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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon an application filed in China on 06/07/2023. The claim for priority cannot be based on said application because the subsequent nonprovisional or international application designating the United States was filed more than twelve months thereafter and no petition under 37 CFR 1.55 or request under PCT Rule 26bis.3 to restore the right of priority has been granted.
Applicant may wish to file a petition under 37 CFR 1.55(c) to restore the right of priority if the subsequent application was filed within two months from the expiration of the twelve-month period and the delay was unintentional. A petition to restore the right of priority must include: (1) the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) in an application data sheet, identifying the foreign application to which priority is claimed, by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), day, month, and year of its filing (unless previously submitted); (2) the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m)(3); and (3) a statement that the delay in filing the subsequent application within the twelve-month period was unintentional. The petition to restore the right of priority must be filed in the subsequent application, or in the earliest nonprovisional application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the subsequent application, if such subsequent application is not a nonprovisional application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024 and 07/02/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YAN (No. CN-112116684-A “Yan”).
Regarding claim 1, Yan teaches “(Original) A method of image processing, comprising:” (the image processing method; Pg.6, Para 4);
“obtaining at least two original images;” (Obtain a first image and a second image; Pg.6, Para 5);
“displaying the at least two original images on a current screen in a preset manner, and sending the at least two original images to a server, such that the server performs fusion processing on the at least two original images; and” (display the first image and the second image to be processed, and the server is used to synthesize the first image and the second image to obtain a composite image; Pg.8, Para 2);
“receiving a first target image returned by the server, and displaying the first target image on the current screen, wherein the first target image is an image obtained after the server has performed the fusion processing on the at least two original images.” (The server generates a composite image of the first image and the second image according to the image composite vector. In step S409, the server sends the composite image to the terminal. In step S410, the terminal displays the composite image on the current interface; Pg.8, Para 15-17);
Yan discloses a composite image that teaches the target image created from the two images. The composite image is obtained the synthesizing the first and second image which teach the claimed subject matter of fusion processing the two images.
Regarding claim 12, Yan teaches “(Currently amended) An electronic device, comprising:” (device, including; Pg.2, Para 6);
“one or more processors; and” (the processor; Pg.2, Para 7);
“a memory configured to store one or more computer executable instructions;” (The memory is used to store executable instructions; Pg.2, Para 7);
“wherein the one or more computer executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:” (the processor is used... executing the executable instructions stored in the memory; Pg.2, Para 7);
Claim 12 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Yan teaches “(Currently amended) A non-transitory storage medium comprising computer executable instructions, wherein the computer executable instructions, when executed by a processor of a computer, cause the processor to:” (computer-readable storage medium that stores executable instructions for causing a processor to execute the executable instructions);
Claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 1.
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) 2-3 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAN in view of LI (No. CN-109756680-B “Li”).
Regarding claim 2, while Yan does teach the limitation, Li teaches “(Original) The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the at least two original images comprises:
upon detecting a first operation triggered by a user, performing frame-capture processing on the current screen at least twice in succession, so as to obtain at least two original images; or” (detects the first operation triggered by the user, in response to the first operation, by performing exposure control on the image sensor, multiple frames of original images are obtained by collecting frame by frame. Among them, the first operation is an operation triggered by the user to turn on the imaging device and start collecting images; Pg.3, Para 12);
Li discloses collecting multiple frames by frame which teaches the frame capture processing of at least two. In addition, Li also discloses collecting images which teaches obtain at least two images.
“upon detecting that a user selects at least two original images locally and triggers a second operation, using the at least two original images selected by the user as the obtained at least two original images.” (the second operation is detected in the process of previewing the superimposed image, control the image sensor to stop the image collection, and then synthesize according to the collected original image to obtain the composite image. Thus, by collecting multiple frames of original images frame by frame and superimposing the collected images, when the previewed superimposed image meets the needs of the user, the image sensor can be controlled to stop the image collection, thus realizing the process of autonomously controlling the image collection; Pg.13, Para 5);
Li discloses previewing an image and collecting the image and collecting multiple images, which triggers a second operation. This teaches the claimed subject matter of selecting two images and triggering a second operation thus obtaining at least two images.
Yan and Li are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
The motivation for the above is to have efficient frame processing for user friendly display of selection of images.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Yan by obtaining the at least two original images comprises: upon detecting a first operation triggered by a user, performing frame-capture processing on the current screen at least twice in succession, so as to obtain at least two original images; or upon detecting that a user selects at least two original images locally and triggers a second operation, using the at least two original images selected by the user as the obtained at least two original images as taught by Li.
Regarding claim 3, while Yan does teach the limitation, Li teaches “(Original) The method of claim 2, wherein obtaining the at least two original images comprises:
during performing the frame-capture processing on the current screen at least twice in succession, in response to detecting that the user selects at least two original images locally and triggers the second operation, stopping the frame-capture processing, and deleting images obtained through the frame-capture processing, and using the at least two original images selected by the user as the obtained at least two original images.” (if the second operation is detected in the process of previewing the superimposed image, control the image sensor to stop the image collection, and then synthesize according to the collected original image to obtain the composite image. Thus, by collecting multiple frames of original images frame by frame and superimposing the collected images, when the previewed superimposed image meets the needs of the user, the image sensor can be controlled to stop the image collection, thus realizing the process of autonomously controlling the image collection; Pg.2, Para 8);
Li discloses stopping image collection if the second operation is triggered and controlling the image collection. It is obvious to infer that controlling the image collection can include stopping or removing certain images. This teaches the claimed subject matter of stopping frame capture and deleting images.
