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
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 02/24/2026, which has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 9, 10 and 17-21 have been amended. Claim 8 has already been cancelled. No Claim has been added. Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are pending in the application.
The rejections of Claims 10 and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. §101 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the Claims 10 and 17-21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that “In Oberbrunner, only modified parameters are uploaded to the server through the browser, and the server returns the modified video frame data. The final data returned by Oberbrunner is the final preview result, not the intermediate rendering. " (Remarks, p. 10).
The examiner disagrees with Applicant’s premises and conclusion.
Oberbrunner discloses intermediate rendering (i.e. results in real time with adjustments such as Effect Control Sliders), and recites “Referring to FIG. 2, in one embodiment, the user uses a standard web browser (201) to apply effects to a video clip, and makes adjustments dynamically (at will). The video appears in the Video Preview Window (202), and can be played using the Play Button (203a, 203b). Effects appear in the Thumbnail Panel (204); the user may choose one or more effects from that panel to be applied to the video clip (205). To adjust or steer the effect, one or more Effect Control Sliders (206) are provided; the user can drag them and see the results in real time in the Video Preview Window.” (¶18). Fig. 2 shows the at least one effect control 206, 204, and video preview window 202 displays at least one intermediate effect image.
As to the argument that “Oberbrunner does not classify and identify different requests between local control threads and preview threads, and return corresponding data." (Remarks, p. 10), the Examiner notes that Oberbrunner recites “Effects appear in the Thumbnail Panel (204); the user may choose one or more effects from that panel to be applied to the video clip (205). To adjust or steer the effect, one or more Effect Control Sliders (206) are provided; the user can drag them and see the results in real time in the Video Preview Window.” (¶18). In other words, Oberbrunner discloses identifying different effect and applying the chosen effect to the preview image.
Applicant submits that “Oberbrunner does not identify which effects control each returned data belongs to, and therefore does not publicly distribute different data back to different controls or nodes for separate rendering.” (Remarks, p. 10)
The examiner disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Oberbrunner recites “Effects appear in the Thumbnail Panel (204); the user may choose one or more effects from that panel to be applied to the video clip (205). To adjust or steer the effect, one or more Effect Control Sliders (206) are provided; the user can drag them and see the results in real time in the Video Preview Window.” (¶18).
The arguments regarding independent claims 9 and 10 are moot for at least the reasons discussed above.
The arguments regarding dependent claims for the virtue of their dependency are moot because the independent claims are not allowable.
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) 1-2, 9-11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberbrunner et al. (US 20140237365 A1), in view of Champion et al. (US 20220394225 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Oberbrunner discloses An electronic device (ABST reciting “Systems and methods for applying visual effects to video in a client/server or cloud-based system”), comprising:
at least one processing apparatus; (Fig. 1 showing a desktop computer, a mobile device 104 and a server 105.)
a storage apparatus configured to store at least one program, wherein the at least one program, when executed by the at least one processing apparatus, causes the at least one processing apparatus to: (¶62 reciting “The invention can be embodied in a special purpose computer or data processor that is specifically programmed, configured or constructed to perform one or more of the computer-executable instructions” and ¶65 reciting “Aspects of the invention may be stored or distributed on computer-readable media, including computer-readable storage media”.)
periodically send, by a control thread, an effect data request to a preview thread, wherein the control thread is associated with at least one effect control; (¶18 reciting “Effects appear in the Thumbnail Panel (204); the user may choose one or more effects from that panel to be applied to the video clip (205). To adjust or steer the effect, one or more Effect Control Sliders (206) are provided; the user can drag them and see the results in real time in the Video Preview Window.” ¶22 reciting “The user indicates, such as by pointing, drag-and-drop or similar means, the intent to apply a particular look to a particular set of video frames. Messages (403) are sent to the server”. Further, ¶23 reciting “The user may then interact (407) in real time with those sliders or controls; each update of a control is sent to the server (408), which renders one or more frames (409) and sends them immediately to the browser (410, 411, 412),” Fig. 4)
return, by the preview thread, at least one piece of effect data to the control thread according to the data request wherein the at least one piece of effect data carries an identifier that represents the at least one effect control corresponding to the at least one piece of effect data; (¶18 disclosing effect panel 204 for choosing and applying effect accordingly, and reciting “Effects appear in the Thumbnail Panel (204); the user may choose one or more effects from that panel to be applied to the video clip (205). To adjust or steer the effect, one or more Effect Control Sliders (206) are provided; the user can drag them and see the results in real time in the Video Preview Window.” ¶22 reciting “The server also sends to the browser in (406) a description of the controls available to steer or adjust the look. The browser interprets that description and displays the controls, which may take the form of knobs, buttons, sliders, menus or other common controls, as well as on-screen direct manipulation using mouse or touch screen input, for instance to indicate an X,Y spatial position relative to the video frame, or to adjust or control a parameter value.” In other words, Oberbrunner discloses identifying different effect and applying the chosen effect to the preview image.) and
