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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9, Applicant argues that,
“The rejection of claim 1 asserts Cheng discloses, “[0081] - for each of the video feeds provided by corresponding cameras, identifying portions of the video stream that capture objects, e.g. a person, an object or a vehicle etc.” (see final Office action, p. 2 last para.). This teaching does not suggest that the same object is identified in more than one of the video streams.
Wang then fails to overcome Cheng’s deficiencies. The rejection asserts Wang discloses, “10069]-[0071]; Fig. 6- for each stream of streams 610 and 620, identifying a portion 640 and a portion 650, in which the batter 40 is captured” (see final Office action, p. 4, second para.). This assertion is a mischaracterization of Wang. Wang does not disclose that “a portion 640 and a portion 650” are identified as being portions in which a common object (i.e., batter 40) is captured.
Rather, Wang discloses overlap section 640 and highlight period 650 (see Wang, ¶¶ 0070-71). While overlap section 604 and highlight period 605 are portions of media content 610 and second media content 620, Wang does not disclose the portions are identified as being those that include batter 40. In fact, the entirety of media content 610 and second media content 620 captures batter 40 (see Wang, Fig. 6). As such, the mere capture of batter 40 is clearly not what is identified to create overlap section 640 and highlight period 650. Therefore, like Cheng above, Wang fails to disclose identifying portions of capturing a singular object of interest, as captured in claim 1.
Based on the preceding remarks, the Applicant respectfully submits Cheng and Wang, alone and in combination, fail to teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 is, therefore, allowable over the art of record and such indication is requested at the Examiner’s earliest convenience.
Independent claims 10 and 19 recite limitations similar to those of claim 1 and are, therefore, allowable for at least the same reasons.”
In response, Examiner respectfully submits that the claim recites “identifying a subset of the portions that overlap during a period in the timeline, wherein the portions overlap when two or more of the portions capture the object of interest contemporaneously”. In other words, there are two conditions for overlap: (1) temporal overlap, i.e. overlap during a period in the timeline, and (2) capturing a same object contemporaneously.
Wang teaches identifying a portion from T1 to T2 of a first stream 610 and a portion from T1 to T2 of a second stream overlap during a period from T1 to T2 in the timeline. Thus, condition (1) is met. Further, since the portion in stream 610 and the portion in stream 620 capture the same batter contemporaneously, the condition (2) is also met.
Examiner respectfully submits that the claim does not recite identifying the portions as overlap portions in response to determining that both of the portions capture the object of interest contemporaneously. The claim does not recite any feature that requires checking whether the portions capture a same object contemporaneously at all.
Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits that Wang clearly teaches the limitation of “identifying a subset of the portions that overlap during a period in the timeline, wherein the portions overlap when two or more of the portions capture the object of interest contemporaneously”.
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 12, 15, 17-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2017/0208348 A1 – hereinafter Cheng) and Wang et al. (US 2015/0015680 A1 – hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a method comprising: obtaining video streams from video sources for a physical area (Fig. 1; [0043]-[0049] – obtaining video streams from a plurality of cameras for a surveillance area); identifying one or more objects of interest in the physical area ([0035]; [0081] – identifying one or more persons who are present in the area); for each video stream of the video streams, identifying one or more portions of the video stream that capture at least one object of interest of the one or more objects of interest ([0081] – for each of the video feeds provided by corresponding cameras, identifying portions of the video stream that capture objects, e.g. a person, an object or a vehicle etc.); and generating a timeline, wherein the timeline indicates when each of the portions occur relative to the other portions (Figs. 7-9, 11; [0115]-[0116] – generating a timeline to display the portions in a synchronized manner); identifying a subset of the portions that overlap during a period in the timeline (Figs. 7-9 – the subset of the portions that overlap in the timeline is identified via the overlapping of the corresponding event indicators); identifying a portion of interest from the subset of portions based on one or more objects of interest captured in the subset of portions (Figs. 7-9; [0082] – identifying a portion of interest from the subset of portions based on length of detected events); identifying a request to playback the portions of the video streams associated with the timeline ([0086] – identifying an operator interacting with the user interface to request playback of the portions); in response to the request, generating a display, wherein the display comprises a playback of the portions of the video streams as a function of time in accordance with the timeline (Figs. 7-9, 11; [0113] – playing back the portions), and wherein the display visually promotes the portion of interest over one or more remaining portions in the subset of the portions during the period (Figs. 7-9 – the portion of interest in the display is promoted using its indicator based on the length of the portion, thus shorter portion is visually promoted by being displayed with a short duration, longer portion is visually promoted by being displayed with a longer duration).
