavor, Li teaches a display control wherein a tracking identifier 808 is associated with a first object (fig. 11). In light of the teaching of Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use Li teaching in Honor’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in the display being able to help identify and adjust tracking objects by the user. Regarding claim 5, Honor in view of Vivo in view of Li discloses the limitations of claim 4. Honor also teaches wherein the second window is displayed on a side of the first window closest to a front-facing camera; and/or a horizontal and vertical screen state of the second window meets any one of the following: the second window is in vertical screen display when the first window is in horizontal screen display, or the second window is in horizontal screen display when the first window is in vertical screen display (fig. 2(c)). Regarding claim 18, Honor in view of Vivo discloses the limitations of claim 1. Honor also teaches wherein the displaying, by the terminal device, a first interface comprises: displaying, by the terminal device in a case of detecting that the first window in a twelfth interface comprises the first object, the first tracking identifier associated with the first object in the first window in the twelfth interface (figs. 15-16). The combination fails to explicitly disclose detecting, by the terminal device, a trigger operation of a user on the first tracking identifier; and the displaying, by the terminal device, a first interface comprises: displaying the first interface by the terminal device in response to the trigger operation of the user on the first tracking identifier. In a similar field of endeavor, Li teaches a display control wherein a tracking identifier 808 is associated with a first object (fig. 11). In light of the teaching of Li, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use Li teaching in Honor’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in the display being able to help identify and adjust tracking objects by the user. Regarding claim 19, Honor in view of Vivo in view of Li discloses the limitations of claim 18. Honor also teaches wherein the first window in the first interface comprises a seventh button, and the method further comprises: adding and displaying, in response to a trigger operation of the user on the seventh button, an eighth button in the first window in the first interface; and switching, in response to a trigger operation of the user on the eighth button, the second window in the first interface from a display state corresponding to the seventh button to a display state corresponding to the eighth button, wherein a window aspect ratio displayed in the display state corresponding to the seventh button of the second window is different from a window aspect ratio displayed in the display state corresponding to the eighth button (fig. 15, 20). Regarding claim 20, Honor in view of Vivo in view of Li discloses the limitations of claim 18. Honor also teaches wherein the second window in the first interface comprises a ninth button[[;]] and the method further comprises: Conclusion switching, in response to a trigger operation of the user on the ninth button, a display state of the second window in the first interface, wherein a window aspect ratio displayed in a display state before the switching of the second window is different from a window aspect ratio displayed in a display state after the switching (fig. 15, 20). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9 – 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 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. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm EST. 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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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. /ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 19, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 08, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 27, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604093
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR STABILIZING A SHOOTING VIDEO
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601959
Camera Focus and Stabilization System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597104
IMAGE PROCESSING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593059
IMAGING APPARATUS AND IMAGING METHOD FOR GENERATING SIGNATURE DATA BASED ON COMPRESSED IMAGE DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593115
DATA PROCESSING APPARATUS, DATA PROCESSING METHOD, DATA PROCESSING PROGRAM, OPTICAL ELEMENT, IMAGING OPTICAL SYSTEM, AND IMAGING APPARATUS TO SELECT SUITABLE WAVELENGTH FOR OBJECT DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 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
72%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+20.4%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 913 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