render, by the server, the at least one piece of effect data to obtain at least one intermediate effect image, and displaying the at least one intermediate effect image at a position associated with the at least one effect control. (ABST reciting “Rendering and previewing of the effects is done on the server and rendered images can be sent in rapid succession to the client”. Further, ¶22 reciting “Messages (403) are sent to the server, which collects the video frames, invokes the Render Library software to apply the looks, and optionally one more text or binary preset files describing the look to be applied and various metadata about that look (404, 405). It then renders one or more test frames which are sent to the user (406)”; and Fig. 4 showing “test frame and control definitions” 406b are sent back to the client for displaying; and ¶22 reciting “The browser interprets that description and displays the controls”; ¶23 reciting “The user may then interact (407) in real time with those sliders or controls” Fig. 2 shows the at least one effect control 206, 204, and video preview window 202 displays at least one intermediate effect image. In addition, (¶18 reciting “Effects appear in the Thumbnail Panel (204); the user may choose one or more effects from that panel to be applied to the video clip (205). To adjust or steer the effect, one or more Effect Control Sliders (206) are provided; the user can drag them and see the results in real time in the Video Preview Window.” Therefore the preview window 205 is associated with the effect controls 204 and 206)
Oberbrunner discloses “In another embodiment of the system, rendering and playback tasks can be split between client and server. The client may render less-complex effects, or low resolution proxy images, while sending instructions to the server to render higher quality images asynchronously.” (¶54). However, Oberbrunner does not explicitly disclose to return, by the preview thread, at least one piece of effect data; and render, by the control thread.
Champion teaches “Systems and methods for implementing methods for cloud-based rendering of interactive augmented reality (AR) and/or virtual reality (VR) experiences. A client device may initiate execution of a content application on a server and provide information associated with the content application to the server. . . the client device may receive, from the server, data associated with the content application and render an AR/VR scene based on the received data. . . The providing and receiving may be performed periodically, e.g., at a rate to sustain a comfortable viewing environment of the AR/VR scene by a user of the client device.” (ABST), Further, ¶214 recites “the data may include images for rendering a 3D scene according to any of various image formatting techniques for display of a 3D scene.”; and ¶215 recites “At 1410, the client device may render the AR/VR scene (e.g., the 3D scene) based, at least in part, on the received data.” In other words, Champion teaches receiving AR/VR data from a server and rendering the scene by the client device based on the received data.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device (taught by Oberbrunner) to render the effects by the client device (i.e. the control thread) based on the effect data received from a server (taught by Champion). The suggestions/motivations would have been “to avoid and/or overcome latency issues” (¶217), and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 1, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 9, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 9.
Claim 10, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 9, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 9.
Regarding Claim 11, Oberbrunner in view of Champion discloses The electronic device according to claim 9, wherein the effect control is configured with effect resources, and the effect resources are obtained by loading an effect program file. (Oberbrunner, ¶22 discoing the effect resources obtained by loading files, and reciting “one more text or binary preset files describing the look to be applied and various metadata about that look (404, 405). . . The server also sends to the browser in (406) a description of the controls available to steer or adjust the look.” Further, ¶23 disclosing the effect control configured with effect resources, and reciting “The user may then interact (407) in real time with those sliders or controls; each update of a control is sent to the server (408)”)
Claim 2, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 11, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 11.
Claim 17, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 11, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 11.
Claim(s) 3-7, 12-16, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberbrunner et al. (US 20140237365 A1), in view of Champion et al. (US 20220394225 A1), and further in view of Shen et al. (US 20050057576 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Oberbrunner in view of Champion discloses The electronic device according to claim 11, wherein the electronic device is further caused to:
send, by the control thread, a reload instruction to the preview thread, such that the preview thread reloads the at least one effect control based on the new effect resources, to obtain at least one piece of new effect data. (Oberbrunner, ¶23 disclosing the client sends an update to the server, and reciting “The user may then interact (407) in real time with those sliders or controls; each update of a control is sent to the server (408), which renders one or more frames (409) and sends them immediately to the browser (410, 411, 412), providing nearly instantaneous feedback to the user about the effect of that control.” Fig. 4)
However, Oberbrunner in view of Champion does not explicitly disclose in response to detect that the effect program file is modified, reload, by the control thread, the modified effect program file to obtain new effect resources.
Shen teaches “ a method and apparatus for graphical design” (¶3). More specifically, ¶88 teaches a recites “The decorative effect setting change interface 113 exposes the selected decorative effect layer pattern setting parameters to the user through various graphical controls. Manipulating these controls, the user can change the setting values to the memory decorative effect data structure, thereby triggering a further change event.” Further, ¶89 recites “A change event arising from the decorative effect layer change interface 111 is applied to the decorative effect data structure 136 as described above. The changes are then extracted from the data structure as decorative delta data and added into the album data tree 119 so that these changes can be saved and restored later on. Meanwhile, the decorative effect data structure is passed onto the decorative effect renderer 118 whenever any change occurs. ” In other words, Shen teaches in response to detect a change to the memory decorative effect data structure (i.e. a file), obtaining the new effect resources (i.e. effect setting changes).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device (taught by Oberbrunner in view of Champion) to obtain new effect resources in response to detect the effect data structure is modified (taught by Shen). The suggestions/motivations would have been for “a system that balances the needs of the advanced graphical designers and simple users.” (¶10), and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 13, Oberbrunner in view of Champion and Shen discloses The electronic device according to claim 12, wherein the effect program file comprises configuration information, general parameter information, and shading information;(Shen, ¶118. ¶162: Appendix C.) and
the electronic device is further caused to detect that the effect program file is modified by:
detecting that at least one of the general parameter information and the shading information is modified. (Shen, ¶88 reciting “The decorative effect setting change interface 113 exposes the selected decorative effect layer pattern setting parameters to the user through various graphical controls.” The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 12 rejections.)
Regarding Claim 14, Oberbrunner in view of Champion and Shen discloses The electronic device according to claim 12, wherein reloading, by the control thread, the modified effect program file comprises:
reparsing, by the control thread, the modified effect program file; and
constructing the new effect resources according to a parsing result.
(Shen, ¶81 reciting “Upon the detection of the decorative effect information in the artwork, a decorative effect interpreter 107 is invoked and is provided with the detected decorative effect information. The interpreter 107 loads a corresponding decorative effect file 129 from the external storage device 104 and parses the file 129 into its memory representative data structure 136.” Further, ¶89 reciting “A change event arising from the decorative effect layer change interface 111 is applied to the decorative effect data structure 136 as described above. The changes are then extracted from the data structure as decorative delta data and added into the album data tree 119 so that these changes can be saved and restored later on. Meanwhile, the decorative effect data structure is passed onto the decorative effect renderer 118 whenever any change occurs. ” The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 12 rejections.)
Regarding Claim 15, Oberbrunner in view of Champion and Shen discloses The electronic device according to claim 12, wherein after the at least one piece of new effect data is obtained, the electronic device is further caused to:
periodically send, by the control thread, an effect data request to the preview thread;
return, by the preview thread, at least one piece of new effect data to the control thread according to the data request; and
render, by the control thread, the at least one piece of new effect data to obtain at least one new intermediate effect image, and displaying the at least one new intermediate effect image.
(See Claim 9 rejections and Claim 12 rejections for detailed analysis.)
Regarding Claim 16. Oberbrunner in view of Champion and Shen discloses The electronic device according to claim 9, wherein before the periodically sending, by a control thread, an effect data request to a preview thread, the electronic device is further caused to:
start the control thread and the preview thread; (Oberbrunner, ¶22 reciting “The browser (301) initiates the conversation with the server code (307), such as via an HTTP GET command (401).” ¶25 reciting “User opens browser and selects URL of video server (e.g.: http://video.genarts.com) (401)” Fig. 4. )
create, in the control thread, an image input control, at least one effect control, and a scene output control through a creation operation triggered by a user; (Oberbrunner, ¶24-27. ¶25 reciting “User opens browser and selects URL of video server (e.g.: http://video.genarts.com) (401)” and ¶27 reciting “The JavaScript (JS) code asynchronously sends information to the server to set up the current effect and any preset parameters. (403)”)
connect the image input control, the at least one effect control, and the scene output control in sequence through a connection operation, triggered by the user, according to a set rule; (Fig. 4, 401-406.) and
send, by the control thread, a load instruction to the preview thread, such that the preview thread loads the at least one effect control to obtain at least one piece of effect data. (Oberbrunner, ¶22 reciting “The browser (301) initiates the conversation with the server code (307), such as via an HTTP GET command (401).” ¶25 reciting “User opens browser and selects URL of video server (e.g.: http://video.genarts.com) (401)” and ¶26 reciting “Server responds with initial web page contents (402), including HTML text, images, cascading style sheets (CSS) styling, and JavaScript (JS) or other scripting language code to run in the browser.”)
Claim 3, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 12, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 12.
Claim 4, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 13, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 13.
Claim 5, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 14, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 14.
Claim 6, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 15, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 15.
Claim 7, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 16, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 16.
Claim 18, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 12, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 12.
Claim 19, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 13, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 13.
Claim 20, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 14, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 14.
Claim 21, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 15, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 15.
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 YI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6022. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/YI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights