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.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 6-8, 11, 13-14, and 19-22 were amended. Claim 23 was canceled. Claim 24 was added. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-16, 18-22, and 24 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites “with the first pixel ratio” instead of “with the second pixel ratio.” (See the previous claim set dated 09/23/2025.) Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-6, 9, 11-12, 14, 18-20, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loghmani et al. (US 2023/0283864) in view of Danieau et al. (US 2018/0165830), Dsouza et al. (US 2019/0355172), and Park (US 2010/0225669).
Regarding claim 1, Loghmani teaches/suggests: An effect video determining method, comprising:
obtaining an uploaded image in response to an effect trigger operation (Loghmani [0049]-[0050] “If the user selects the effect icon 202, the user may be able to choose an effect from a plurality of different effect options … The user may be prompted to upload a picture or image to replace the default background”);
generating and displaying an effect video frame based on an object (Loghmani [0053] “after the background is selected (default or otherwise), a body part of the user (such as the user’s face) may be imposed onto a two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) component that is overlaid on the at least a subset of frames of the video”),
until receiving an operation to stop capturing an effect video (Loghmani [0058] “after the user has created the video with the first interactive effect…”);
Loghmani does not teach/suggest:
determining a perspective image from a 3D image surrounding scenario to the uploaded image;
generating and displaying an effect video frame based on the perspective image and an object,
wherein the 3D image surrounding scenario is constructed by mapping at least six patches, and the at least six patches are from a same image.
Danieau, in view of Loghmani, teaches/suggests:
determining a perspective image from a 3D image surrounding scenario to the uploaded image (Loghmani [0050] “The user may be prompted to upload a picture or image to replace the default background” Danieau [0057] “An immersive video is a video encoded on at least one rectangular image ... the image is first mapped on the inner face of a convex volume, also called mapping surface (e.g. a sphere, a cube, a pyramid), and, second, a part of this volume is captured by a virtual camera” [0047] “the user 11 is watching at a part of the large field-of-view content according to a viewing direction 110”);
wherein the 3D image surrounding scenario is constructed by mapping at least six patches, and the at least six patches are from a same image (Danieau [0060] “The mapping function 33 establishes a correspondence between squares in the image 31 and faces of the cube 32”).
generating and displaying an effect video frame based on the perspective image and an object (Loghmani [0053] “after the background is selected (default or otherwise), a body part of the user (such as the user’s face) may be imposed onto a two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) component that is overlaid on the at least a subset of frames of the video” Danieau [0057] “the image is first mapped on the inner face of a convex volume, also called mapping surface (e.g. a sphere, a cube, a pyramid), and, second, a part of this volume is captured by a virtual camera”),
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 uploaded image of Loghmani to be mapped as taught/suggested by Danieau for an immersive video.
Loghmani as modified by Danieau does not teach/suggest according to position information of a capturing device. Dsouza, however, teaches/suggests according to position information of a capturing device (Dsouza [0056] “a three-dimensional rotation matrix may be built based at least in part on the orientation of the mobile device … a rasterization function may be implemented to rasterize a part of the panoramic image to generate the background image”). Dsouza further discloses in [0018]: “traditional background replacement techniques, including the chroma key compositing technique, generally do not take into account the orientation or motion of the camera.” 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 uploaded image of Loghmani as modified by Danieau to be rendered as taught/suggested by Dsouza to take into account the orientation or motion of the camera.