The motivation for the above is to have efficient frame capture processing collection of images for user friendly selection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Yan by performing the frame-capture processing on the current screen at least twice in succession, in response to detecting that the user selects at least two original images locally and triggers the second operation, stopping the frame-capture processing, and deleting images obtained through the frame-capture processing, and using the at least two original images selected by the user as the obtained at least two original images as taught by Li.
Claim 14 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the method of claim 2. Therefore, claim 14 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 2.
Claim 15 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the method of claim 3. Therefore, claim 15 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 3.
Claim(s) 4-6, 10 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAN in view of YIN (No. CN-113645494-A “Yin”).
Regarding claim 4, while Yan does teach the limitation, Yin teaches “(Original) The method of claim 1, wherein sending the at least two original images to the server, such that the server performs the fusion processing on the at least two original images, comprises:
sending the at least two original images carrying an algorithm identifier to the server, such that the server calls a target fusion algorithm based on the algorithm identifier, so as to perform the fusion processing on the at least two original images using the target fusion algorithm.” (The terminal uploads the captured first target image to the server, and the server performs calculation processing on the first target image, generates a customized wallpaper image; Pg.3, Para 2); (the related algorithm flow for customizing the fusion screen wallpaper image is not limited to being executed on the server side; Pg.12, Para 5);
Yin discloses sending image data to server and the server-side algorithm generation and fusion. This teaches the claimed subject matter of sending two images to the server and server-side target algorithm that performs fusion processing.
Yan and Yin are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate algorithm to server for efficient target fusion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Yan by sending the at least two original images carrying an algorithm identifier to the server, such that the server calls a target fusion algorithm based on the algorithm identifier, so as to perform the fusion processing on the at least two original images using the target fusion algorithm as taught by Yin.
Regarding claim 5, while Yan does teach the limitation, Yin teaches “(Original) The method of claim 4, when sending the at least two original images to the server, further comprising:
calling a locally preset algorithm to process any of the at least two original images, so as to obtain a second target image, wherein the locally preset algorithm corresponds to the target fusion algorithm.” (the related algorithm flow for customizing the fusion screen wallpaper image is not limited to being executed on the server side. For example, after the terminal device has taken the target image, the customized wallpaper image (ie The aforementioned fusion screen wallpaper image), and then send the customized wallpaper image to the display device for display; Pg.12, Para 5);
Yin discloses algorithm generating the same type of fused image corresponding to the server process. This teaches the claimed subject matter of local preset algorithm corresponding to fusion algorithm as the image is generated at the local end according to the target and the algorithm.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate algorithm to server for efficient target fusion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Yan by calling a locally preset algorithm to process any of the at least two original images, so as to obtain a second target image, wherein the locally preset algorithm corresponds to the target fusion algorithm as taught by Yin.
Regarding claim 6, while Yan does teach the limitation, Yin teaches “(Original) The method of claim 5, wherein after displaying the at least two original images on the current screen in the preset manner, the method further comprises:
in response to failing to receive the first target image returned by the server, displaying the second target image on the current screen.” (the related algorithm flow for customizing the fusion screen wallpaper image is not limited to being executed on the server side. For example, after the terminal device has taken the target image, the customized wallpaper image (ie The aforementioned fusion screen wallpaper image), and then send the customized wallpaper image to the display device for display; Pg.3, Para 2); (the display device may not receive the fusion screen wallpaper image sent by the server due to some abnormal factors; Pg.12, Para 3);
Yin discloses server failure due to abnormal factors and local generation of image to be displayed. This teaches the claimed subject matter displaying a target image in response to failure of server to return first image.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate display of target image for user friendly display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Yan by in response to failing to receive the first target image returned by the server, displaying the second target image on the current screen as taught by Yin.
Regarding claim 10, while Yan does teach the limitation, Yin teaches “(Original) The method of claim 1, wherein after displaying the at least two original images on the current screen in the preset manner, the method further comprises:
in response failing to receive the first target image returned by the server, displaying preset information on the current screen.” (If the sending fails, the display device cannot display the currently customized fusion screen wallpaper image, and the display device can display a message indicating that the wallpaper image download has failed; Pg.12, Para 3);
Yin discloses displaying preset failure prompt information when the server fused images is not received which teaches the claimed subject matter of displaying preset information in response to failing to receive first image.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate display of target image for user friendly display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Yan by in response failing to receive the first target image returned by the server, displaying preset information on the current screen as taught by Yin.
Claim 16 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the method of claim 4. Therefore, claim 16 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 4.