However, Cheng does not disclose at least two of the video streams include portions capturing the object of interest; for each video stream of the video streams, identifying two or more portions of the video stream in which an object of interest of the one or more objects of interest is captured, the portions overlap when two or more of the portions captured the object of interest contemporaneously; identifying the portion of interest from the subset of the portions based on attributes identified in association with the one or more objects of interest, wherein the attributes comprise sizes of the one or more objects of interest captured in each portion of the subset of the portions, a complete view of the one or more objects of interest in each portion of the subset of the portions, or an orientation associated with the one or more objects of interest in each portion of the subset of the portions.
Wang discloses at least two of the video streams include portions capturing an object of interest (Fig. 6; [0069]-[0071] – two streams 610 and 620 include portions between T1 and T2 capturing a batter 40); for each video stream of video streams, identifying two or more portions of the video stream in which an object of interest of one or more objects of interest is captured ([0069]-[0071]; Fig. 6 – for each stream of streams 610 and 620, identifying a portion 640 and a portion 650, in which the batter 40 is captured); identifying a subset of the portions that overlap during a period in a timeline, wherein the portions overlap when two or more of the portions capture the object of interest contemporaneously (Fig. 6; [0069]-[0071] – at least portion T1-T3 of stream 610 and portion T1-T3 of stream 620 overlap during T1-T3 and portion T3-T4 of stream 610 and portion T3-T4 of stream 620 overlap during T3-T4 - also see Response to Arguments above); identifying a portion of interest from the subset of the portions based on attributes identified in association with the one or more objects of interest captured in the subset of the portions, wherein the attributes comprise sizes of the one or more objects of interest captured in each portion of the subset of the portions, a complete view of the one or more objects of interest in each portion of the subset of the portions, or an orientation associated with the one or more objects of interest in each portion of the subset of the portions ([0071] – identifying portion T3-T4 of stream 620 based on attributes identified in association with the batter, the attributes comprise size of the batter, i.e. area occupied by the batter within a frame).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Wang into the method taught by Cheng to automatically identify relevant portions and to sort out and combine these relevant portions to be presented from multiple points of view (Wang: [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng also discloses the display further includes a visual representation of the timeline (Figs. 7-9, 11; [0115] – the timeline is visually represented as a temporal legend 519).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng also discloses the display visually promotes the portion of interest over the one or more remaining portions by increasing a display window size of the portion of interest relative to one or more remaining portions (Figs. 7-9, 11; [0082] – the size of the portion of interest is increased proportionally with the length of the event, thus a longest event is displayed with a display window size, i.e. the length of the indicator, is increased relative to the other portions).
Regarding claim 8, Cheng also discloses the video sources comprise cameras (Fig. 1; [0043]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 9, Cheng also discloses identifying a period of interest (Figs. 7-9, 11 – periods of interest are identified and displayed using indicators); and wherein identifying the one or more portions of the video stream that include at least one object of interest of the one or more objects of interest comprises identifying, during the period of interest, the one or more portions of the video stream that include at least one object of interest of the one or more objects of interest (Figs. 7-9, 11 – the object of interest is identified as described at least at [0081] and displayed in areas 524 in Figs. 7-9 and 11).
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 in view of Cheng also disclosing a computing apparatus comprising: one or more computer readable storage media; a processing system operatively coupled to the one or more computer readable storage media ([0057]); and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media ([0041]-[0042]) that, when executed by the processing system, direct the computing apparatus to perform the recited method ([0039]-[0040]).
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 3 above.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 6 above.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 8 above.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 9 above.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above in view of Chen also disclosing a system comprising: a plurality of cameras (Fig. 1; [0043]-[0049]); a processing system with memory ([0057]) and at least one processor configured to perform the recited method ([0039]-[0042]).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 3 above.
Claim 21 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 23, see the teachings of Cheng and Wang as discussed in claim 1 above. Wang also discloses each of the portions captures the object of interest from different angles (Fig. 1; Fig. 5A). The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Wang into the method has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 24 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 23 above.
Claim 25 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 23 above.
Claims 7, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng and Wang as applied to claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 12, 15, 17-21, and 23-25 above, and further in view of and Laska et al. (US 9,082,018 B1 – hereinafter Laska).
Regarding claim 7, see the teachings of Cheng and Wang as discussed in claim 1 above. However, Cheng and Wang do not disclose the display visually promotes the portion of interest over the one or more remaining portions by highlighting the portion of interest relative to the one or more remaining portions.
Laska discloses a display visually promotes a portion of interest over one or more remaining portions by highlighting the portion of interest relative to the one or more remaining portions (column 27, lines 53-56 – the portion of interest is highlighted using color coding).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Laska into the method taught by Cheng and Wang to assist users in better identifying portions of interest, thus facilitating navigating and searching events.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 7 above.
Claim 22 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached on 571-272-7382. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484