Loghmani as modified by Danieau and Dsouza does not teach/suggest:
determining pixel ratio information of the uploaded image;
processing the uploaded image to be a completed image with a first pixel ratio according to the pixel ratio information and a second pixel ratio; and
determining the 3D image surrounding scenario based on the completed image,
Park, however, teaches/suggests:
determining pixel ratio information of the
processing the
Park further discloses in [0008]: “displaying an image with no distortion.” 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 uploaded image of Loghmani as modified by Danieau and Dsouza to have the aspect ratio of Park to be displayed with no distortion. As such, Loghmani as modified by Danieau, Dsouza, and Park teaches/suggests:
determining the 3D image surrounding scenario based on the completed image (Danieau [0057] “the image is first mapped on the inner face of a convex volume, also called mapping surface (e.g. a sphere, a cube, a pyramid), and, second, a part of this volume is captured by a virtual camera” Park [0056] “The image processing unit 30 crops the image such that the aspect ratio of the image becomes the reference aspect ratio”),
Regarding claim 5, Loghmani as modified by Danieau, Dsouza, and Park teaches/suggests: The method according to claim 1, wherein the 3D image surrounding scenario corresponds to a cuboid composed of the at least six patches (Danieau [0060] “The mapping function 33 establishes a correspondence between squares in the image 31 and faces of the cube 32”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, Loghmani as modified by Danieau, Dsouza, and Park teaches/suggests: The method according to claim 1, wherein processing the uploaded image to be the completed image with the first pixel ratio according to the pixel ratio information and the second pixel ratio comprises:
in response to determining that the pixel ratio information is greater than the second pixel ratio, performing pixel point filling processing by taking a long edge of the uploaded image as a filling reference to obtain the completed image with the first pixel ratio [This is yet to be considered because of the “or” recitation.]; or
in response to determining that the pixel ratio information is greater than the second pixel ratio, performing clipping processing on the uploaded image to obtain the completed image with the first pixel ratio (Park [0056] “The image processing unit 30 crops the image such that the aspect ratio of the image becomes the reference aspect ratio” [The limitation “in response to” is an inherent and/or implicit feature of the cropping.]).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 9, Loghmani as modified by Danieau, Dsouza, and Park teaches/suggests: The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the 3D image surrounding scenario based on the completed image comprises:
determining six patch textures corresponding to a cuboid bounding box based on the completed image (Danieau [0060] “The mapping function 33 establishes a correspondence between squares in the image 31 and faces of the cube 32” Park [0056] “The image processing unit 30 crops the image such that the aspect ratio of the image becomes the reference aspect ratio”); and
determining the 3D image surrounding scenario corresponding to the uploaded image based on the six patch textures (Danieau [0057] “the image is first mapped on the inner face of a convex volume, also called mapping surface (e.g. a sphere, a cube, a pyramid), and, second, a part of this volume is captured by a virtual camera”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 11, Loghmani as modified by Danieau, Dsouza, and Park teaches/suggests: The method according to claim 1, wherein generating the effect video frame based on the perspective image and the object comprises:
obtaining the object in a video frame to be processed (Loghmani [0053] “after the background is selected (default or otherwise), a body part of the user (such as the user’s face) may be imposed onto a two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) component that is overlaid on the at least a subset of frames of the video” Dsouza [0057] “a foreground image is segmented from the original image … for the foreground object”); and
fusing the object with the perspective image to obtain the effect video frame corresponding to the video frame to be processed (Loghmani [0053] “after the background is selected (default or otherwise), a body part of the user (such as the user’s face) may be imposed onto a two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) component that is overlaid on the at least a subset of frames of the video” Dsouza [0058] “the foreground image and the background image are synthesized into a composite image”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 12, Loghmani as modified by Danieau, Dsouza, and Park does not teach/suggest: The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
displaying at least one 3D image surrounding scenario to be selected on a display interface, so as to determine the 3D image surrounding scenario based on a trigger operation for the at least one 3D image surrounding scenario to be selected.
Dsouza further teaches/suggests:
displaying at least one 3D image surrounding scenario to be selected on a display interface, so as to determine the 3D image surrounding scenario based on a trigger operation for the at least one 3D image surrounding scenario to be selected (Dsouza [0054]-[0055] “The user may browser various image resources, and select a particular image resource to put the foreground object into a virtual environment associated with the particular image resource … the image resource is a panoramic image”).
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 background image of Loghmani as modified by Danieau, Dsouza, and Park to be displayed as taught/suggested by Dsouza for selection.
Claims 14 and 18-19 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 1 and 5-6, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s). Loghmani as modified by Danieau, Dsouza, and Park further teaches/suggests one or more processors (Loghmani [0091] “The CPU(s) 1704 may be standard programmable processors”); and a storage apparatus, configured to store one or more programs (Loghmani [0096] “The mass storage device 1728 may store system programs, application programs, other program modules”).
Claim 20 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason(s). Loghmani as modified by Danieau, Dsouza, and Park further teaches/suggests a storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions (Loghmani [0096] “The mass storage device 1728 may store system programs, application programs, other program modules”).
Regarding claim 24, Loghmani as modified by Danieau, Dsouza, and Park teaches/suggests: The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining the position information of the capturing device in real time or periodically, wherein the position information is determined based on a gyroscope or an inertial measurement unit equipped in the capturing device (Dsouza [0060] “the motion of the mobile device refers to a change in position of the mobile device over time … gyroscopes may be used to determine and track the angular speed of motion”); and
determining a rotation angle of the capturing device based on the position information, and determining the rotation angle to correspond to the perspective image in the 3D image surrounding scenario (Danieau [0057] “the image is first mapped on the inner face of a convex volume, also called mapping surface (e.g. a sphere, a cube, a pyramid), and, second, a part of this volume is captured by a virtual camera” Dsouza [0056] “a three-dimensional rotation matrix may be built based at least in part on the orientation of the mobile device … a rasterization function may be implemented to rasterize a part of the panoramic image to generate the background image” [0060] “the motion of the mobile device refers to a change in position of the mobile device over time … gyroscopes may be used to determine and track the angular speed of motion”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loghmani et al. (US 2023/0283864) in view of Danieau et al. (US 2018/0165830), Dsouza et al. (US 2019/0355172), and Park (US 2010/0225669) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Matveyenko et al. (US 2004/0148576).
Regarding claim 2, Loghmani, Danieau, Dsouza, and Park are silent regarding: The method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the uploaded image in response to the effect trigger operation comprises:
popping up an image uploading box in response to the effect trigger operation; and
determining the uploaded image based on a trigger operation on the image uploading box.
Matveyenko, in view of Loghmani, teaches/suggests:
popping up an image uploading box in response to the effect trigger operation (Loghmani [0049]-[0050] “If the user selects the effect icon 202, the user may be able to choose an effect from a plurality of different effect options … The user may be prompted to upload a picture or image to replace the default background” Matveyenko [0035] “a pop-up browsing window for selecting an image from a site library”); and
determining the uploaded image based on a trigger operation on the image uploading box (Matveyenko [0049] “When the desired editing step is completed, the user clicks the corresponding ‘OK’ button or the like, and the results are submitted to the server”).
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 user interface of Loghmani as modified by Danieau, Dsouza, and Park to include the pop-up browsing window of Matveyenko to upload the image.
Regarding claim 3, Loghmani as modified by Danieau, Dsouza, Park, and Matveyenko teaches/suggests: The method according to claim 2, wherein determining the uploaded image based on the trigger operation on the image uploading box comprises:
invoking, in response to detecting that the image uploading box is triggered, an image library to take an image triggered to be selected in the image library as the uploaded image (Matveyenko [0035] “a pop-up browsing window for selecting an image from a site library”); or
invoking, in response to detecting that the image uploading box is triggered, a camera apparatus to capture the uploaded image based on the camera apparatus [This is yet to be considered because of the “or” recitation.].
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above is incorporated herein.
Claims 15 and 16 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 2 and 3, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s).
Claim(s) 8 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loghmani et al. (US 2023/0283864) in view of Danieau et al. (US 2018/0165830), Dsouza et al. (US 2019/0355172), and Park (US 2010/0225669) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Estrop (US 2009/0031328).
Regarding claim 8, Loghmani, Danieau, Dsouza, and Park are silent regarding: The method according to claim 1, wherein processing the uploaded image to be the completed image with the first pixel ratio according to the pixel ratio information and the second pixel ratio comprises:
in response to determining that the pixel ratio information is less than the second pixel ratio, performing mirror processing on the uploaded image to obtain the completed image with the [second] pixel ratio.
Estrop, however, teaches/suggests:
in response to determining that the pixel ratio information is less than the second pixel ratio, performing mirror processing on the uploaded image to obtain the completed image with the [second] pixel ratio (Estrop [0055] “Aspect ratio correction processing is performed with image processing operation 206. Optionally, vertical/horizontal mirroring and/or alpha blending may be combined into image processing operation 206” [The limitation “in response to” is an inherent and/or implicit feature of the vertical/horizontal mirroring.]).
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 aspect ratio (the pixel ratio) of Loghmani as modified by Danieau, Dsouza, and Park to include the vertical/horizontal mirroring of Estrop for correction.
Claim 22 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 8, and is rejected for the same reason(s).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loghmani et al. (US 2023/0283864) in view of Danieau et al. (US 2018/0165830), Dsouza et al. (US 2019/0355172), and Park (US 2010/0225669) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Esch Duran (US 2020/0030571).
Regarding claim 13, Loghmani, Danieau, Dsouza, and Park are silent regarding: The method according to claim 1, wherein the operation to stop capturing the effect video comprises at least one of:
detecting that a stop-capturing control is triggered;
detecting that a capturing duration of the effect video reaches a first capturing duration;
detecting that a wake-up word for stopping capturing is triggered; or
detecting that a body movement for stopping capturing is triggered.
Esch Duran, in view of Loghmani, teaches/suggests:
detecting that a stop-capturing control is triggered (Loghmani [0058] “after the user has created the video with the first interactive effect…” Esch Duran [0053] “The user can toggle on and off the visual effect by clicking on the start/stop visual effect button 1614”);
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 user interface of Loghmani as modified by Danieau, Dsouza, and Park to include the start/stop visual effect button of Esch Duran to toggle on and off the visual effect.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 21 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 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 2019/0052858 – texture mapped to cube
US 2019/0089643 – texture mapped to cube
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