Claim 17 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the method of claim 5. Therefore, claim 17 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, Yan teaches “(New) The electronic device of claim 17, wherein the instructions further comprise instructions to cause the one or more processors to:
after displaying the at least two original images on the current screen in the preset manner:” (display the first image and the second image to be processed; Pg.8, Para 2);
While, Yan does not teach “in response to failing to receive the first target image returned by the server, display the second target image on the current screen”.
However, Yin teaches “in response to failing to receive the first target image returned by the server, display the second target image on the current screen.” (the related algorithm flow for customizing the fusion screen wallpaper image is not limited to being executed on the server side. For example, after the terminal device has taken the target image, the customized wallpaper image (ie The aforementioned fusion screen wallpaper image), and then send the customized wallpaper image to the display device for display; Pg.3, Para 2); (the display device may not receive the fusion screen wallpaper image sent by the server due to some abnormal factors; Pg.12, Para 3);
Yin discloses server failure due to abnormal factors and local generation of image to be displayed. This teaches the claimed subject matter displaying a target image in response to failure of server to return first image.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate display of target image for user friendly view.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Yan by in response to failing to receive the first target image returned by the server, display the second target image on the current screen as taught by Yin.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAN in view of XU (No. CN-112019767-A “Xu”).
Regarding claim 7, while Yan does teach the limitation, Xu teaches “(Original) The method of claim 1, wherein displaying the at least two original images on the current screen in the preset manner comprises:
obtaining a playing animation respectively corresponding to the at least two original images; and” (Acquiring at least two original images and playback parameters of each of the original images, where the playback parameters include animation parameters; Pg.1, Para 9); (original image and the corresponding animation parameters; Pg.3, Para 4);
“displaying the at least two original images on the current screen based on the playing animation.” (original image and the corresponding animation parameters; Pg.3, Para 4); (the animation display module 502 is used to select and display animation; Pg.8, Para 6);
Xu discloses animation parameters that correspond to the original images and displaying the original images which teaches the claimed subject matter of a playing animation respectively corresponding to the at least two original images and displaying the two original images.
Yan and Xu are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate animation of original images for user friendly display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Yan by obtaining a playing animation respectively corresponding to the at least two original images; and displaying the at least two original images on the current screen based on the playing animation as taught by Xu.
Regarding claim 8, while Yan does teach the limitation, Xu teaches “(Original) The method of claim 7, wherein the playing animation comprises motion information and display information of original images in a screen, and displaying the at least two original images on the current screen based on the playing animation comprises:
displaying the at least two original images on the current screen based on the motion information and the display information, and wherein the motion information comprises position information and rotation information, and the display information comprises size information and transparency information.” (animation parameters include position parameters... the animation parameters also include transparency parameters; Pg.9, Para 3-6); (the variable parameters include changes in the position parameters and transparency parameters of each frame; Pg.7, Para 10); (Animation parameters used to describe animation effects include rotation parameters, transparency, scaling, displacement parameters and so on; Pg.3, Para 10); (the animation display module 502 is used to select and display animation; Pg.8, Para 6);
Xu discloses animation parameters that include portion, rotation, transparency and so on. This teaches the claimed subject matter of motion and display information.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate animation of original images for user friendly display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Yan by displaying the at least two original images on the current screen based on the motion information and the display information, and wherein the motion information comprises position information and rotation information, and the display information comprises size information and transparency information as taught by Xu.
Regarding claim 9, while Yan does teach the limitation, Xu teaches “(Original) The method of claim 1, wherein displaying the at least two original images on the current screen in the preset manner comprises:
obtaining preset materials; and” (playing sequence of each original image and the change parameters of each frame of each original image, each original image is drawn to obtain the target video; Pg.1, Para 13);
“displaying statically the at least two original images based on a first transparency, and displaying the preset materials on the current screen based on a second transparency, wherein the first transparency is greater than the second transparency.” (if the animation parameter corresponding to the current original image is static, the position information of each video frame corresponding to the current original image is the same; Pg.4, Para 1); (the animation parameters also include transparency parameters; Pg.4, Para 5); (The transparency parameters are used to adjust the vision of each video frame. The transparency parameters Larger means more transparent; Pg.3, Para 10);
Xu discloses a playing sequence and video file that teaches the claimed subject matter of preset materials as preset materials is a video fil or sequence of images. In addition. Xu discloses transparency parameter and the vision of the frame is larger and more transparent which teach the first transparency is greater than the second transparency. The static animation where the image position does not change teaches the displaying of images statically.
The motivation for the above is to have accurate transparency of original images for user friendly display.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Yan by obtaining preset materials; and displaying statically the at least two original images based on a first transparency, and displaying the preset materials on the current screen based on a second transparency, wherein the first transparency is greater than the second transparency as taught by Xu.
Claim 19 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the method of claim 7. Therefore, claim 19 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 7.
Claim 20 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the method of claim 8. Therefore, claim 20 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 8.
Claim 21 is directed to an electronic device and its limitations are similar in scope and functions performed by the method of claim 9. Therefore, claim 21 limitations are also rejected with the same rationale as regarding claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN-112614049-A (Ye) – Discloses an image processing method, an image processing device, a storage medium and a terminal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIGITER D PROTAZI whose telephone number is (571)272-7995. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Said A Broome can be reached at 5712722931. 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.
/B.D.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights