DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Applicant’s submission filed on 07/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, and 13-21 were amended. Claims 3 and 12 were canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, and 13-21 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 recites “determine a historical key point of the previous historical video frame and a key point to be matched in the current video frame to obtain at least one key point set,” which is already recited in the parent claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a storage unit” in claim 9. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang (US 2020/0012858) in view of Needham et al. (US 2018/0096528) and Wu et al. (US 2023/0328356).
Regarding claim 1, Xiang teaches/suggests: An image processing method, comprising:
adding an augmented reality (AR) effect
determining a historical key point of a previous historical video frame and a current key point of a current video frame (Xiang [0031] “According to the optical flow tracking algorithm, positions of feature points matching tracking points in a current video frame can be roughly determined based on positions of tracking points determined in a previous video frame”);
generating optical flow field information indicating an association relationship between the historical key point and the current key point (Xiang [0031] “According to the optical flow tracking algorithm, positions of feature points matching tracking points in a current video frame can be roughly determined based on positions of tracking points determined in a previous video frame”);
displaying the AR effect
Xiang does not teach/suggest an AR effect model. Needham, however, teaches/suggest an AR effect model (Needham [0018] “selecting a placement location for the AR model”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the substitution of one known element (the AR model of Needham) for another (the virtual image of Xiang) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such substitutions would have yielded predictable results, namely, for the augmented reality.
Xiang and Needham are silent regarding:
determining, based on the optical flow field information, rendering positions of a plurality of pixels associated with the AR effect model in a current video frame, wherein the rendering positions of the plurality of pixels in the current video frame cause the AR effect model to change one or more of a position or an angle in the current video frame; and
displaying the AR effect model at a display position based on the rendering positions of the plurality of pixels to obtain an effect video frame corresponding to the current video frame.
Wu, however, teaches/suggests determining, based on the optical flow field information, positions of a plurality of pixels (Wu [0095] “the optical flow motion vector may be represented as (X, Y), where X represents a quantity of pixels moved by a feature point in a horizontal direction ... and Y represents a quantity of pixels moved by the feature point in a vertical direction”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the AR model of Xiang as modified by Needham such that its rendering pixels are determined as taught/suggested by Wu for the placement. As such, Xiang as modified by Needham and Wu teaches/suggests:
determining, based on the optical flow field information, rendering positions of a plurality of pixels associated with the AR effect model in a current video frame, wherein the rendering positions of the plurality of pixels in the current video frame cause the AR effect model to change one or more of a position or an angle in the current video frame (Xiang [0031] “According to the optical flow tracking algorithm, positions of feature points matching tracking points in a current video frame can be roughly determined based on positions of tracking points determined in a previous video frame” Needham [0018] “selecting a placement location for the AR model” Wu [0095] “the optical flow motion vector may be represented as (X, Y), where X represents a quantity of pixels moved by a feature point in a horizontal direction ... and Y represents a quantity of pixels moved by the feature point in a vertical direction”); and
displaying the AR effect model at a display position based on the rendering positions of the plurality of pixels to obtain an effect video frame corresponding to the current video frame (Xiang [0082] “On the AR image, a flame image 504 is a virtual image added on the corresponding video frame” Needham [0018] “selecting a placement location for the AR model” Wu [0095] “the optical flow motion vector may be represented as (X, Y), where X represents a quantity of pixels moved by a feature point in a horizontal direction ... and Y represents a quantity of pixels moved by the feature point in a vertical direction”).
Regarding claim 2, Xiang as modified by Needham and Wu teaches/suggests: The image processing method according to claim 1, wherein the adding an augmented reality (AR) effect model for an object upon detecting that an object to be processed on a display interface is the object comprises:
invoking a preset AR effect model (Xiang [0084] “the virtual content may be a flame image that needs to be superimposed on the torch, and the virtual content may be a preset image” Needham [0018] “selecting a placement location for the AR model”) when it is detected that the display interface contains the object to be processed and the object to be processed is determined as the object based on feature point data to be matched of the object to be processed (Xiang [0088]-[0089] “Obtain first feature point information that is related to a target marker image and that is in a first video frame … if the first video frame matches the marker image, it may be regarded that both the first video frame and the target marker image include a target object”); and
adding the AR effect model to the object (Xiang [0082] “On the AR image, a flame image 504 is a virtual image added on the corresponding video frame” Needham [0018] “selecting a placement location for the AR model”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 4, Xiang as modified by Needham and Wu teaches/suggests: The image processing method according to claim 1, wherein the determining optical flow field information based on the at least one key point set comprises:
determining a transformation matrix as the optical flow field information based on the historical key point and the corresponding key point to be matched in each key point set (Xiang [0031] “According to the optical flow tracking algorithm, positions of feature points matching tracking points in a current video frame can be roughly determined based on positions of tracking points determined in a previous video frame” [0097] “obtaining an original extrinsic parameter matrix of the image shooting apparatus through computation according to the homography matrix and the intrinsic parameter matrix during shooting of the second video frame”),
wherein the transformation matrix comprises a translation matrix and a rotation matrix (Xiang [0067] “An extrinsic parameter matrix [r, t] of the image shooting apparatus may be obtained in a manner for processing the H matrix”).
