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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The newly added limitation “wherein the manipulation can be applied to any ones of the two-dimensional objects which are part of the video stream” is met by the Gonzalez reference which teaches that the manipulation can be to any of the objects on the frame (DMC paragraph 32).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this specific case, the newly added limitation is met by the Gonzalez reference all other limitations are met by Kerns as cited below.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerns, US 2018/0218400 in view of Gonzalez, US 2007/0005795.
Regarding claim 1, Kerns discloses a method of playing of interactive video implemented in computer device, implemented by one or more processors operatively coupled to a non-transitory computer readable storage device, on which are stored modules of instruction code that when executed cause the one or more processors to perform said method comprising the steps of:
Playing, by a designated video player, a real time stream two-dimensional video, comprising a sequence of video frames, having pre-defined characteristics, parameters, properties of two-dimensional video layout and two-dimensional objects which are configured to be manipulated in real time (paragraph 22 and 30-32);
monitoring and identifying user behavior while watching the video in real time including at least one of: user interaction with the video, user entered data, user facial expression, micro facial expression, in relation to currently displayed video content or characteristics for any video characteristics granular (paragraph 22 and 30-32);
analyzing user behavior actions in relation to specific currently displayed video content to identify user characteristics (paragraph 22 and 30-32);
profile managing and updating of user profile based on identified behavior identify user characteristics (paragraph 56 and 63);
predicting users' instant behavior based on analyzed user behavior and user profile (paragraph 56 and 63);
applying manipulation in real time to said two-dimensional video comprising the sequence of video frames, while real time streaming the video, wherein the manipulation is applied to the pre-defined two-dimensional characteristics, parameters, properties of said video
Kerns is silent about generating new parts and wherein the video manipulation can be applied to any ones of the two-dimensional objects which are part of the video stream, changing only specific characteristics, parameters, or properties and altering properties of video layout.
In an analogous art, Gonzalez discloses generating new parts and wherein the video manipulation can be applied to any ones of the two-dimensional objects which are part of the video stream, changing only specific characteristics, parameters, or properties and altering properties of video layout (DMC paragraph 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kerns’ method with the teachings of Gonzalez. The motivation would have been to give the user a targeted video for the benefit of delivering the desired media.
Regarding claim 2, kerns and Gonzalez disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the video is analyzed at frame level per object (Gonzalez paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 6, kerns and Gonzalez disclose the method of claim 1 wherein user behavior includes physical actions (Kerns paragraph 28-29).
Regarding claim 9, kerns and Gonzalez disclose the method of claim 1 wherein user behavior is based on data acquired by user computer device sensors, user interface, virtual reality module, wearable or device or environment sensors (Kerns paragraph 33, 41 and 83).
Regarding claim 19, kerns and Gonzalez disclose the method of claim 1 further comprising the step of generating new animation parts of the video based on predefined rules or predefined template, related to user updated profile, user current behavior and instant predicted behavior (Kerns paragraph 61-65; Gonzalez paragraph 2, 8 and 26-28).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerns in view of Gonzalez in view of Bulusu et al., US 10,846,517.
Regarding claim 3, kerns and Gonzalez disclose the method of claim 1.
Kerns and Gonzalez are silent about the profile is public cluster profile.
In an analogous art, Bulusu discloses the profile is public cluster profile (col. 8, lines 29-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kerns and Gonzalez’s method with the teachings of Bulusu. The motivation would have been to have group user together for the benefit of having better viewer modeling and predictive analytics.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerns in view of Gonzalez in view of Shen et al., US 11,146,834.
Regarding claim 4, kerns and Gonzalez disclose the method of claim 1.
Kerns and Gonzalez are silent about supporting multi version video file, wherein each video has multiple different versions.
In an analogous art, Shen discloses supporting multi version video file, wherein each video has multiple different versions (col. 7, line 42 to col. 8, line 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kerns and Gonzalez’s method with the teachings of Shen. The motivation would have been to have available a plurality of versions of the same video for the benefit of reducing latency when delivering the media.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerns in view of Gonzalez in view of Khalid et al., US 2017/0316606.
Regarding claim 5, kerns and Gonzalez disclose the method of claim 1.
Kerns and Gonzalez are silent about the video is part of virtual reality scene.
In an analogous art, Khalid discloses the video is part of virtual reality scene (paragraph 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kerns and Gonzalez’s method with the teachings of Khalid. The motivation would have been to have an immersed experience for the benefit of providing enhance media.
Regarding claim 7, kerns and Gonzalez disclose the method of claim 1.
Kerns and Gonzalez are silent about user behavior includes virtual behavior in virtual scene.
In an analogous art, Khalid discloses user behavior includes virtual behavior in virtual scene (Khalid paragraph 115).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kerns and Gonzalez’s method with the teachings of Khalid. The motivation would have been to give the user a targeted video for the benefit of delivering the desired media.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerns in view of Gonzalez in view of Candelore, US 2022/0368984.
Regarding claim 8, kerns and Gonzalez disclose the method of claim 1.
Kerns and Gonzalez are silent about the manipulation further includes at least one of : Moving video forward backward, fast, slow, shortening, long movie, adding scene.
In an analogous art, Candelore discloses the manipulation further includes at least one of : Moving video forward backward, fast, slow, shortening, long movie, adding scene (paragraph 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kerns and Gonzalez’s method with the teachings of Candelore. The motivation would have been to properly modified the media for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. 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.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421