Regarding claim 5, Xiang as modified by Needham and Wu teaches/suggests: The image processing method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the display position of the AR effect model in the current video frame based on the optical flow field information comprises:
determining the display position of the AR effect model in the current video frame based on the optical flow field information and historical position information of the AR effect model in the previous historical video frame (Xiang [0031] “According to the optical flow tracking algorithm, positions of feature points matching tracking points in a current video frame can be roughly determined based on positions of tracking points determined in a previous video frame” [0097] “obtaining an original extrinsic parameter matrix of the image shooting apparatus through computation according to the homography matrix and the intrinsic parameter matrix during shooting of the second video frame” [0108] “using the extrinsic parameter matrix to control the image shooting apparatus to perform shooting, and superimposing the virtual content on a shot video frame according to the superimposed position” Needham [0018] “selecting a placement location for the AR model”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Xiang is silent regarding historical position information of the AR effect model in the previous historical video frame. Needham further teaches/suggests historical position information of the AR effect model in the previous historical video frame (Needham [0020] “the candidate location matches a previously selected placement location for the AR model”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the superimposed position of Xiang as modified by Needham and Wu based on the previous superimposed position as taught/suggested by Needham for consistency.
Regarding claim 6, Xiang as modified by Needham and Wu teaches/suggests: The image processing method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying the AR effect model at the display position to obtain an effect video frame corresponding to the current video frame comprises:
rendering the AR effect model at the display position to maintain a relative position of the AR effect model to the object unchanged to obtain the effect video frame (Xiang [0108] “using the extrinsic parameter matrix to control the image shooting apparatus to perform shooting, and superimposing the virtual content on a shot video frame according to the superimposed position” Needham [0018] “selecting a placement location for the AR model”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Xiang is silent regarding maintain a relative position of the AR effect model to the target object unchanged. Needham further teaches/suggests maintain a relative position of the AR effect model to the target object unchanged (Needham [0020] “the candidate location matches a previously selected placement location for the AR model”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein.
Claims 9, 11, and 13-15 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 1-2 and 4-6, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s). Xiang as modified by Needham and Wu further teaches/suggests at least one processor; and a storage unit configured to store at least one program (Xiang Fig. 11: processor 1101 and storage apparatus 1102).
Claims 10, 17, and 21 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 1-2 and 6, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s). Xiang as modified by Needham and Wu further teaches/suggests a storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions (Xiang Fig. 11: storage apparatus 1102).
Claim 18 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 10, and is rejected for the same reason(s). Xiang as modified by Needham and Wu further teaches/suggests:
determine optical flow field information based on the at least one key point set (Xiang [0031] “According to the optical flow tracking algorithm, positions of feature points matching tracking points in a current video frame can be roughly determined based on positions of tracking points determined in a previous video frame”); and
determine the target display position of the AR effect model in the current video frame based on the optical flow field information (Xiang [0097] “obtaining an original extrinsic parameter matrix of the image shooting apparatus through computation according to the homography matrix and the intrinsic parameter matrix during shooting of the second video frame” [0108] “using the extrinsic parameter matrix to control the image shooting apparatus to perform shooting, and superimposing the virtual content on a shot video frame according to the superimposed position” Needham [0018] “selecting a placement location for the AR model”).
Claims 19 and 20 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 4 and 5, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s).
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang (US 2020/0012858) in view of Needham et al. (US 2018/0096528) and Wu et al. (US 2023/0328356) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Espeset et al. (US 2016/0379415).
Regarding claim 7, Xiang as modified by Needham and Wu does not teach/suggest: The image processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining a target effect video by stitching a plurality of target effect video frames.
Espeset, however, teaches/suggests:
determining a target effect video by stitching a plurality of target effect video frames (Espeset [0144] “the process stitches together individual video frames captured from different cameras in order to generate a complete 360 degree view”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the video of Xiang as modified by Needham and Wu such that video frames captured from different cameras are stitched together as taught/suggested by Espeset to generate a complete 360 degree view.
Claim 16 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 7, and is rejected for the same reason(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2017/0056774 – display position based on optical flow
US 2021/0210119 – optical flow feature map
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 ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET. 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights